New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a
"Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed
considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense
initiatives more successful? Can such an application of
science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable,
necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a new
Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published
every Thursday.
(5590 previous messages)
rshow55
- 06:31pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (#
5591 of 5651)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
From my "Putin briefing" of March 2001 - previously on this
thread: (links work)
Think about the "rate of return" of "investment decisions
Saddam, Iraq, Russia, other nations, and other players are
facing. Some options make much more sense than others.
rshowalter
- 09:53pm Oct 16, 2002 BST (#350
of 367) |
rshowalter - 05:30pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1394
I'll imagine that you're the great leader that the quality
of your thought and "staff work" indicates.
Suppose I take a shot, in the next hour, trying to speak of
Russia as a "statistical ensemble of businesses -- with
expected rates of return that make them unattractive" --
and discuss how you might radically increase the
attractiveness of your country from a business point of view.
I'll speak of "expected rates of return" -- as in compound
rates of interest -- and talk about the key thing -- which is
the total RISK DISCOUNT -- make Russia more reliable, and you
will RADICALLY shift its marketability upwards.
rshowalter - 05:36pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1395
Perhaps this model is simple enough for you to use -and
evaluate, punching numbers on a hand held calculator.
Sometimes the biggest effects are easiest to see in a simple
case, where relations stand out starkly.
Suppose you think of an investment,
where at time 0, you put in a cost, C and
after a time of t expressed in years (which could be a
fraction)
you get a Payoff, P , if you win and the
PROBABILITY OF WINNING is a value a , between no chance
( a = 0 ) and certainty ( a = 1 ) so that
0<= a <= 1
It is worth noting, and especially worth noting for Putin,
how the value of a matters.
rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1396
Reliability is valuable (and unreliablility is very
expensive ) from a gambler's (or investor's) point of view
!
rshowalter - 05:41pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1397
the expected rate of return, r , for this lump model
is
r = [ln( aP/c)]/t
In words, the effective compounded rate of return (compound
interest) is the natural logarithm of the risk
discounted payoff-to-cost ratio divided by the time
between putting out the expenditure C , and getting the
payoff P .
rshowalter - 05:43pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1398
Note:
it isn't the "best case" payoff to cost ratio,
P/C , it is the risk discounted payoff to cost
ratio (aP)/C that the investor, if he's a rational
gambler, looks at.
rshow55
- 06:41pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (#
5592 of 5651)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
For Iraq, what would the economic payoff, P , from
relaxing sanctions be? (In round billions)
How much time, t , would it take to get sanctions
relaxed, if cooperation with inspections occurred?
What would the cost, C be, in money and trouble?
What are the risks or uncertainties, lumped as a
discount, a , associated with the inspection option?
The "effective rate of return" is VERY high, if Saddam has
the wit to execute that strategy, in a way where his regime
survives - especially if it is done gracefully. High for Iraqi
citizens, as well.
Now, look at the same calculation with respect to
war.
The "payoff" from resisting inspections is negative
, and very large - - the costs are LARGE - - it is a VERY bad
bet.
Saddam is a chump and an idiot to choose war.
Russia's interest is clear, too. It is to facilitate the
inspection process, corner much more oil business than would
otherwise occur - and generally reduce risks and cost by
helping with communication.
And if Russia wants to maximize its security - it should
facilitate inspections and use the "moral capital" from that
to insist on getting some key questions long discussed
on this board answered.
(59 following messages)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/117e4/117e418e0e3653a89a629f8b83deccdd24b7ecc4" alt="Read Subscriptions" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1a7d/d1a7dc6d5885ecda8a1f092cb6f10f62c551a852" alt="Subscribe" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/955dd/955dd2f8c9105368a76fb6d6b7ed17d2a4b22e6c" alt="Search" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1969f/1969fe88969a449a2435551bf4c895f94d6c69b5" alt="Post Message"
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|