Scientists find 'law of war' that predicts attacks

[Nukeman]

Scientists find 'law of war' that predicts attacks

I find the absolutley fascinating. If we can predict with a high degree of certainty when and where attacks will take place we can eliminate a large amount of them.

now for my sci/fi geek side. didn't isaac Asimov predict something to this effect in his "Foundation series" books. This falls right in line with his stories on prediciting human behaviour (he called it phsyco history, I think).

Here is a little about the article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/27/sciwar127.xml


The European Consortium For Mathematics in Industry was told today that an international team has developed a physics-based theory describing the dynamics of insurgent group formation and attacks, which neatly explains the universal patterns observed in all modern wars and terrorism.

"Regardless of the origins and locations of modern conflicts, the insurgent groups in each case are operating in the same way. In short, it is effectively the same enemy on all fronts," said Prof Neil Johnson, of the University of Miami, who did work with Prof Mike Spagat of Royal Holloway College, University of London, Dr Sean Gourley, University of Oxford and colleagues in China and Columbia

[5stringJeff]

Interesting. I suppose that would make writing counterinsurgency doctrine easier.

[namvet]

and what if they choose to cancel attacks????? which they have. kinda 'blows up' this theory.

[PostmodernProphet]

guns plus soldiers on wrong side of border divided by number of legitimate reasons for being there equals invasion.....

[Nukeman]

and what if they choose to cancel attacks????? which they have. kinda 'blows up' this theory.Not if it takes that into account! I am sure that is all part of the equation, dontcha think? Or do you propose they just over looked that little part...:cool:

[glockmail]

The angle of the dangle times the inverse of the clitoris equals the force of the intercourse.

[namvet]

Not if it takes that into account! I am sure that is all part of the equation, dontcha think? Or do you propose they just over looked that little part...:cool:

hmm so they can read a field commanders mind even before he thinks???? I see. star wars. ok. what ever

[namvet]

The angle of the dangle times the inverse of the clitoris equals the force of the intercourse.

the square of the hair X the angle of the dangle = the heat of the meat. it works all 3 ways..............:laugh2:

[midcan5]

Pure hokum. Curious how it requires they go backward reviewing old data and guess what, they find connections. Jeez, I hope no money is being spent on this. I did hear that we as a nation have interfered something like 70 times in other countries in the last century. Consider that for a moment and you wonder why they love us so much.

[mundame]

Pure hokum. Curious how it requires they go backward reviewing old data and guess what, they find connections. Jeez, I hope no money is being spent on this. I did hear that we as a nation have interfered something like 70 times in other countries in the last century. Consider that for a moment and you wonder why they love us so much.


I think war is evolutionary, pure and simple. Has nothing to do, ever, with the supposed reasons for it ----------

It's all about what genetic group gets the resources, that's all. Usually land, and control.

It's just a thing higher primates do to improve the species. Such evolutionary intraspecific fighting occurs in groups with higher primates, but only on the level of individual males in animals such as ruminants (goats and sheep males fighting, often killing each other; deer, horses too).

The only culture that recognized that openly was Nazi Germany --- they explicitly went after "Lebensraum," which they intended to take from the people currently holding it. Also they recognized their own genetics as superior and explicitly intended to keep those genetics pure and kill everyone else. They meant to take over the world, as we know ---- Hitler was very clear about that! Which is why the world finally ganged up on them and put them out of business.

Expansionist empires around 1900 when European countries took over much of the territory of the world was pretty explicit, though couched as the "White Man's Burden" of Kipling's poem, civilizing rather than wiping out the other races. It was too much land too quickly and they couldn't settle and colonize it quickly enough, which often happens: Rome couldn't settle Britain fast enough to replace the Britons, for instance, and that colony failed.

[namvet]

I think war is evolutionary, pure and simple. Has nothing to do, ever, with the supposed reasons for it ----------

It's all about what genetic group gets the resources, that's all. Usually land, and control.

It's just a thing higher primates do to improve the species. Such evolutionary intraspecific fighting occurs in groups with higher primates, but only on the level of individual males in animals such as ruminants (goats and sheep males fighting, often killing each other; deer, horses too).

The only culture that recognized that openly was Nazi Germany --- they explicitly went after "Lebensraum," which they intended to take from the people currently holding it. Also they recognized their own genetics as superior and explicitly intended to keep those genetics pure and kill everyone else. They meant to take over the world, as we know ---- Hitler was very clear about that! Which is why the world finally ganged up on them and put them out of business.

Expansionist empires around 1900 when European countries took over much of the territory of the world was pretty explicit, though couched as the "White Man's Burden" of Kipling's poem, civilizing rather than wiping out the other races. It was too much land too quickly and they couldn't settle and colonize it quickly enough, which often happens: Rome couldn't settle Britain fast enough to replace the Britons, for instance, and that colony failed.

you have confirmed that you support the Nazi's and approve of their mass murders. case closed. you have NO defense.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think war is evolutionary, pure and simple. Has nothing to do, ever, with the supposed reasons for it ----------

It's all about what genetic group gets the resources, that's all. Usually land, and control.

It's just a thing higher primates do to improve the species. Such evolutionary intraspecific fighting occurs in groups with higher primates, but only on the level of individual males in animals such as ruminants (goats and sheep males fighting, often killing each other; deer, horses too).

The only culture that recognized that openly was Nazi Germany --- they explicitly went after "Lebensraum," which they intended to take from the people currently holding it. Also they recognized their own genetics as superior and explicitly intended to keep those genetics pure and kill everyone else. They meant to take over the world, as we know ---- Hitler was very clear about that! Which is why the world finally ganged up on them and put them out of business.

Expansionist empires around 1900 when European countries took over much of the territory of the world was pretty explicit, though couched as the "White Man's Burden" of Kipling's poem, civilizing rather than wiping out the other races. It was too much land too quickly and they couldn't settle and colonize it quickly enough, which often happens: Rome couldn't settle Britain fast enough to replace the Britons, for instance, and that colony failed.

Nah, it's the ebb and flow of society and culture. We have a period of peace and prosperity followed by a period of war. That's how it's always been. That's how it always will be.

[mundame]

Nah, it's the ebb and flow of society and culture. We have a period of peace and prosperity followed by a period of war. That's how it's always been. That's how it always will be.


Think deeper, Hagbard: WHY? Robins don't have that pattern, nor do sheep, nor do dogs or codfish.

Besides, I don't even think you are right about that: in some eras, war is constant. It's never gone for long, of course, but the Hundred Years War in Europe, or the Mongol invasions or the Thirty Years War 1618 to 1648 were pretty much constant war, no ebb, just flow.

The question is, why do people have wars? To get each others' land and other resources, of course, just as bonobos and chimps and orangutans do. Then the ones that win (Europeans) get to reproduce more, and the ones that lose (American Indians) .....don't.

War works well for differential gene reproduction, and sorting out more able populations.

[Hagbard Celine]

Think deeper, Hagbard: WHY? Robins don't have that pattern, nor do sheep, nor do dogs or codfish.

Besides, I don't even think you are right about that: in some eras, war is constant. It's never gone for long, of course, but the Hundred Years War in Europe, or the Mongol invasions or the Thirty Years War 1618 to 1648 were pretty much constant war, no ebb, just flow.

The question is, why do people have wars? To get each others' land and other resources, of course, just as bonobos and chimps and orangutans do. Then the ones that win (Europeans) get to reproduce more, and the ones that lose (American Indians) .....don't.

War works well for differential gene reproduction, and sorting out more able populations.

Humans and chimpanzees are the only animals on this planet that make war with their own species. War can be constant if a resolution is not reached. But as soon as the resolution is reached, a time of peace and prosperity will follow until the inevitable return to war. It's a cycle.
The reasons for war (property, territory, etc.) are inconsequential. We can see from the Iraq war that the reasons are merely a means to an end. The result is always the same: After a time of peace and prosperity, the war cycle begins again.

[namvet]

war always cycles. you can't stop it. its mans nature to destroy his fellow man. and I see no hope for breaking the cycle. they been fighting wars before we were born and will contiue long after were gone.
funny how mundame keeps referring to the nazi's

[Said1]

you have confirmed that you support the Nazi's and approve of their mass murders. case closed. you have NO defense.

How? Also, other Western nations practiced and held Eugenics and Eugenic policies, post nazi Germany.

[Nukeman]

war always cycles. you can't stop it. its mans nature to destroy his fellow man. and I see no hope for breaking the cycle. they been fighting wars before we were born and will contiue long after were gone.
funny how mundame keeps referring to the nazi'sSay what you want about the NAZI's but they damn neer took over the world. If they had developed the bomb before we did we would all still be goose stepping and saluting the swastika flag.

You do have to give credit for what they accomplished in such a short time frame with the resources they had available to them.

I am not justifying what they did but they did do a lot with just a little.....

[mundame]

The reasons for war (property, territory, etc.) are inconsequential. We can see from the Iraq war that the reasons are merely a means to an end. The result is always the same: After a time of peace and prosperity, the war cycle begins again.


I'm saying the reasons aren't inconsequential: the reason is intraspecific genetic competition. Breeding groups war against other breeding groups to acquire limited resources. The winner reproduces more.

It's Malthusian, really. Given limited resources (and Earth is limited), what stops infinite, geometrical reproduction? Food limits, yes, but usually it doesn't go to the limiting factor of starvation.
Though sometimes it does, Ethiopia being a chronic case in point.
Usually before starvation sets in to limit population growth, intraspecific war kills off one breeding group to the benefit of another.

There are lots of ways to compete genetically --- peacocks do it with blue feathers and male fighting, we do it with war.

[mundame]

How? Also, other Western nations practiced and held Eugenics and Eugenic policies, post nazi Germany.

No, that was PRE-Nazi Germany. Eugenics and Darwinian social theories held sway.......about 1890 to 1945.

Once the concentration camps were found, these ideas went dead out of fashion.


Well, except among the Arabs, of course, they are still great Hitler fans.

[Hagbard Celine]

war always cycles. you can't stop it. its mans nature to destroy his fellow man. and I see no hope for breaking the cycle. they been fighting wars before we were born and will contiue long after were gone.
funny how mundame keeps referring to the nazi's

I think you're wrong. As men get smarter, they become more docile and more prone to peace. As much as it may not seem like it, mankind is getting smarter. The average IQ score goes up a few points every decade. At some point, probably not in our lifetimes, we'll reach a Pax Mundo.

[mundame]

Say what you want about the NAZI's but they damn neer took over the world. If they had developed the bomb before we did we would all still be goose stepping and saluting the swastika flag.

You do have to give credit for what they accomplished in such a short time frame with the resources they had available to them.



Best military machine the world has ever seen, and I am COUNTING the Roman legions.

Sure, it was a darn near thing, and they would certainly have come after us next. Then South America, eventually the Orient.

Note that in one sense they won: the Germans DID successfully "purify" their genetics -- very few Jews left in Germany or Poland!! Then they let in all those Turks and such and blew it, however.

It is solely American occupation of Germany all these decades that has allowed European union into the Common Market (doesn't look like they'll federalize) ---- without our occupation Europe would continually jockey for alliances and position against the behemoth in the middle as they have for so long. How many MORE wars would there have been that we got dragged into to save Britain YET AGAIN????

So we had to occupy Germany, to suppress their perpetual wars. If Europe ever gets too uppity, we can simply leave ------- that'll throw the cat among the pigeons!! They'll instantly revert to worried secret negotiations and treaties for fear of Germany marching again, and Germany would march again, of course. Russia is better developed than it used to be and presumably would come west for a change.

But they'd drag us in again, the usual way: by torpedoing our shipping, notably oil. Going after our shipping is how they always drag us in.

[Said1]

No, that was PRE-Nazi Germany. Eugenics and Darwinian social theories held sway.......about 1890 to 1945.

Once the concentration camps were found, these ideas went dead out of fashion.


Well, except among the Arabs, of course, they are still great Hitler fans.

Yes, Eugenics policies were still firmly in place in Alberta, Canada in to the 70's (to name one). So called 'mental defectives' were stil being forcefully institutionalized AND sterilized in the mid-late 60's. And to clarify, I said Eugenic practices, not out right genocide.

[mundame]

As men get smarter, they become more docile and more prone to peace.


Hagbard, what actually happens is that as men get smarter, they build better weapons that can kill more and more people at once!!


What did you suppose technology is mainly FOR?

[Hagbard Celine]

How? Also, other Western nations practiced and held Eugenics and Eugenic policies, post nazi Germany.

Actually, pre-Nazi Germany the SCOTUS ruled affirmatively on a case (Buck v. Bell) dealing with eugenics in the US. They ruled that a community was in the right when they "spayed" or sterilized a mentally-ill woman in their community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._bell

Of course as per the usual, after WWII, we got rid of any and all behavior that could be construed as in-line with the ideology of our enemies.
That's also why we drive on the right side of the road, don't use the Metric system, have "In God We Trust" as our national motto instead of "E Pluribus Unum" as was intended and say "aluminum" instead of "aluminium."

[Said1]

Actually, pre-Nazi Germany the SCOTUS ruled affirmatively on a case (Buck v. Bell) dealing with eugenics in the US. They ruled that a community was in the right when they "spayed" or sterilized a mentally-ill woman in their community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._bell

Of course as per the usual, after WWII, we got rid of any and all behavior that could be construed as in-line with the ideology of our enemies.
That's also why we drive on the right side of the road, don't use the Metric system, have "In God We Trust" as our national motto instead of "E Pluribus Unum" as was intended and say "aluminum" instead of "aluminium."
Given that alleged homosexual behavior was grounds for committal, I'd say good thing we've done away with such practices. :laugh2:

Even Martin is free to reproduce if the circumstances ever arise. :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Given that alleged homosexual behavior was grounds for committal, I'd say good thing we've done away with such practices. :laugh2:

Even Martin is free to reproduce if the circumstances ever arise. :laugh2:

That's a big "if." :dance:

[Said1]

That's a big "if." :dance:

I'm thinking ski mask and crow bar...........

[Nukeman]

I'm thinking ski mask and crow bar...........

Lets not forget the GHP as well(date rape drug):cheers2::coffee:

[5stringJeff]

I think you're wrong. As men get smarter, they become more docile and more prone to peace. As much as it may not seem like it, mankind is getting smarter. The average IQ score goes up a few points every decade. At some point, probably not in our lifetimes, we'll reach a Pax Mundo.

Actually, the average IQ in the US has fallen from 100 to 98 over the past 80 or so years.

[mundame]

Actually, the average IQ in the US has fallen from 100 to 98 over the past 80 or so years.


Ummmmmmmmmmmm.............................I study IQ issues and I'd like to see you cite a source for that?

There has been a lot of fear that IQ WOULD decline, as populations of stupids grow and smarter people have fewer children. I haven't myself seen evidence that it has declined, and I'd be interested.

[5stringJeff]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm.............................I study IQ issues and I'd like to see you cite a source for that?

There has been a lot of fear that IQ WOULD decline, as populations of stupids grow and smarter people have fewer children. I haven't myself seen evidence that it has declined, and I'd be interested.

Here's a link (http://www.isteve.com/IQ_table.htm) that republishes a table from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," showing the average IQ in the US to have fallen from 100 in 1914 to 98 in 1993. I understand that the book's findings are considered controversial; this is merely a table of data the authors collected for use in their book. I casually follow IQ research (through other mailing lists I belong to), which is where I heard the 98 in the first place.

[mundame]

Here's a link (http://www.isteve.com/IQ_table.htm) that republishes a table from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," showing the average IQ in the US to have fallen from 100 in 1914 to 98 in 1993.


VERY interesting. Thank you. I bookmarked that.

You have probably noted that these data correspond closely -- but the data are more recent -- to the Bell Curve assertions that African nationals score persistently in the retarded range in our terms, and certainly that is what their countries show in their conditions. AND that these data also parallel the Bell Curve results for Asians: slightly higher than white U.S. citizens! About three points, not a huge difference, but it's there.

Speed for horses, disposition for dogs, intelligence for humans --------- there are a lot of differences in breeds of animals..........

And people.

[5stringJeff]

The Bell Curve is the next book on my shelf to read, as soon as I finish reading the biography of John Tyler. I've heard lots of good things about it - and some bad, as well. But everything I've read says that the book is researched and referenced extremely well.

[mundame]

The Bell Curve is the next book on my shelf to read, as soon as I finish reading the biography of John Tyler. I've heard lots of good things about it - and some bad, as well. But everything I've read says that the book is researched and referenced extremely well.


After you read it, you will never be the same.

One of "those" books. Remember I said that when you are blown out of the water. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/%E1llatok/animal-smiley-016.gif