re: "A Rational Actor in Pursuit of Wholly Irrational Goals"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna (" At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war. ") isn't falling for the mirror-imaging fallacy.

Money quote(s):

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the verge of building an operational nuclear warhead. It already possesses ballistic missiles capable of delivering it.

Those who understand the eschatological doctrines of Shi’a Islam know that a nuclear-capable Iran will not be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred during the Cold War, by the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction. According to Shi’ite theology it is the duty of faithful Muslims to bring on the End Times and expedite the appearance of the Twelfth Imam. One of the recommended ways of hastening the Shi’ite apocalypse is to cause widespread destruction in the world by whatever means come to hand.

Given these circumstances, it would be foolish to assume that the mullahs in Teheran can be discouraged from using nuclear weapons once they acquire them. "

It's not sufficient that the "average" Iranian might be freedom-loving, might "love" the U.S., might have normal and peaceful ambitions for life, employment, and a family.

Not when their nation is controlled by mullahs (and their ilk) who take this sort of thing seriously.

3/1

WP - Nuclear weapon reductions must be part of strategic analysis

Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft at the Washington Postissued an arms control caution.

Money quote(s):

"A New START treaty reestablishing the process of nuclear arms control has recently taken effect. Combined with reductions in the U.S. defense budget, this will bring the number of nuclear weapons in the United States to the lowest overall level since the 1950s. The Obama administration is said to be considering negotiations for a new round of nuclear reductionsto bring about ceilings as low as 300 warheads. Before momentum builds on that basis, we feel obliged to stress our conviction that the goal of future negotiations should be strategic stability and that lower numbers of weapons should be a consequence of strategic analysis, not an abstract preconceived determination." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Measure first, then cut. Pre-determined outcomes are subobtimal, to say the least. They may possibly be disastrous. Keep reading.

"Strategic stability is not inherent with low numbers of weapons; indeed, excessively low numbers could lead to a situation in which surprise attacks are conceivable."

Excessively low numbers of weapons available for a second strike (i.e., retaliation) translates into an excessively low number of targets necessary for a successful first strike (against us).

"The precondition of the next phase of U.S. nuclear weapons policy must be to enhance and enshrine the strategic stability that has preserved global peace and prevented the use of nuclear weapons for two generations."

In other words, something seems to be working, so let's not just dissassemble it because we've got a nice, shiny new (old/unproven) theory.

Frankly, despite decades of nuclear theoretizing and "thinking about the unthinkable," nobody really knows why deterrence has worked (if, in fact, it's "deterrence" that's been operative theory) or whether MAD worked or what.

(But something's kept the wheels from falling off since 1945.)

"(S)trategic stability requires maintaining strategic forces of sufficient size and composition that a first strike cannot reduce retaliation to a level acceptable to the aggressor."

The U.S. has depended upon the "triad" doctrine for its strategic nuclear forces, resting upon three "legs": ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear-armed submarines. Undercutting one (or more) of these legs is something that should only be attempted after considerable forethought.

(Other nuclear capabilities have been developed and deployed over the years, especially in the realm of theatre [or tactical-level] nuclear forces such as artillery, intermediate-range missiles, and ADMs.)

"(I)n assessing the level of unacceptable damage, the United States cannot assume that a potential enemy will adhere to values or calculations identical to our own. We need a sufficient number of weapons to pose a threat to what potential aggressors value under every conceivable circumstance. We should avoid strategic analysis by mirror-imaging."

Mirror-imaging is just one of the analytic traps to be avoided at all costs, but un-trained analysts do it all the time.

"(T)he composition of our strategic forces cannot be defined by numbers alone. It also depends on the type of delivery vehicles and their mix. If the composition of the U.S. deterrent force is modified as a result of reduction, agreement or for other reasons, a sufficient variety must be retained, together with a robust supporting command and control system, so as to guarantee that a preemptive attack cannot succeed."

See my remarks about the nuclear triad.

And read the whole thing.



Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and national security adviser from 1969 to 1975. Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser from 1975 to 1977 and 1989 to 1993.

4/22

re: "For Rick Perry"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ had some commentary on the Republican primary candidacies.

Money quote(s):

"There are two main sorts of primary voters: Those who know too little, and those who know too much. As for the former -- there's not much I can do about them. They don't read this site, or probably too much of any political source.

Maybe they read Time. Bless their hearts." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA is often asked, by persons preparing to take the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT; the computer-based exam that replaced the FSWE), for advice on how to prepare for it. Now, in olden times, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and the essay portion of the FSWE involved a "blue book" style handwritten essay, CAA took a fairly standard approach to get his brain right before test day.

A lot of the approach involved developing and maintaining a good situational awareness of current events, both domestic and international, and not just about politics. One of the specific suggestions for doing that is to read a weekly news magazine, such as TIME, Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report.

Not so much anymore, at least as regards TIME. And I say that with sadness.

CAA grew up in a household where we got the Washington Post delivered in the morning, the Evening Star delivered in the afternoon, and every week the mailman would bring a TIME magazine, and I'd read it cover-to-cover.

It's just not the same magazine, although perhaps it never was.

"The online community consists mainly of the latter -- we know a lot about the candidates, and are each making complicated decisions about trade-offs between electability and agenda (and likelihood of advancing that agenda).

My belief is that we know so much that the secondary and tertiary level things we know are crowding out the primary things we know. That is, that we know a bunch of second- and third- order things and knowing so much is crowding out consideration of the top-level, major bullet-point, controlling facts."

Ace makes an interesting point here. People who are wonks and geeks about politics and elections tend to get fairly far down in the weeds about candidates, their positions, and their histories. To the point where we'll drop references in normal conversation that garner puzzled looks from those around us, since it may not have been covered in the broadcasts of American Idol, Dancing With The Hasbeens, Real Housewives, or other trash TV like the Daily Show or the current latenight successors to Johnny Carson.

While I may not be enthusiastic about the relative treatment of dogs by either the Republican front-runner versus the Democratic incumbent, in neither case will they be dispositive regarding my vote come election day.

"(B)iographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits."

I like the point Ace makes here. Consider Reagan in light of this, likewise Clinton (to a degree). Optimism sells.

"I can only say so often that the swing voters in the center of the country are among the least-informed voters on the planet. Every survey demonstrates that, despite their claims to be all about "the substance" and "the issues," they know less about the substance and the issues than partisans on either side of the aisle.

Being apolitical, they're not very interested in politics. Stands to reason. This means, then, that they don't read much about politics.

Their decision-making is very superficial."

See how Ace builds an argument here. Crafty.

"I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement."

Well, duh.

"Barack Obama did not serve in the military. That is perhaps the most understated sentence in the history of communications, but since people are interested in drawing contrasts, consider that one."

This passage followed one contrasting the various service (and non-service) records of the various Republican candidates at the time in was written. It wasn't a stand-alone potshot at the president, although it certainly would serve as one.

"I cannot and will not say that brainpower is unimportant. I would however say that character matters too."

Yes.

None of the candidates, no matter what one may be influenced to think by the media, are particularly dumb. They may have worldviews and political perspectives far to the left or right of what you consider to be smart, but that doesn't mean they're dumb.

Presidential debates, public speeches, and the like are hard to do. Which is why most people don't do them. Most people don't like to do them. Some people make them look easier than others. This only means they're better at making speeches (or reading teleprompters, but I digress). I would submit that the particular set of talents and personality traits that help make a good public speaker or debater may or may not make a good president. Still, practice will help. Minor slip-ups in public speaking shouldn't be made too much of though.

"America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so."

While the U.S. Senate is famous for housing one hundred politicians who earnestly believe they should be president, the fifty governor's mansions house the people who are most likely to be better chief executives. Or if not better, at least better tested, so the voters can examine a record of leadership in office rather than that of a legislator. Being the "chief legislator" is only a part of the president's job, and it's a part of every state governor's job as well.

"The stakes in this election are enormous. The next president may well appoint five justices the Supreme Court, essentially choosing our basic jurisprudence for the next 30 years. This will be the presidency in which we make fundamental decisions about debt, and spending, and entitlements. Decisions on those may decide our fiscal policy for the next 20 or 30 years, too.

But while those are the stakes of this election, the election will actually turn on... Jobs.

Unemployment is at 8.6%, with real unemployment around 16%. For the sake of comparison, unemployment during the Great Depression hit 25% at its high. We are not there yet, but we've consistently been at around 9% for years (with real unemployment higher).

Primary voters tend to be strongly ideological. We have very strongly held beliefs about abstract notions of government and "The Good." But general election voters -- especially those swing voters -- do not have strong opinions about such matters. Otherwise they would be partisans for one camp or another. They tend to be pragmatic, rather than abstract, thinkers. They do not have any prevailing theory of governance, which is what gives them the flexibility to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and then an all-but-declared socialist four years later.

They care almost entirely about results, because they have no underlying theory that might explain away failures"

CAA is torn between deciding whether this should be considered a bug or a feature. I suppose it'll have to simply be accepted as something that simply is.

"If you think the unaffiliated, mostly apolitical voters in the center are going to be swayed by full-throated announcements of steadfast ideological commitment, you're guilty of universalizing from your own experience.

If they thought that way, they would not be independents. They would, like you, be declared partisans and ideologically-motivated voters.

Speeches are nice but facts are what change minds." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

Ace is describing a sort of cognitive bias, the version of "mirror-imaging" to which political geeks may fall prey.

"I will say this without fear of contradiction: A president can only really push 3-4 major initiatives in his first term, and 1-2 in his second. By the last half of his second term, he's a lame duck, and is chiefly clocking time and fighting off efforts to undo whatever he's done in the first six years."

&

"(T)hat impulse -- the idea that the first questions should always be "Wait, does the federal government need to do this? Is it even constitutional that they do this?" -- is the right impulse."

1/3

re: "The Reasonable Man Premise"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") reminds us how biases may mislead us.

Money quote(s):

"In a normal hostage negotiation, authorities want to 1) control the situation in order to, 2) prevent it from getting any worse. But once the pirates understood that they were not going to be allowed to go ashore with their “booty”, the hostages were worthless to them. Their humanity apparently counted for nothing.

So why not kill them, then move forward, empty your hands, surrender and await your trial?

Lessons: People everywhere are really not the same. We don’t understand these people."

The "Reasonable Man Premise" is a form of the cognitive bias known as "mirror imaging."