Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cognos!geovision!gd@dciem (Gord Deinstadt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: "Computer Models Leave U.S. Leaders Sure of Victory"
Keywords: Iraq, Kuwait, MIT, Brookings, war game, computer, modelling
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.021345.27136@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 5 Jan 91 02:13:45 GMT
References: <1990Dec19.010219.24876@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec28.031655.2645@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario
Lines: 41
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cognos!geovision!gd@dciem (Gord Deinstadt)

wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com (Scott Sanford) writes:
>  I am reminded of a simulation in which I once participated with similar
>mechanics; my side lost the war game because the opposition used their naval
>power on us...hundreds of miles inland.

This is clearly a problem with the method cited, since it reduces strength
to a single dimension (one variable).  But with as few as two variables,
other problems arise.

It is possible (not inevitable) that a game with five players on a two-
dimensional surface does not have a Nash equilibrium.  That means that
the competition between them never stabilizes; no matter what alliance is
formed, one of the members can always better his position by defecting to
the opposing alliance.

I believe (going out on a limb here) that you can transform players to 
situations, ie. instead of five players imagine five successive battles,
each at a site offering different advantages and disadvantages to each
of the two combatants.  In this case the outcome of the war depends on
the _order_ in which the battles are fought, even if everything else is
nailed down.  It's like the game of paper-scissors-rock; there _is_
no way to predetermine a winner.

In fact one way of looking at grand strategy is as an attempt to manipulate
the number of variables acting.  If you're big, you make yourself bigger in
the hope that your enemies will perceive you in a one-dimensional way; too
big to mess with.  You make the outcome certain by adopting strategic
weapons which guarantee that war will be one big battle.  But if you're
little, you try to make the game more complicated.  If forced into war,
you use guerilla tactics which lead to lots of little battles.

In this light Hussein is foolish to threaten the use of strategic weapons;
he cannot win that game and only simplifies the situation to the benefit
of his enemies.  Iraq's isolation can be said to arise from acting like
a great power when in fact it is not.
--
Gord Deinstadt  gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP