People who think that I am on some sort of a crusade against the political "science" or what passes today for "history", or rather what it becomes once some "historian" begins to offer "the range of interpretations"... they are absolutely right. These two fields of human "academic" activity--and this is not my definition, many other people used and continue to use it way before me--are the fields in which credentials are bestowed upon primarily interpretations and personal (however "justified" with sources) opinions. But in history, at least, there is some inherent knowable truth which could be found, once layer upon layer of "interpretations" will be peeled off, especially when it is done by professionals who know the subject which constitutes this layer. This is not the case with political "science" which for the last decades produced a dearth of BS and failed to predict just about anything.

It is not surprising. Just take a look at the political "science" courses, say in Columbia University, and you will find there a hodgepodge collection of mostly "current events" theoretical BS which anyone with IQ higher than room temperature can get from media. Here is one "unit" which has some relevance to real world: *DATA ANALYSIS & STATS-POL RES.*

This course examines the basic methods data analysis and statistics that political scientists use in quantitative research that attempts to make causal inferences about how the political world works. The same methods apply to other kinds of problems about cause and effect relationships more generally. The course will provide students with extensive experience in analyzing data and in writing (and thus reading) research papers about testable theories and hypotheses. It will cover basic data analysis and statistical methods, from univariate and bivariate descriptive and inferential statistics through multivariate regression analysis. Computer applications will be emphasized. The course will focus largely on observational data used in cross-sectional statistical analysis, but it will consider issues of research design more broadly as well. It will assume that students have no mathematical background beyond high school algebra and no experience using computers for data analysis.

As you can see yourself--they give them a very basic math, which later finds its other incidence, buried in the pile of purely story-telling topics such as "*ISRAELI NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, POLICY AND DECISION MAKING*", such as, and you have guessed it--Game Theory. Among all this disjoint collection of "stories" about politics the most remarkable is this: *THEORIES OF WAR AND PEACE*.

In this course we undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on the causes of war and the conditions of peace, with a primary focus on interstate war. We focus primarily on theory and empirical research in political science but give some attention to work in other disciplines. We examine the leading theories, their key concepts and causal variables, the causal paths leading to war or to peace, and the conditions under which various outcomes are most likely to occur. We also give some attention to the degree of empirical support for various theories and hypotheses, and we look at some of the major empirical research programs on the origins and expansion of war. Our survey includes research utilizing qualitative methods, large-N quantitative methods, formal modeling, and experimental approaches. We also give considerable attention to methodological questions relating to epistemology and research design. Our primary focus, however, is on the logical coherence and analytic limitations of the theories and the kinds of research designs that might be useful in testing them.This course is designed primarily for graduate students who want to understand and contribute to the theoretical and empirical literature in political science on war, peace, and security.Students with different interests and students from other departments can also benefit from the seminar and are also welcome. Ideally, members of the seminar will have some familiarity with basic issues in international relations theory, philosophy of science, research design, and statistical methods.

This is not a nice looking set of differential equations where coefficients

*a*and

*e*define the rate of NON-combat losses,

*b*and

*f*define the rate of losses due to fire impact on areas,

*c*and

*g*define the rate of losses at the front line (immediate contact) and

*d*and

*h*are the numbers of arriving or withdrawing reserves. You see, a hot mess. And then, of course, you cannot shoot down every single artillery shell. Not so with missiles,

__. If you have 5 ships in your task group--that is it. This is 5 ships and that is what gives Salvo Model an elegant and easily understood form. Not in embellished form, I underscore. Embellished Salvo Equations are a bit different animal and require a serious understanding of weapons, but I will touch upon those later. Here is basic Salvo Model for two hostile forces (fleets) A and B.__

**which you can shoot down and which are discrete by their very nature, as are ships***A=5*and

*B=5*. Let's continue with other coefficients. Say force A's$\mathrm{\alpha =3(thatis\; the\; number\; of\; well-aimed\; missiles\; fired\; by\; each\; ship\; from\; A),\; while\; the\; same\; for\; B\; will\; be}$

*$\mathrm{\beta =4.}$*$\mathrm{Now,\; the\; following:}$

*a1*and

*b1*are what is generally known as omega($\mathrm{\varpi )\; which\; is\; mathematical\; expectation,\; or,\; as\; is\; stated\; in\; model,\; a\; number\; (usually\; weighted\; average)\; of\; missiles}$

*a1*=2 and

*b1*=1 (I use deliberately whole numbers to simplify the task) and now to $$

*a3*which is, basically, effectiveness of A's air defense, which is the number of missiles fired by B destroyed by A's air defense. So, say

*a3*=2 and for B we say same effectiveness:

*b3*=2. Now we are ready to calculate. Let's start with A's losses:

$\Delta A=\frac{\mathrm{(4}\times 5-2\times \mathrm{5)/}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{(20}-\mathrm{10)/}}{2}=\frac{10}{2}=5$

$\mathrm{As\; you\; can\; see\; yourself\; A\; doesn\text{'}t\; fare\; that\; well--it\; gets\; completely\; destroyed,\; and\; loses\; all\; 5\; ships.\; But\; what\; about\; B.}$$\mathrm{Plug\; in\; your\; numbers.}A$*a1*=2 and *b1*=2, that is being the same, force B could have won this exchange over A and would have retained 2.5 ships afloat. We round it and it is 3 ships--this is victory, a bloody one, but victory nonetheless. So, here we are, with some example of how simple this basic model is. But, of course, as you may have guessed it already, the devil is in those pesky details which define modern missile combat and that is a hell of a topic, which I intent on discussing...

$$

$$**To Be Continued... **

## No comments:

## Post a Comment