Another way to look at cost of US military

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

By what metric do you measure success?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger.

'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff.

/Marg

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence.

So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out.

Let's examine the Rational Actor Model:


Rational actor model
The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes:

Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Value-maximisation.

The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident."


Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot.

It is not Margs fault you cannot understand what she just posted or that you cannot even find a fault in it.

So your attempt to distract by going off on some tangent will not work.

Just admit she is far smarter than you are and say yes ma'am.

Then don't do it again.

Remember it is not name dropping to cite someone else's work in order that you are not accused of being a thief of ideas.

Do you even understand what plagiarism is?

[nanook 1]

That is one way of looking at it. If you are worried about comfort and some bad feelings, then this cellular group has won. But there's always a period of bad feelings that starts every 10 years or so since this Country's history (how long they last has varied but has always ended). If you are not terrified about going outside your home or do not think twice when entering a major building or arenas and other aggregation of population, then the bad guys have failed at their mission. Qualcomm stadium was filled pretty well a few days ago. My opinion in this matter is that a bout of moodines is much better than a period of terror.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

That is one way of looking at it. If you are worried about comfort and some bad feelings, then this cellular group has won. But there's always a period of bad feelings that starts every 10 years or so since this Country's history (how long they last has varied but has always ended). If you are not terrified about going outside your home or do not think twice when entering a major building or arenas and other aggregation of population, then the bad guys have failed at their mission. Qualcomm stadium was filled pretty well a few days ago. My opinion in this matter is that a bout of moodines is much better than a period of terror.

Yes, but, if"they hate us because of our freedom",they must be lovin' us now . With the suspension of habeas corpus most every other of our rights are also thrown out the window. So I'm thinking Al-Queida won.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[warpedskydiver 0]

Well then, why not throw them a ticker tape parade and offer Osama a kiss and flowers?

[Lucky... 0]

Wait, let's back up. You or someone here that you agree with claimed that building a massive military will create deterrence. I allege it won't and that some rogue countries and rogue militant groups will not be swayed by this massive military. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. The evidence shows that I'm right here, can you claim that there are no ME countries that ignore our massive military? Are there rogue groups that ignore our massive military?

Quote

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures.

It might work, but it isn't guaranteed to work, that was my point. And it usually won't work in every instance, sometimes it rarely works. So we were talking deterrence from the stance before war breaks out, as with terrorists, they will bomb thigs in total defiance of this ridiculous deterrence theory.

Quote

We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

I dunno, don't you consider IED's a bit of disobedience? I do. Yes, AQ has had success, just not here. Furthermore, us spending 1 trillion in 8 years is success.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda?

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

Not to mention the 4k+ bave us soldiers; I call that success for them. Deterrence is an argument to spend more money.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger.

'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff.

/Marg

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence.

So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out.

Let's examine the Rational Actor Model:


Rational actor model
The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes:

Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Value-maximisation.

The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident."


Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot.

It is not Margs fault you cannot understand what she just posted or that you cannot even find a fault in it.

So your attempt to distract by going off on some tangent will not work.

Just admit she is far smarter than you are and say yes ma'am.

Then don't do it again.

Remember it is not name dropping to cite someone else's work in order that you are not accused of being a thief of ideas.

Do you even understand what plagiarism is?

And it's not my fault you cannot understand that deterrence doesn't apply to AQ, the very organization that perpetuated 911. That is what we're talking about, right? Rogue countries and organizations being affraid of us via massive military spending. So you're saying AQ falls under this:

According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state.

AQ is a state? OK, I wonder who really doesn't understand? And I don't but the Rational Actor Model anyway, it's a utopian standard that has been deeply criticized, esp when dealing with 3rd world countries; it assumes everyone ponders consequence.

Quote

So your attempt to distract by going off on some tangent will not work.

If AQ is a state I have tangented, if noit you have.

Quote

Just admit she is far smarter than you are and say yes ma'am.

Just admit that you are cheerleading and far over your head.

Quote

Remember it is not name dropping to cite someone else's work in order that you are not accused of being a thief of ideas.

Do you even understand what plagiarism is?

She can cite it, the problem is that it doesn't apply; AQ is not a state JUST FOR STARTERS, not to mention all the criticisms of the so-called Rational Actor Model.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you claim these findings of explosive devices, etc, you then certainly discount the idea of deterrence. I mean, if deterrence worked then there would be no illegal acts, right?

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Well then, why not throw them a ticker tape parade and offer Osama a kiss and flowers?

Well ,Osama is dead and buried since Dec '01 but of course he was a CIA asset .
As far as the ticker tape parade,ya' know they don't use ticker tape much anymore, It's all on a digital screen.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well then, why not throw them a ticker tape parade and offer Osama a kiss and flowers?

http://instantrimshot.com/

Must you always coattail?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you consider change of tactics as a sign of failure, then yes, they have failed. I believe a better metric would be whether or not they've accomplished (or are accomplishing) their stated goal(s).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.geocities.com/eric731/The_Eric_Papers/rational.htm

RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL

- “Each assumes that what must be explained is an action, i.e., behavior that reflects purpose or intention.

- Each assumes that the actor is a national government

- Each assumes that the action is chosen as a calculated solution to a strategic problem.

- For each, explanation consists of showing what goal the government was pursuing when it acted and how the action was a reasonable choice given the nation’s objective.”

- These assumptions help key in on the foundation of the RAM, which is that the actors are rational.

- This model only looks at the individual in charge of the country as the basis of development.

- The leader can then be examined for the decisions he makes assuming that he makes rational decisions.

________________________________________________

So do you still assert the RAM for AQ and many ME countries? If you do then you must accept the notion that:

- AQ is a nation

- ME countries, all of them, as well as any and all nations that might be adverse to the US, are rational

- Actors within the nation don't act alone; RAm only looks at leaders


So you failed there, love to hear your response to this.

[warpedskydiver 0]

You fail to fathom the various states of deterrence, I'm sure you would find what would deter AQ abhorrent.

People always think that AQ has nothing to lose or fear but that is actually false.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Wait, let's back up. You or someone here that you agree with claimed that building a massive military will create deterrence. I allege it won't and that some rogue countries and rogue militant groups will not be swayed by this massive military. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

I said something similar over a couple of posts. But the purpose is for the European govts to increase their military to adequately defend themselves in areas left open by the U. S. not contributing. I then said that deterrence provides reason not to attack and to do that takes money. One major reason is the fact that the military standing on the border does nothing but bring the war inside the country, whereas deterrence in various forms keeps a "watchtower" outside of the borders so attacks have to come in a sort of form that hopefully is at the defending country's advantage. It also prevents wars from happening altogether or keeps it out of the defending country's borders. After all, the purpose of the DOD is to protect the people. But this requires a lot of Intel and a community of allies.

Quote

It might work, but it isn't guaranteed to work,

Here, I agree with you. The disconnect and resulting taking of sides in this argument stems from the fact that before 9/11, deterrence was one of many, but not the largest pot to utilize for Anti-terrorism. But I am concentrating here: Since the attacks, the priority of the pot changed and slowed and nearly halted their the rest of their attacks. There was a major change in the Military because of this new priority.

Quote

dunno, don't you consider IED's a bit of disobedience? I do. Yes, AQ has had success, just not here. Furthermore, us spending 1 trillion in 8 years is success.

I have not heard of a single instance of a road bomb being successful in the U. S.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda?

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

Not to mention the 4k+ bave us soldiers; I call that success for them. Deterrence is an argument to spend more money.

Call me psycho, but I would use a trillion dollars and 4K brave us soldiers to save the lives of thousands . I wouldn't dream of risking lives of thousands of civilians to save a tril and 4 thousand personnel who said they would risk all. People are more important than some few years of discomfort.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you consider change of tactics as a sign of failure, then yes, they have failed. I believe a better metric would be whether or not they've accomplished (or are accomplishing) their stated goal(s).

My metric says that I care more about saving lives over hurting the terrorists' goals. Who cares what they think?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You fail to fathom the various states of deterrence, I'm sure you would find what would deter AQ abhorrent.

People always think that AQ has nothing to lose or fear but that is actually false.

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here?

RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory.

All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Who cares what they think?

I do, for one. If they achieve their goals, then they win. It's actually the only way they win.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

You fail to fathom the various states of deterrence, I'm sure you would find what would deter AQ abhorrent.

People always think that AQ has nothing to lose or fear but that is actually false.

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here?

RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory.

All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die.

You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I said something similar over a couple of posts. But the purpose is for the European govts to increase their military to adequately defend themselves in areas left open by the U. S. not contributing. I then said that deterrence provides reason not to attack and to do that takes money. One major reason is the fact that the military standing on the border does nothing but bring the war inside the country, whereas deterrence in various forms keeps a "watchtower" outside of the borders so attacks have to come in a sort of form that hopefully is at the defending country's advantage. It also prevents wars from happening altogether or keeps it out of the defending country's borders. After all, the purpose of the DOD is to protect the people. But this requires a lot of Intel and a community of allies.

OK, and that still doesn't address that posters have claimed that building a massive military creates deterrence. W/o circumventing about how Europe needs to build their own, etc, how is it that deterrence can be created when dealing with rogue nations? How can we assume deterrence is working when after 8 years the resistance is still large, terrorist cells are still popping up?

Quote

Here, I agree with you. The disconnect and resulting taking of sides in this argument stems from the fact that before 9/11, deterrence was one of many, but not the largest pot to utilize for Anti-terrorism. But I am concentrating here: Since the attacks, the priority of the pot changed and slowed and nearly halted their the rest of their attacks. There was a major change in the Military because of this new priority.

You took a fragment of a sentence. This assertion of yours: Since the attacks, the priority of the pot changed and slowed and nearly halted their the rest of their attacks.

So you call IEDs and 4000+ dead American heroes, $1 trillion and you call it that deterrence has been exacted? The resistance is still there fighting, cells are popping up and these insurgent groups are not letting up; where's the deterrence?

Quote

I have not heard of a single instance of a road bomb being successful in the U. S.

And you look at US military and contractor deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan not as attacks against the US? Bizzare. I guess Japan's attack on Pearl HArbor wasn't an attack on the US either just because it didn't happen on US soil.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda?

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

Not to mention the 4k+ bave us soldiers; I call that success for them. Deterrence is an argument to spend more money.

Call me psycho, but I would use a trillion dollars and 4K brave us soldiers to save the lives of thousands . I wouldn't dream of risking lives of thousands of civilians to save a tril and 4 thousand personnel who said they would risk all. People are more important than some few years of discomfort.

OK, so the argument: DOES THE US CREATE DETERRENCE BY WAY OF SPENDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS ON THE MILITARY?

I still say no, if it costs 4300 troops, 1300+ civilian contractors and $1 trillion ON TOP OF DECADES OF MASSIVE MILITARY SPENDING, and the insurgents are as strong and motivated as they ever have been, then I say deterrence is a joke of a theory.

See, in science you conduct an experiment and make observations, the observations I've seen illustrate that these organizations are not deterred by the massive military spending the US does.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You fail to fathom the various states of deterrence, I'm sure you would find what would deter AQ abhorrent.

People always think that AQ has nothing to lose or fear but that is actually false.

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here?

RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory.

All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die.

You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it.

They fear not being able to die for Alah in Jihad, the highest honor that can realized by these insurgents.

If you want to play tug the sausage, enjoy, but if you have a point to make I'd appreciate that.

[nanook 1]

Quote

OK, so the argument: DOES THE US CREATE DETERRENCE BY WAY OF SPENDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS ON THE MILITARY?

No. It's backwards. We need deterrence, then we spend the amounts neccesary. How much is given is how much we can build.

Quote

and the insurgents are as strong and motivated as they ever have been, then I say deterrence is a joke of a theory.

Hope you are not using the news for this info. In the beginning, there was too much activity to report. Now, they can report practicall all activities. from the viewers perspective, it looks like it hasn't changed because the amount reported is still the same. Activities have died down a lot.

Quote

See, in science you conduct an experiment and make observations, the observations I've seen illustrate that these organizations are not deterred by the massive military spending the US does.

See last paragraph.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln