Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war

  • Thread starter Synetos
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mathematics
In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between opportunities for killing a single person versus coordinated large-scale attacks, and the role of power and influence in decision making for war. The speaker believes that there is an exponential relationship between these factors and that economic or rational reasons are not always the driving force behind war.
  • #1
Synetos
40
1
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is, on the face of it, somewhat interesting.
The reason for my limited enthusiasm is the following:

Effective opportunities&(motivations and possible perpetrators) for killing a single person must be regarded as many orders of magnitude greater than opportunities for co-ordinated large-scale attacks with sufficient punch.
Slicing the throat of an elderly Buddhist monk is, for example, much easier than hi-jacking an airplane.

Thus, we should expect that there was some exponential relationship between number of attacks and number of people killed, and it is unfathomable for me that a proclaimed physicist seemingly didn't expect some sort of relationship like that.

The analysis retains some interest for having collated and filtered the data, but what it really "means" is still an open question, IMO.

I don't think a power relationship is fruitful, though, and that modelling this in terms of an exponential relationship is better, for the reason given above.You should note in particular that the mechanism I propose should basically be regarded as the proper random distribution here, irrespective of such phenomena like "organizational structure".

Rather, in order to measure the effect of SUCH variables, you should factor out the effect of this random distribution, and see if you still get some sort of pattern that needs to be understood and explained.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Just before WWI a very popular book was written showing that modern war would cost both sides more than they could gain by it. Therefore war was "uneconomic" and there would never be another war! Of course, WWI did happen, showing that the impetus to war is neither economic nor rational.
 
  • #4
Or that the ones who started it lacked this information :P
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy said:
Just before WWI a very popular book was written showing that modern war would cost both sides more than they could gain by it. Therefore war was "uneconomic" and there would never be another war! Of course, WWI did happen, showing that the impetus to war is neither economic nor rational.

For many it is not economic or rational, but for some it is. Wars need bullets, bombs, tanks and many other things: someone has to pay for it and someone is financing it.
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy said:
Just before WWI a very popular book was written showing that modern war would cost both sides more than they could gain by it. Therefore war was "uneconomic" and there would never be another war! Of course, WWI did happen, showing that the impetus to war is neither economic nor rational.
War might be neither economic or rational for a country as a whole, but it can be beneficial for people in positions of power that make the decision to go to war, such as a general getting a larger army and more resources (thus more power and influence and possible financial gain) or a politician gaining more votes (thus more power and influence and possible financial gain) or a leader of industry getting more orders for weapons and other supplies for an army and possibly gaining large subsidies for research and development of new weapons (thus financial gain and possibly more power and influence). Thus the small minority that have the most to gain from war, are usually the ones that are in a position to influence whether a country goes to war or not, even if it is not the the interest of the general public. All it needs is a bit of spin/propaganda/hype to get the general public to happily go along with this deception.
 

FAQ: Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war

How did Sean Gourley become interested in the mathematics of war?

Sean Gourley's interest in the mathematics of war began during his time serving in the New Zealand Army. He noticed patterns and trends in the data he collected and became curious about applying mathematical and statistical analysis to understand the dynamics of war.

What is the main focus of Sean Gourley's research on the mathematics of war?

Sean Gourley's research focuses on using mathematical models and algorithms to analyze data from past and current conflicts in order to predict and prevent future conflicts. He also studies the impact of technology and network structures on the behavior of conflicts.

3. How can understanding the mathematics of war help prevent conflicts?

By studying the mathematics of war, researchers like Sean Gourley can identify patterns and factors that contribute to conflicts. This knowledge can then be used to develop strategies and policies to prevent conflicts from occurring in the future.

4. What are some real-world applications of Sean Gourley's research on the mathematics of war?

Sean Gourley's research has been used to analyze and predict conflicts in regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also been applied to other fields, such as studying the spread of diseases and analyzing financial markets.

5. How does Sean Gourley's background in physics contribute to his work on the mathematics of war?

As a physicist, Sean Gourley has a strong foundation in mathematical modeling and data analysis. This background allows him to apply complex mathematical concepts to the study of war and conflict, providing new insights and perspectives.

Back
Top