Re: AAT Theory

David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
6 Oct 1995 20:43:30 GMT

In article <hubey.812945972@pegasus.montclair.edu> hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:
>ghanenbu@inter.nl.net (Gerrit Hanenburg) writes:
>
>
>
>>Can these models predict the outcome of a specific conflict?
>
>Who do you think conducts the war games scenarios and churns
>out numbers for the Pentagon? Anthropologists or political
>scientists?

Non responsive. He asked if these models can predict the outcome
of a specifi conflict. I have not seen one yet that does any better
than would judicious guessing.

>>That would be nice because then we don't have to fight a war ever again.
>
>Hopefully.

Again, not responsive to the original question.

>
>>The outcome is simply calculated and victory becomes a formality. :-)
>
>It's already being done. Give me the army with the bigger cannons.

I see you don't know any more about _history_ (particularly
military history) than you do about fluid mechanics. In his entire
campaign against Persia, Alexander fought all his major battles
against opponents with numerical superiority of 2.5 to 1 or better,
_and_ with "bigger cannons" (in this case elephant cavalry and
chariots to his horse cavalry). He won every battle. Julius Caesar
won several battles when physically "outmatched," yet no record of
any loss has come down to us. The German army in Europe had tremendous
technical superiority, and battle experienced troops, yet they still
lost. The Japanese had the best aircraft, the most powerful ships,
and numerical superiority at Midway, but we all know who won _that_
engagement. (We _do_, don't we?)

There is far, far, more than which army has "the bigger cannons"
that goes into the decision of a military battle or campaign. If "the
bigger cannons" is _all_ you have, then you will probably lose.
Logistic issues, generalship, mobility, and other issues will
overwhelm that single factor.

Military conflict resolution is _complex_, and not particularly
well understood. Your flip little comment betrays a poverty of
knowlege about the field that is breathtaking, but not unexpected
these days.

The rest of your post betrays such a painful lack of knowledge of the
most basic geology and climatology that I don't know where to
begin--except to direct you to your local university geology
department.

David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com

-- 

          Spacecub  -  The Artemis Project  -  Artemis Magazine



                             Box 831

                      Akron,  OH  44309-0831