Comments on: Political Science 101: War’s Inefficiency Puzzle (Part 2)

By: JimBobJenkins

JimBobJenkins — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:14:13 +0000

It is a mistake to …
It is a mistake to believe terrorists do not think strategically, and thinking that will result in correspondingly bad policy. There is a large amount of literature on the subject, but I recommend “Rational Extremism” by David Lake as a start. It was published in 2002 (and therefore written long before then), but it is amazingly predictive given what we know now about the Iraqi war.

By: JimBobJenkins

JimBobJenkins — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:14:13 +0000

I think you’ve …
I think you’ve missed the point–both sides are better off NOT fighting. A better question may be why states do not “sit in rooms and discuss problems” when doing so is superior.

Now, (ignoring commitment problems for the moment) it is possible for war to be better than peace but only when your opponent offers you less than war pays. But, again, your opponent has a rational self-interest to offer YOU more. So why don’t they do just that?

By: simpleglory1

simpleglory1 — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:14:13 +0000

2) Sometimes …
2) Sometimes science and mathematics don’t apply to jihad-implementing terrorists who would much rather blow up a couple buildings.

By: simpleglory1

simpleglory1 — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:14:13 +0000

1) This video is …
1) This video is never going to stop war. It is a facet of human existence, and the inevitable truth is: not everyone will be able to sit down in a room and discuss problems and solve them like that. Thinking that diplomacy and shaking hands would be able to solve all problems is just a load of b.s. liberal idealism. Sometimes things have to be dirty.

Stick to the Magic videos, they’re more entertaining.