Quote Originally Posted by PhilR View Post
I'm struck by your reference to "systems analysis" because, as far as i can discern, systems analysis, when applied to the human dimension in conflict (which is what really matters) relies on what I would consider as "history." Cause and effect, and other relationships, unless observed in real time, need to reference to the past to make any sense. Our ideas of how people with react to anything that is done to them (outside of direct physical effect), is all guesswork. We derive what we think will happen based on what has happened in similar situations. This can be applied to models or other operations research. Unless it applies to just physical issues, what I see as systems analysis of conflict, is really just translating history into standardized, if not quantitative, form.


Phil Ridderhof USMC
Hi Phil,

1-I highlighted part of your response because that is the whole point of systems analysis. And eventually SBW (Systems Based Warfare) Stay in the predictable physical realm or it is all a chance. Sherman was a master at it, he focused the physical processing parts of the human support system in order to affect the physical human population. By denying them the physical resources of survival he eventually affected there human mental process to the point where they changed there mind about fighting, if they didn't change their mind, over time they would be so physically weakened they would no longer be relevant.

2-I had already downloaded the history magazine because of the Pershing missile article. I crawled all over that thing as a kid and personally saw much of what happened in the article and yes it was one of the best war systems ever made. Pershing 1 had more to do with us surviving the Cuban Missile Crisis then most folks will ever know.

3-I will read the CvC article and let you know what I think. Check your PM when you get a chance.