Mathematics of War

[Presley Cannady]

I have been told (not in exact terms) that metaphors are a practical way of crossing orientations. I am too old to be crossing into Wilf's side (boots on the ground, sort of thing) and there is no reason for him to cross into mine (whatever my orientation is in fact).

Not sure about metaphors. Analogies are useful to a point, but generally break down when terminology is adopted piecemeal. Categories--essential mathematical relationships with applications in various fields--are useful and generally accurate, though formal, and help develop more robust analogies. I fear that military science literature has foregone this step in adopting concepts from other fields.

I have been trying to tie this in with quantum physics, which doesn't really help. One quantum physics scientist said, if you say you understand quantum physic, then you don't understand quantum physics. This leaves me at an unfair advantage.

I wouldn't take that if I were you. Truisms like that are infuriarating, not because they're accurate (this one is a little), but because they're damned unhelpful. True, no one "understands" quantum mechanics--if by that we mean how to completely frame its physical consequences. On the other hand, simply because there are five interpretations doesn't mean that each interpretation is equal, or that it's impossible to fix on the correct one. More importantly, regardless of the underlying physical intuition, you can understand the key results with little more than high school math. The non-relativistic wave equation is a sufficiently complete introduction to QM taught in freshmen chemistry classes in universities across the world.

I actually look at a military movement as a particle-wave, and use my understanding of a particle-wave or electromagnetic radiation, which could be wrong, as the model. The more I read about war and physics the more it looks like I am correct.

I assume you're talking about a massive particle when you say particle wave, though I'm not sure exactly how you're applying that to "military movement." As I read this, you're saying that such movement can be described by laws of motion or the mechanics of an oscillator. The value in framing the movement of men and materiel this way escapes me, but perhaps we need some more detail as to circumstances in which you apply this model.

Of course to me, all a nuke is just an electromagnetic pulse...

It's considerably more than that. Overpressure and heat in any explosion (in an atmosphere) is a convective process, not a radiative one.

...same thing as an electromagnetic wave, except the frequency (the number of attacks) is in the number of events instead of the length of wave (intensity, more deadly).

Still not following. The frequency of a wave is the product of its speed and the inverse of wavelength. Intensity is a function of frequency (or wavelength) for a given velocity. The power law explicitly diminishes in velocity as frequency increases, so intensity is not guaranteed to increase with it.

[MikeF]

- Bounding onto an objective is much easier than trying to seal the AfPak border.

-I should have paid more attention in my physics class. Actually, I probably should have stayed awake.

-At the end of the debate, COL Gentile may prove to be correct.

Time to watch House and 24.

v/r

Mike

[Ron Humphrey]

- Bounding onto an objective is much easier than trying to seal the AfPak border.

-I should have paid more attention in my physics class. Actually, I probably should have stayed awake.

-At the end of the debate, COL Gentile may prove to be correct.

Time to watch House and 24.

v/r

Mike

As to COL Gentile from what I remember I'm not sure many here ever said he wasn't right.

What's been cloudy has alway's been that in the end not only does the enemy get a vote but the HN does to and there's limits to what any counter-insurgent can do about that.

All you can do is set condition's the rest is up to them.
Gotta hand it to the man, solid as a rock when it comes to what he feels is right

[Larry Dunbar]

The power law explicitly diminishes in velocity as frequency increases, so intensity is not guaranteed to increase with it.

Thanks for the heads-up. I was only able to take two terms of physic, the first and last of a three term set. So I studied an AC wave before I studied a Single Harmonic Motion. I went back and read this stuff, but it looks like I missed the basics. I think the math is the same, but way easier to visualize. Thanks again. Maybe later I can come up with some terminology that will "Hook" this all together.

Just a guess, I think the highest intensity will be where the velocity is zero, acceleration is max, and the displacement I am not sure of. I guess the highest intensity is when it is only a potential displacement of very high amplitude, which I suppose means it can be positive or negative.

[Larry Dunbar]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Let me show you.

(from my last post) of the attacks is [due to the changing of the orientation, (see this is whats going on. The US military orientation would not have allowed this to happen. It probably happened because the woman was disguised as one of the ISF’s mom, how hard would that be? In fact, it may have been his mom. The enemy [insurgency] is adaptive and may have found the ISF weakness. It may be as Sean said, the power curve is going up. Of course that is a bunch of what ifs.), from the US to Iraqi force fighting in Iraq. The brigade’s leaders screwed-up. Do we sanction or dismiss these leaders? NO! If they are still alive, I don’t think they will make the same mistake twice, if they have been trained by the US military.

[jmm99]

failed to show me; but I did get "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria."

But, necessity, etc., I did find the Times article discussion on your blog here.

[Ken White]

I too read the Blog piece and I'm unsure what you're trying to say...

[Larry Dunbar]

I too read the Blog piece and I'm unsure what you're trying to say...

I am not trying to say too much here, only that the power curve is moving up as Sean says; the insurgency is adapting, the structure is changing and it, perhaps, has found a way to get at the ISF, that would not work on the US military.

The Times is open-source information after all, and I was just trying to prove that its information is related to Sean's, not that I was correct. If Sean's data is bogus, there doesn't have to be anymore discussion ablout it.

But thanks for trying.

[Larry Dunbar]

failed to show me; but I did get "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." .

Well, I am probably not a welcomed or wanted post on here. It is hard to judge something you don't understand. It probably is better to vet the link first, thanks.

[Ken White]

may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old...

[Larry Dunbar]

may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old...

It's just that I have been put under protocol before. You should try and call 135 setting republican members of congress f**king cowards for voting "present" when the time came to vote for funding the military. What you find is this. If that link doesn't work for you, all it shows is advertizing. I have to admit the posting was very inflammatory and when my rage went away I was going to put it on "private" settings, but I wasn't allowed to.

I don't know if I really have a point, you either get it or you don't. I am also old and I am not sure "wry" , but a bit of an A-hole. So don't feel bad, I don't even see an emoticon for that.