ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 25, 2021

Attacking antifragility

It doesn't appear that the mainstream strategists have figured out an effective approach to attacking antifragile opponents, if this article in Military Strategy Magazine is any guide:

Antifragile adversaries may lose their potential if the strategic performance they face is inappropriate to their capabilities or if they lack the time to adapt. This does not just turn the antifragile adversaries into the resilient ones. The relationships between the specific characters of the adversary forms a triangle rather than a linear hierarchy. Therefore, one-time antifragility does not guarantee a safe landing in the resilient zone. Antifragile adversaries can be rendered fragile without becoming resilient ones. Strategists have several options to make this happen. These include sequential and cumulative strategies, as well as the strategy of annihilation, and the deliberate use of peace.

The first option includes rapidly executed sequential strategies to deny to the adversary the time to get stronger. The theory of victory here relies on a quick sequential campaign, by which the strategist robs the adversary of the time to improve the latter’s military capability. The adversary can counter this by refusing to engage at all, but then he deliberately robs himself of the opportunity to improve his military capabilities through strategic performance. Sequential strategy can, therefore, force the adversary out of his antifragile mode by either denying him the time to adapt or by rendering him unable to engage in the kind of strategic performance that would increase his military capability. The critical requirement for this approach is to have logistics effective enough to support the continual and relentless push into the adversary’s territory. However, this strategy contains a high risk of morphing into attrition. The sequential strategy can be interrupted in any moment by the adversary as well as by friction and chance inherent to strategic practice. Any serious interruption gives the adversary the time to grow stronger and increase the probabilities of turning the strategy into attrition. Still, the rapid sequential strategy may be useful when trying to achieve limited territorial objectives rather than a regime change. This is so because the pursuit of limited objectives contains fewer opportunities for interruption. The suitability of the strategy therefore varies widely with the political objectives of the strategist.

The second option is the strategy of decisive battle which seeks to annihilate the adversary’s force in one engagement. The theory of victory behind this approach resides in the delivery of the overwhelming challenge to the adversary. Such strategic performance destroys the adversary’s military capability and the associated chance to grow stronger. To pull this off, the strategist needs the cooperation of the adversary and sufficient military capabilities of his own. The adversary must accept the time and the place of the decisive battle. The strategist then needs to be able to defeat him. The adversary may decline the battle but by this he again robs himself of the opportunity to become stronger through strategic performance. On the other hand, the failure to annihilate substantial forces of the adversary during the battle may result in the struggle of attrition. The Spartans were often able to force Thebans to accept battle but they failed to annihilate the latter. Consequently, their hopes of annihilation turned into the practice of attrition which benefited the Thebans. Another problem is that contemporary strategic practice seldom allows strategists to annihilate large portion of the adversary’s military capabilities in one engagement. This has to do as much with the size of the armies as with the ways in which these are deployed. Strategists may be able to pull decisive battle off against unskilfully employed smaller-sized armed forces but it is unlikely to happen in wars between superpowers or even mediumly sized armies. The suitability of this strategy therefore varies with the relative size of the adversary’s armed forces and the way in which they are employed.

The third option is to use cumulative strategy of underwhelming attacks to exhaust the adversary. The theory of victory in this case resides in the continual attacks conducted below the level of the adversary’s current capabilities. This approach gives the adversary’s military capability no opportunity to grow, because the latter is already above the level of the attacks. In the ideal case, cumulative strategy of this sort applies violence unilaterally in order to avoid the interaction with the adversary altogether. Terrorist attacks or raids are ideal examples of this approach, but occasional battle may also work. The key difference between this strategy and the search for attrition is that the former purposefully limits the frequency and the intensity of the violent interaction while the latter does the opposite. This strategy is unlikely to destroy the adversary’s military capability. But, by denying the adversary the opportunity to grow stronger, the strategist may be able to exhaust the adversary. The strategy is most likely to succeed if the strategist pursues limited objectives and if the adversary does not value these objectives very much. There are considerable limitations to the effectives of this strategy. The strategist may be unable to do enough damage over time to exhaust the adversary. This may happen because of the intentional weakness of the attacks or because the adversary is able to recover from them. More importantly, even this strategy can turn into detrimental attempts to attrite. The confidence elicited by the successful conduct of repeated attacks may boost the strategist’s confidence as well as increase the effort he is willing to put up with. Once he feels strong enough, he may recklessly escalate his endeavour into the struggle where the search for attrition replaces the more modest aim of exhaustion. The suitability of this strategy then varies with the political objectives of the strategist, with his own capacity to exercise restraint and with the value the adversary ascribes to the objectives.

The last option is to use peace, that is to deliberately abstain from the use of violence. In this scenario, the theory of victory relies on the detrimental consequences of peace on the adversary ‘s military capabilities as well as on the supplemental use of non-violent instruments of power. In general, peace tends to have a negative impact on the cohesion of society as well as on military capabilities in particular. Conflict lines between different segments of society tends to grow and military forces face gradual capability degradation as a consequence of not facing appropriate challenges. Governments seldom prioritize the development of military capabilities to the extent this happens in war. To put it simply, in peace most people care about things other than war. The great demobilisations that followed the Napoleonic wars, the First World War, the Second World War and the 1990s are good examples of this tendency. Furthermore, some non-violent instruments of power tend to be stronger in peace than in the times of war. Propaganda, for example, is more effective in peace than during the war, because it amplifies the already present conflict lines within a society. During war, societies tends to get more homogenous and united when facing a common adversary, leaving little space for the exacerbation of conflict lines.

I will critique these four strategies in my next post on the subject. In the meantime, feel free to discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and guess which of the four I find to be a) so typical and b) amusingly wrong.

Labels:

96 Comments:

Blogger wahr01 February 25, 2021 10:12 AM  

Applying this to the realm of political dissidents, the "decisive battle" approach is guaranteed to win at the tactical level, but these actions are openly tyrannical to all but the most indoctrinated and virtually guaranteed to sacrifice legitimacy with the public.

For reference, see: the past 5 years of increasingly anemic justifications for increasingly abusive behavior by the cathedral.

The polling may be lying on this, but it's guaranteed to be understating what is going on. At least 70% of the nation understands they're being ruled by an illegitimate government, and a growing number of that 70% dislike the idea.

Blogger Yukichi Sensei February 25, 2021 10:12 AM  

1st is Hackworths Vietnam strat. Works on a local level, but one failure of a full plan or one delay is failure.

2nd is just the traditional soldiers wet dream, it is more difficult than even thos writer admits.

3rd is just become the terrorist, which makes the antifragile party have even more moral high ground.

4th means no conflict, so your adversity survives, which is a win. The negative effects of peace goes both ways as well.

Blogger Enskipp February 25, 2021 10:13 AM  

I will guess the first option = so typical, and the last option = amusingly wrong

Blogger Yukichi Sensei February 25, 2021 10:14 AM  

4th has the merit of the robot in War Games "The best way to win, is not to play" when talking of foreign bush wars.

Blogger OVB February 25, 2021 10:22 AM  

Decisive battle is by far the oldest strategy they list there. Very second generational warfare, if I’m not mistaken. Doesn’t seem to consider well that an anti fragile adversary gets a vote to engage or not, too, and will very often recover from a defeat and learn from it. I’m curious about the third option. It seems hard to image how the stronger side would be able to tell precisely what the level of attack would be to underwhelm an enemy. That just sounds like a situation that would play right into an anti fragile combatants hands. So, my money would be on options 1 or 4 being your best bet, though I tend to think that there is no strategy that tyrants can employ to defeat every enemy they create. God gets a vote too, and valor in the hearts of men is the most meaningful asset.

Blogger JohnAltGalt February 25, 2021 10:23 AM  

This is good stuff. Love it.

Blogger KirkTownzen February 25, 2021 10:25 AM  

I'd go with
Option#2 -> So typical
Option#3 -> Amusingly wrong

"This approach gives the adversary’s military capability no opportunity to grow" - does the author know what anti-fragility means?

Blogger Cappuccinobear February 25, 2021 10:31 AM  

Option 3 sounds pretty gamma and seems like it doesn't have any real foundation to stand on.

Option 2 doesn't sound right either, saying that forcing a decisive battle "to pull this off, the strategist needs the cooperation of the adversary," doesn't sound like a force that could reasonably expect to actually WIN a decisive battle.

Blogger English Tom February 25, 2021 10:51 AM  

"During war societies tend to get more homogenous and United when facing a common adversary."

It sure looked like this during the Vietnam era, also, wasn't there similar societal splits in Athens during the Peloponesian conflict?

And what happens when there is a cohort within your society that at least is sympathetic, if not downright helpful to the external enemy?

Blogger Iskander Magnus February 25, 2021 10:52 AM  

I’m seated comfortably waiting on a world class SDL tutorial.... this is going to be so useful.

Blogger ÆtherCzar February 25, 2021 10:53 AM  

My two cents:
1) Is worthless unless it morphs into (2)
2) (Annihilation) works but not if you don't have the will or capacity to carry through all the way.
3) Is amusingly wrong, because you're just providing free training and opportunities for the opponent to hone their skills.
4) Is also amusingly wrong, because you're assuming your opponent won't just attack anyway.

Blogger Phelps February 25, 2021 10:53 AM  

1) Word salad that comes down to "work faster, not smarter" and will fail for that reason.
2) Never works because someone always gets away -- and usually the most resilient.
3) Also known as "surrender"
4) Also known as "surrender"

Blogger Teleros February 25, 2021 10:58 AM  

The first strategy... kind of reminds me of the Schlieffen Plan and all that. Quickly knock France out of the war, and then cut Russia down to size. Sure, if you can pull it off then it should work, but that's a big if.

That second "strategy"... hmm. Now sure, I understand that if you (eg) kill everyone in Afghanistan there can't be anybody to oppose you any more, but (a) that's not a single decisive engagement* but a grinding war of attrition, and (b) nobody, least of all the USA, has the ability to actually accomplish this. It would cost too much in blood, treasure, and morale (both in the army and at home). As the most retarded option, I'm guessing this is the one that'll be seized upon by the DoD.

*Future WMD excepted... maybe.

The third... I see this as an attempt to fight the antifragile enemy on the moral level of war, so that's a good sign. However, given how low-level tribal warfare is historically the norm in, eg, much of the Middle East or Africa, I'm not sure you can count on this kind of thing to actually win. When haven't the locals been doing this kind of thing - and why should you doing it be any different?

The fourth looks to be best of the four displayed, assuming you have the time & resources to demoralise the enemy in this way (hi there, CCP). However, if you cannot afford to be at peace (eg the antifragile enemy is willing & able to attack you), or if you have substandard peaceful tools (eg how good as our propaganda been vs the Taliban)... well you're in an awkward spot.

Blogger Br'er Shaygetz February 25, 2021 11:04 AM  

Gotta be peace as it's always been such an effective option in the past.

Blogger Krymneth February 25, 2021 11:10 AM  

I'll put a marker down as #4 being typical and wrong, because 1. it is essentially the conservacuck's strategy of attaining "victory" by giving the enemy everything they want and then declaring that conflict is over and 2. under the 5th generation warfare model, there really isn't any such thing as "peace" any more, only cold war and hot war, and the author is using an outdated, prior-generation concept of "peace" that renders the entire analysis moot anyhow.

Also, the author is not a binary thinker, but they are thinking in cases rather than ranges of responses. For instance, at several points the author discusses whether the enemy chooses to engage or not, without seeming to consider that there are a range of options beyond and between. For instance, if big 3rd-gen army attempts the decisive battle option, an abstractly good option is to neither engage nor disengage, but engage just enough to make it appear that the decisive battle will occur, draining a lot of resources away, but not actually committing your forces. In a lot of the asymmetrical anti-fragile situations this work seems to be contemplating, this is going to kinda be the default anyhow; the last thing the fourth or fifth gen adversary is going to do is gather all their troops in one place for you to engage with them.

The 3rd option has a bizarre-to-me idea built into it that if you harass an antifragile enemy with attacks "too small" for them to somehow "learn" from that you'll somehow prevent them from becoming stronger as a result. I can't even fathom the mental model the author is using that produces that result. That is the ideal strategy to degrade the conventional fragile military, not degrade the anti-fragile 4th/5th-gen adversary.

Blogger FacelessBro February 25, 2021 11:12 AM  

To my untrained eye, the only one I see as viable is annihilation. The other three just seem like someone trying to be overly clever.

a) The peace strategy seems like the one that's typical.

b) Both the first and third strategies are stupid, in my opinion. Especially the third. The first strategy has some merit, but the risk you run should the antifragile opponent withstand the blows is way greater than the possible reward.

Very interested to hear everyone else's thoughts, though.

Blogger Nate73 February 25, 2021 11:22 AM  

The cumulative attack strategy is extremely frustrating to play against in online RTS because typically the game mechanics are built to gain the maximum advantage from direct combat and attrition warfare. So in games like starcraft there are ways to use highly mobile units to harass an enemy's mineral line while at the same time you setup strong static defenses that are difficult to overcome. So then it becomes a battle of patience: Are you willing to go the duration and play the long game in order to win, all the while enduring constant mosquito bites that wear down your operational capability? It's as much psychological as it is practical.

Blogger pyrrhus February 25, 2021 11:24 AM  

Really, it's odd that these people think an anti-fragile adversary would ever give decisive battle, since that is a very fragile strategy...Washington didn't, the Taliban didn't...But if your opponent is a traditional military idiot, like Lee, then he just might..Lee turned the pretty anti-fragile Southerners into regular cannon fodder.

Blogger ~brb February 25, 2021 11:37 AM  

> The second option is the strategy of decisive battle which seeks to annihilate the adversary’s force in one engagement.

Yeah, that worked out really well for the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 25, 2021 11:39 AM  

What would Creveld and Lind think of this?

Blogger Nate February 25, 2021 11:43 AM  

I dont know if this is how vox sees it but to me the peace option is deeply flawed. People who thrive on conflict go create conflict where none exists. Peace? There is no peace.

Blogger Nate February 25, 2021 11:44 AM  

To be honest all of these options look dumb. To defeat an antifragile opponent you must disable the systems that make them antifragile. None of these strategies address this issue.

Blogger idprism February 25, 2021 11:46 AM  

Looking forward to your critique, but they all seem a bit ridiculous to me.

(1) and (2) seem to rely on overwhelming the antifragile adversary with superior logistics, (3) terrorize into exhaustion, never destroying the antifragile adversary, (4) just roll over and let them win???

I'm no strategist, but it seems like none of these should be effective against an antifragile adversary with any modicum of resilience or morale.

Blogger 7916 February 25, 2021 11:48 AM  

#2 Typical, #4 Amusing. Projection of the US on others.

Also, to refute each one:

#1 Iraq & Afghanistan
#2 Iraq
#3 Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria
#4 Iraq, Afghanistan, Donbass

The projection of the US's experience with exacerbating societal "fault" lines, with confirmation bias coming from multi-ethnic territory like the former Yugoslavs, hutu/tutsi, and that Indonesian scuffle, is the funny point to me. Talk about not understanding your enemy at all...

Blogger FUBARwest February 25, 2021 11:53 AM  

Gonna bet 3 is the one Vox is referring to.

The first three read theoretically shakey to me and in practice have a lot of opportunities for mishaps. It's like the perspective it's written from makes it a square peg, round hole situation although I cannot pin point why. Looking forward to the breakdowns.

Blogger rumpole5 February 25, 2021 11:55 AM  

I don't see where guerilla warfare fits neatly in any of these points, yet the "fish swimming in the sea", as Mao put it, brought down our military in Vietnam even though we won all of the major battles. China has learned this lesson with its Muslim minority. It is reducing their culture to rubble with a view to make them entirely Han. If a people is not willing to do that, then they should best withdraw behind defendable natural borders, build a wall, or prepare to endure endless strife.

Blogger Warunicorn February 25, 2021 11:56 AM  

This part really got me (in referring to "fragile" adversaries):

"More modern examples include the Swedish king Charles XII during his war against Russians and the Confederacy during the American Civil War."

S.C. Gwynne, in his book, "Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson," argued that had Jackson not died, things might have turned out quite differently.

Blogger Fellow Traveler February 25, 2021 11:57 AM  

All predictions wrong or your money back.

Most typical? Option number one. Point and REEEE. Twitter examples abound with this tactic pointed at the day's chosen Goldstein.

Amusingly wrong - I'm going with Three. The strategy as described by the author sounds to me exactly like the very process of antifragility that Taleb describes in the book, regarding organisms/individuals growing stronger when stressors are applied, such that the damage caused is not sufficient to cause long term harm - like muscles tearing or men ingesting poisons in small doses to build immunity against larger ones. There is no opportunity to 'deny the adversary to grow stronger' because every engagement strengthens the position of the 'adversary.' I'm thinking of it off-hand in powerlifting terms here... while you will slowly grow stronger as weight goes up and form is good, the occasional de-loading with smaller weights provides respite while still applying small 'maintenance' amounts of stress to the bones and muscles - eventually your de-load weight will be the same place your were maxing out at a given point in the past. So what does a bunch of underwhelming attacks serve, other than giving an opponent free reps-and-sets and just being underwhelming?

My other idea on option 3, I recall a bit from Sun Tzu saying something along the lines of not necessarily relying on the confidence that an army will overcome its attacking enemy, but that their position has been fortified so much as to be unassailable by the adversary. Why the hell would a truly antifragile force do anything recklessly? Especially when they have received so many attacks that the likelihood of intellectual exhaustion, tactically and strategically, increases with every attack? Eventually you've seen it all and it's like a QB watching game film.

Blogger LES February 25, 2021 12:10 PM  

How did I$rael conquer the U$?

Blogger Brian D. Kennedy February 25, 2021 12:15 PM  

Retarded strategic word salad from The Planet Pentagon. How's that F-35 working out?

Blogger Nils February 25, 2021 12:24 PM  

How to win war any war by ME.
Step 1. Beat up the other guys till they do what you want.
Step 2. If they don't do what you want ensure total cell death of all members in offending party.
Step 3. ?
Step 4. Profit

Blogger Sigurd Jorsalfar February 25, 2021 12:27 PM  

a)Decisive victory. Every 2g-warfare generals wet dream.
b)Cumulative strategy of underwhelming attacks. isnt this literally how the vikings and the mongol's grew strong through constant intertribal skirmishing?

Blogger Pat V February 25, 2021 12:29 PM  


It’s natural that whiteness would be most vilified precisely because it’s most valuable in maintaining the modern world and western hegemony. One reason is sheer envy among non-whites, but the bigger reason is Jews rule the West, and Jewish supremacist power requires whites to serve Jews. White pride would mean whites serving their own identity and interests. Thus, Jews need to fill whites with guilt and shame. This way, whites can no longer serve white interests and must serve something higher, like ‘diversity’, but then, Jews manipulate ‘diversity’ to really mean whites must suck up to Jews. It’s bait-and-switch. Make whites denounce and reject ‘white supremacism’, paralyze them with guilt, and then make them seek redemption by serving something higher… which is usually Jews Uber Alles.

Jews and whites are like a man and horse. A man prizes the horse as a big strong animal that is very useful. But if the horse is free and proud, it will run free and not serve the man. So, the man must break the spirit of the horse so that the horse’s purpose of existence will be in serving man.

Blogger Balam February 25, 2021 12:48 PM  

#2 is typical, the US army loves to appear, blow things up and call it a day. In particular with hands off plane bombings. It doesn't work but it's the go-to engagement and lets politicians say they won the war despite the reality on the ground. It's also stupid because it's almost by definition that if you could engage in a battle of annihilation so readily the opponent wasn't antifragile to begin with.

#1 is amusingly wrong. The reaction speed OODA loop (ability to observe, orient, decide, act) is always going to be in the favor of the small antifragile opponent over a lumbering US military, particularly one that rejected Lind and Crevald in favor of filling the ranks with trannys and minorities. It's such a reversal of assumptions that, ''All we need to do is become incumbent rice farmers with the enemy choosing to be Boomer/Silent capitalists who didn't manage to dodge the draft and we'll win!" isn't too far removed from the author's description.

Lastly this line the author keeps saying is stupid:
''The adversary can counter this by refusing to engage at all, but then he deliberately robs himself of the opportunity to improve his military capabilities through strategic performance.''

I think the author knows it's bullshit too since it's the glue that unites all of his 'strategies' together. The enemy will somehow be attracted to your big killing fields like a moth to the flame, ''because...they just will ok??"

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 25, 2021 12:55 PM  

Teleros wrote:However, given how low-level tribal warfare is historically the norm in, eg, much of the Middle East or Africa, I'm not sure you can count on this kind of thing to actually win. When haven't the locals been doing this kind of thing - and why should you doing it be any different?
``Underwhelmng attacks'' are how traditional societies trained their young men. I can see how this might REALLY strengthen an anti-fragile enemy. He gets some live fire training for his cubs, he gets the morale boost from repeated victories, he gets the moral high ground because you keep attacking him, he learns how you fight, and he takes no damage to speak of.

Blogger Greg February 25, 2021 12:58 PM  

I'm not a military strategy guy, so I'm trying to read thi as more broadly applicable, as to politics, for example, so decisive battle is basically civilized war. It's the election of a representative, it's agreeing to be bound by arbitration, if your champion beats my champion then we concede to your demands.
When I read the post yesterday, I thought it meant utter annihilation, slaughter, nuking the middle east into a glass parking lot, but that is not what it says in the text quoted above.

Blogger Greg February 25, 2021 1:15 PM  

Right. The author is using the model of exercise to build muscle. He thinks harassing attacks don't build military muscle. Should we suppose his analogy is that perfect?

Blogger JohnAltGalt February 25, 2021 1:17 PM  

Nate wrote:To be honest all of these options look dumb. To defeat an antifragile opponent you must disable the systems that make them antifragile. None of these strategies address this issue.

Nailed it. Too good for them to publicly disclose? MK Ultra level.

Blogger SciVo February 25, 2021 1:21 PM  

In the meantime, feel free to discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and guess which of the four I find to be a) so typical and b) amusingly wrong.

Depends on "typical of whom?"

1 & 2: "Hurr durr, we just do the same kind of things as always! I is genious."

3: "Hurr durr, if we play to lose, then when we lose, we will really win! I is secret keng."

4: "Hurr durr, if we don't play at all, then we'll win and they won't even know it! I is secretest of all kengs."

So 1 & 2 are typical of conventional strategists, while 3 & 4 are typical of gammas.

Blogger AsunderBear February 25, 2021 1:22 PM  

Is this the military equivalent of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks?

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 25, 2021 1:23 PM  

Keep in mind this topic is not strictly military engagement.
They could just as well be talking about political parties, cultures, etc.

The antifragility most at hand right now is how deplatforming is failing to silence dissent but rather decentralizing it and spreading it wider.

Blogger xevious2030 February 25, 2021 1:33 PM  

The first is Vietnam.
The second is the battle of Tora Bora.
The third is the intifada.
The fourth is the Rio Grande.

None of them takes into account what actually feeds the antifragility. They’re all smart boy strategies that focus on in the head on what “I” will do that will outperform or circumvent the antifragility, rather than what is encountered that makes it antifragile, and how to deny it the fuel. When the solution is to “stop being the way I am.” Such as Americans dropping the Civic Nationalism nonsense that has them paralyzing themselves. Or, in my opinion, organizations such as Patereon changing their attitudes to their customers and not engaging in the behavior that feeds the fires against them all at once.

In antifragility, “the enemy provides me with my weapons.” So stop providing.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 25, 2021 1:43 PM  

rumpole5 wrote:... yet the "fish swimming in the sea", as Mao put it, brought down our military in Vietnam even though we won all of the major battles.
The US military was resilient; it could replace material losses. We were never anti-fragile, could never learn from mistakes, didn't get more recruits after a battle. Eventually the enemy propaganda wore down our morale, even though materially we were still doing fine. Our morale was fragile, probably because it was never our war.

Blogger Oswald February 25, 2021 1:48 PM  

I am going to guess that #2 is both typical and wrong. Planning for a decisive battle should really be the last resort. Peace is always an option, particularly when you are losing or have lost the initiative. I like to think of peace as a pause in the action.

Blogger ASH February 25, 2021 1:54 PM  

I'll address these strategies as an anology to weightlifting

1) Yes. If you workout too often with too much intensity and not enough rest. Your muscles wont grow. This strat makes sense.

2) Yes, if you tell a noob to bench 500 pounds they'll kill themselves. But this strat never happens. The West's virtue of accounting for collateral damage results in us never dropping nukes on a weakenem y. And if the enemy also has nukes then this strategy wont work.

3) I dont get this one at all. Doing only 5 reps of various body weight movements wont break the body enough to make it adapt and grow. But it also wont destroy the body. This is like the strategy of the ankle bitters. Just shoo them away.

4) did Trudeau write this paper?

Blogger Estelle Evangeline February 25, 2021 2:03 PM  

I am most likely wrong, just because I am never right :)

However, I would think that option #3 (i.e., cumulative strategy of underwhelming attacks ) is likely the "amuzingly wrong" strategy, because...well, by definition, antifragile opponents grow under attack, so you are literally just giving them extra practice runs, for nothing. On top of that, every time you attack you give extra information about yourself to the enemy, and it's not worth it. You are just giving your enemy practice runs AND info about yourself, while demoralizing yourself and those on your side in the process, while boosting the morale of your enemy. It is amuzingly stupid from my point of view, but I don't know if this was the one that Vox was thinking about.

Given the title of his book, "SJWs always double down," I would guess Vox would think option #2 (i.e., the decisive battle) is very typical, at least when it comes to SJWs? I mean, this is their standard way of thinking, I think. They are tacticians. "Strategy requires imagination" (this is what one of Vox's characters said in one of his fiction books). It would be a typical strategy for SJWs.

However, there are some problems with option #2. The problem is that the antifragile adversary is, in some way, a mystery, and it is hard to plan your attack in such a way as to annihilate him completely. It may be possible to annihilate the enemy...but I would say it is very rare. It would take a lot of planning. It may work when dealing with a single person as the "enemy" but when it comes to the culture war... destroying one person, in an obvious callous manner, will result in considerable backlash from the other side. In addition, this strategy puts the adversary in a situation where he has nothing to lose by fighting. And, therefore, the enemy will fight even harder.

THE ONLY way, that I can think of, to beat an antifragile adversary...is to fake peace, use very high levels of subversions, and attack the antifragile adversary as a "thief in the night." I think this would work. The adversary needs to be weakened first, made to not want to fight, cut them off from community. And the attack needs to be fast and surprising so that the antifragile opponent doesn't have time to react. I am thinking of how bad women "subvert" strong, antifragile men. Just...lots of subversion, weakening over time, make him not want to fight, create a personality of self-sabotage within the antifragile opponent, and...then strike at the most surprising moment, because you only get one chance.

Therefore...this is my answer. I expect to be wrong...

Blogger Nostromo February 25, 2021 2:13 PM  

The Drew Carey Doctrine: I'm old and out of shape, so I'm gonna have to kill you quick.

Blogger Chris February 25, 2021 2:28 PM  

Where in these scenarios is the "we are at peace, but sending you lots of fentanyl illegally" strategy?

The 3 active strategies assume the use of firearms, and the Peace one doesn't mention the use of active attacks purely on morale and fitness.

Nor attacks on the stock market via scams, nor attacks on the economy via price wars. A rather restricted view of warfare.

Blogger Mike E February 25, 2021 3:01 PM  

If fragility and antifragility represent an objective differential, then
one who views the antifragile as an adversary must be fragile.

Blogger Will February 25, 2021 3:02 PM  

1, 2, and 3 are all laughably bad. In current U.S. military doctrine, #1 is how you get to #2.

#4 works if you attack on in other areas, like finance, commerce, education. Like the Chinese are doing to the U.S. right now.

Blogger OldFan February 25, 2021 3:10 PM  

Altogether too much "if we do this then they MUST do that" thinking for my taste. The list of battles that turned out exactly like as either general thought they would is a small one. This also smacks of “pure warfare” that Clausewitz warned against - it is never that cut and dried.
That being said, the first strategy is the classic “quality vs quantity” campaign (France 1940) that is decisive precisely because the larger force is so thoroughly surprised by the capability of the smaller one. But see how often that has been pulled off. Oh, the coffee tables battle books are full of such battles, but you have to look at the full scope of military history - they are rare events indeed.
The second strategy is also a classic, but “bringing the enemy to the decisive battle” has proven far harder than “winning the decisive battle,” especially in the more resource-intensive Industrial Age. In addition you might think it is “decisive”, but what does the enemy think? Oddly enough, the smaller, more expensive, less replaceable military establishments of the Modern Era may prove more susceptible to this strategy than the huge militaries of the 20th century.
The third strategy is correctly, if turgidly, stated, but fails to mention the low success rate of guerilla wars and terrorists throughout history - especially against more ruthless opponents. It also requires a degree of precision in scaling operations that really is not attainable. Most armies do not know themselves, much less the enemy [obligatory Sun Tzu reference}.
The last strategy makes a HUGE assumption: the war stops when you call it off. This position is utterly incomprehensible, especially in light of viewing conflict as never-ending with varying intensities and varying types [political, moral, economic, kinetic].

Blogger Musashi February 25, 2021 3:12 PM  

The third option.
We've been doing that for decades with nothing to show for it.

Blogger JovianStorm February 25, 2021 3:32 PM  

All of these scenarios are flawed cases; they assume that the antifragile opponent is turtling and not playing an attack - based strategy.

Oddly enough, antifragility doesn't come from attack or defense but rather never having to attack or defend. On a personal level, being antifragile means not relying on credit, utility services , social media, government or fiat currency. It's an ideal state that you never truly reach but approach asymptotically.

Blogger pyrrhus February 25, 2021 3:43 PM  

The anti-fragile forces may also, as in Vietnam, be acquiring substantial amounts of weapons and material from your forces through theft, battlefield pickups, and bribery...The US did little to stop this process in Vietnam..Though, amusingly, a lot of that American equipment was used when the NVA repelled the Chinese invasion later on...

Blogger Hoodlum February 25, 2021 3:46 PM  

The first (blitz) option may be possible in some circumstances. You have to be much faster at adapting (more antifragile) than opponent.

Seccond option (shock, awe, destruction) is possible but requires an astounding amount of resources and force. Japan WWII comes to mind, though I don't know that I'd define them as antifragile to begin with.

Third option - stupid.

Fourth option - smooth brain, smart like rock, stupid. Afghanistan/Iraq. USSR Afghanistan

I tend to agree with Nate that trying to disrupt the features that make the opponent antifragile may be the highest yield option. Comms.Supply chain. Mobility.

Blogger WarrenyBear February 25, 2021 4:21 PM  

I know nothing about this stuff but I figure Vox would view the annihilation strategy as typical as well as the rapid sequential 80's style video game attacks. The peace strategy is just wrong and peace does not 'stand for every other situation' devoid of violence. I am thinking of a strategy of concurrent attacks of varying force with communication channels between them. Like Ali in boxing or the Diaz brothers in MMA using pitty-pat punches, intertwined with power shots when the opening is timed in real time. Is this a valid strategy in this vein or would my head soon be on a stick?

Blogger DrivingDissent February 25, 2021 4:32 PM  

What of the commerce, colonial,trade wars of major powers in the 17th and 18th centuries? Between peaks of major hostilities low intensity peripheral and proxy conflicts where the norm..

Low intensity sparring conflicts where the competing powers might be described as resilient anti fragile..Either side could recoup losses rapidly becouse the stakes being wagerd where realitivly small compared to the potential power the nation's could bring to bare if they willed so.
Anyhow I suspect we are in a similar period of history..

Blogger Beery Swine February 25, 2021 4:43 PM  

Seems like globohomo won via many long decades of peace followed by sequential strategies.
I still don't know if they'll win in the long run, but they've certainly won against the vast majority.

Blogger ZhukovG February 25, 2021 5:04 PM  

IMO, selection of a strategy depends on ones strengths and weaknesses vs. those of the enemy.

The Russian Federation seems to have selected strategy #4, for dealing with the USA. This should work well for them as they have the advantage of a largely homogeneous society where the ethnic Russian population dominates their territory. If they can avoid direct conflict with us, we will gradually tear ourselves apart.

Should the United States reform under a Christian Nationalist government, it still would likely work well for Russia, since a Christian Nationalist United States would likely be friendly towards them.

Blogger megabar February 25, 2021 5:38 PM  

I have no military experience, so I can't comment on the soundness of the assumptions of this article. Most of it looks pretty reasonable to me, purely from a logical standpoint.

#1 and #2 are pretty similar, in that both exploit the fact that even antifragility has limits. If you exceed to the ability of the enemy to recover/grow over a period of time, you win. A reasonable strategy, even if of course it's easier said than done.

#3 is, by admission, limited in effect, with all the drawbacks and risks that entails. But I see no obvious falsehood, again assuming the assumptions of the article are valid.

#4 relies on the fact that peace can be chosen. But violence can be imposed unilaterally, so peace is never a valid complete strategy. It might be valid to present enough force such that peace is desired by your opponent, but an antifragile enemy would need to fear #1 or #2 to accept this.

I'll also add that I think utopian positions have advantages in the peace state -- they appeal to decent people on a moral level that traditional arguments don't. Which is probably why conflict appears to be needed every so often.

Applied to the current US, I'd love for peace to be offered, which would be a separation of societies. But I don't think it will be offered unless the globalists fear annihilation otherwise, so it's not a complete strategy.

Blogger Unknown February 25, 2021 5:44 PM  

@34
"The reaction speed OODA loop (ability to observe, orient, decide, act) is always going to be in the favor of the small antifragile opponent over a lumbering US military, particularly one that rejected Lind and Crevald..."

Not true as long as the US military can keep commanders from organizing and gaining experience from battle to battle. You see this mindset in leftists panicking over any kind of organization run by anyone not controlled by the globalist program.

A distributed organization like Gamergate is resilient/antifragile, but its decentralized nature makes for a long OODA loop turnaround.

"Lastly this line the author keeps saying is stupid:
'The adversary can counter this by refusing to engage at all, but then he deliberately robs himself of the opportunity to improve his military capabilities through strategic performance.'

I think the author knows it's bullshit too since it's the glue that unites all of his 'strategies' together. The enemy will somehow be attracted to your big killing fields like a moth to the flame, 'because...they just will ok??'"

This is how the Return of Kings website was shut down.
1. Cut off payment processors - countermove is to move to cryptocurrency
2. DDOS - countermove is cloudflare, which costs money
3. Coordinated Media lie, defaming masculine tribe meetups as "rape rallies" - countermove is to remove coordination from the Return of Kings website to the Roosh V forums
4. Continued defamation tightens the noose so the site can no longer pay its contributors. - The only countermove here is to abandon the Return of Kings format and rely on forums.

The red pill community is one that has repeatedly displayed antifragility, but this loss was due to the globalists sticking to their playbook and hitting hard, repeatedly, below the belt. It should be noted that our host here has accounted for each one of the vulnerabilities above.

Whether it be military, or cultural, the one thing the globalists can't stand is for us to organize groups for defense. The more organic those groups, the better, that means individual contact is a priority.

Blogger ChewbacaTW February 25, 2021 6:35 PM  

They all have their issues but #4 (peace) seems to be both so typical and amusingly wrong, because it assumes:
a) the adversary won't realize you are an adversary
b) will sit still and let you have your way with them as long as it's "non-violent"

Blogger NegrosBear February 25, 2021 6:37 PM  

I believe the best 2 options for an AF opponent are unrestricted warfare either WW2 style firebomb all the cities poison the wells and salt the earth, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, and kill. Then call the wasteland peace.

Or Zog/Chicom style, where you infiltrate and subvert the institutions. Demoralize them by flooding them with cheap drugs, free porn and easy debt. Promote usury, open borders and feminism etc.


Of the 2 the 2nd is the most cost effective.

Blogger Daniel February 25, 2021 7:08 PM  

The axiom is wrong, for starters:

"Antifragile adversaries may lose their potential if the strategic performance they face is inappropriate to their capabilities or if they lack the time to adapt."

This is not a description of antifragile adversary, who, by definition will get stronger under more adverse timeframes and thrive under asymmetric capabilities.

Redditors had zero time to adapt to the Stonk shennanigans by Wall Street government foes. This factor made them more strong and able to cause more damage to the enemy, despite having "overmatched" professional finance resources. Antifragile enemies have toxins in the blood. When you kill them, it sprays on you.

Sequential strategies (Option 1) are suicidal. It is basically handing your antifragile a gaming chair inside a bunker so they can just camp inside your OODA loop, increasingly growing more powerful as you scramble to your next "adaptation" that will only strengthen their forces. Screw up the Stonk market as much as you like to hurt them: screwed up markets are your enemies' objectives, moron. Nice own-goal strat ya got there chief.

Option 2 is pure fantasyland. Antifragile forces strengthen when they avoid your tabletop-perfect armageddon of your choosing. They also strengthen when you mob in to the minefield with 10 kajillion tanks to genocide their wives and kids. Whoa whoa whoa, nice shootin' Tex.

Option 3 is retarded. Tossing a quarterly suicide bomber against the IRA is only slightly stupider than just shipping them arms directly. The IRA screwed up when they assassinated Lord Mountbatten, and they knew it. Thinking that punching an antifragile org, but only lightly and infrequently is going to do anything but build up callouses against you takes a lower than average IQ.

Option 4 should not be a last option, but it should be noted that reluctantly using peace can be a test of antifragility as well. As long as you are thinking "How can I weaken this antifragile org?" You are in the wrong headspace. Instead, "How can their antifragility be used to benefit my org?" is the much better approach.

So, if a group is strengthened when you hit them, strengthened when you tap them, strengthened when you work around them, what happens when you work with them, or when you benefit from their strength?

Then, and finally then, are you are beginning to know the enemy...and yourself.

Blogger John Rockwell February 25, 2021 7:11 PM  

Perhaps Romans fought relatively Anti-fragile adversaries in Spain and lessons can be learnt there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula

It took centuries to accomplish the conquest.

Blogger Daniel February 25, 2021 7:15 PM  

If fragility and antifragility represent an objective differential, then
one who views the antifragile as an adversary must be fragile.


This is incorrect. One who views the antifragile as an adversary could be resilient, strong and inflexible. Antifragile orgs can fairly quickly smash fragile ones (Iranian Revolution), but they tend to get much stronger when attacked by a resilient opponent who demonstrates the above laughably bad understanding of antifragility.

Blogger John Rockwell February 25, 2021 7:22 PM  

Balam wrote:#2 is typical, the US army loves to appear, blow things up and call it a day. In particular with hands off plane bombings. It doesn't work but it's the go-to engagement and lets politicians say they won the war despite the reality on the ground. It's also stupid because it's almost by definition that if you could engage in a battle of annihilation so readily the opponent wasn't antifragile to begin with.

#1 is amusingly wrong. The reaction speed OODA loop (ability to observe, orient, decide, act) is always going to be in the favor of the small antifragile opponent over a lumbering US military, particularly one that rejected Lind and Crevald in favor of filling the ranks with trannys and minorities. It's such a reversal of assumptions that, ''All we need to do is become incumbent rice farmers with the enemy choosing to be Boomer/Silent capitalists who didn't manage to dodge the draft and we'll win!" isn't too far removed from the author's description.



The solution then is the break down the units into smaller more flexible units whilst remaining unified in purpose and ultimate command.

Likewise with the employment of Scrum:
https://www.dummies.com/careers/project-management/scrum-and-the-military-and-law-enforcement/

To match and surpass the OODA loops of the adversary. It involves devolving more of the decision making process all down the chain.

And giving all levels more leeway by the decentralization of the decision making process whilst all sharing the same mission.

Blogger wahr01 February 25, 2021 7:24 PM  

@61

"Cut off payment processors" Is done via deliberately false entry into the MATCH database by some bureaucrat hidden so deeply you'll have to sue for years to find her.

There are plenty of processors who will work with people not in MATCH, but they cost more. Anyone dedicated to their cause will have no problem with this. Porn sites are pretty much automatically screwed out of prime processing rates by MATCH, as are many gun brokers. They're still able to receive payment. Find out who does their processing and use them.

ROK's failure to do this shows they've been phoning it in for years.

Blogger Skyler the Weird February 25, 2021 7:55 PM  

Looks like Biden is bombing Syria to make the world safe for CIA backed ISIS cells.

Blogger A. Castelló February 25, 2021 8:12 PM  

If we extrapolate Lynd's writting on 4GW, and Van Creveld's on morale; the typical and ineffectual US military seems to have been #3, underwhelming the opponent in a never-ending conflict.

Blogger drsmith48167 February 25, 2021 8:20 PM  

Option 4 peace, cause it automatically means you ceed ground because you don’t fight decisive battles to support what you believe In....in other words death by a thousand cuts.

Blogger Mikko February 25, 2021 8:34 PM  

I am not a military strategist but I discussed option three with a friend today.

Certain personality type (or people with certain disorder) seem to apply the strategy three often in certain contexts.

For example, they might just try to exhaust you with constant battery of lies, and it may be very effective.


When a "neutral" third party is following the discussion, for example in arbitration, the neutral third party will just default to thinking "no smoke without fire", and when everything this liar says is a lie, you will look argumentative if you argue each of their lies, but if you don't, they will be able to establish a narrative which is not reality-based but benefits them.

The arbitrators are typically not very capable of imagining somebody would be so crazy to lie about everything.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 25, 2021 9:03 PM  

ChewbacaTW wrote:They all have their issues but #4 (peace) seems to be both so typical and amusingly wrong, because it assumes:
a) the adversary won't realize you are an adversary
b) will sit still and let you have your way with them as long as it's "non-violent"

It worked pretty well against us for the Chinks - they're in the White House now.

Blogger allyn71 February 25, 2021 9:11 PM  

So the strategist decided to regurgitate all the strategies they've tried in Iraq? So this is four ways to lose I guess.

Blogger Uncompliant February 25, 2021 9:26 PM  

To evaluate Number 4, we need the remainder of the paragraph. I have broken it up a bit.

"However, this option [peace] is hard to sustain and its effectiveness varies widely. It is not easy to keep the adversary at peace, because any attempt to do so forcibly is likely to ignite war.

Besides, the strategist has limited capacity to prevent the adversary from engaging in war with other actors.

Additionally, not every peace has the same effects on all the actors. Some adversaries may understand peace to only constitute a preparation for war. Prussia after the Napoleonic wars, Germany in the interwar period as well as the US and the Soviet Union after the WWII all maintained strong military capabilities or considerably improved the existing ones. Arguably, these developments were of lesser quality than if they were stimulated by regular violent interactions with the adversary. Nonetheless, they still provided these actors with capable military instruments while their potential adversaries got weaker (except in the US vs USSR relationship).

The effects of this option can therefore easily backfire if the adversary focuses substantial attention to the preparation for war. Above all, the suitability of this approach depends on the adversary’s own understanding of the peace at hand."

Blogger RonG February 25, 2021 9:37 PM  

What was the sf story where a character says that the point of strategy was not to find the path to victory, but to make sure that ALL paths lead to victory?

Blogger Revelation Means Hope February 25, 2021 9:38 PM  

Regarding #4, refer to the prophet Balaam's advice to defeat Israel. It worked.

Or look at ANY strong nation and see what any time of peace and prosperity does to their willingness and ability to fight if it lasts at least one generation.

Or ask any Churchian how many members of their God club would stick around if their church lost 401 3c status or if their Pastor was arrested.

Peace historically has the best track record for degrading military capability.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope February 25, 2021 10:10 PM  

Another example of #4 in recent history, the Western Front with France in 1939 while Germany mopped up in Poland.

Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg wouldn't agree to cooperate with Britain and France.
France pulled back after an easy invasion of Germzny, relying on their anti fragile Maginot line.

Blogger Uncompliant February 25, 2021 10:19 PM  

As others have pointed out, there is at least one major logical problem with this analysis. The author says repeatedly that an antifragile opponent is antifragile because military engagement allows the opponent to "improve his military capabilities through strategic performance."

But, that is not the only way to improve strategic performance. Indeed, strategic performance is best enhanced by obtaining the best weapons available for the time (including logistics, tactics, etc.) So, the peace option might just allow the opponent time to upgrade. Arguably, the author is conflating "learning better fighting tactics" with "getting better weapons."

I would pick number 4 (the peace option) as the amusing one (but i suppose it is typical too -- the myopic assumption that your opponent is just like you and that he values what you value). As the author describes it, the peace option seems to a world of democracies, liberalism, global markets, etc. The author seems to think the world is full of the kind of people that live in the West. For example, what are these "non-violent instruments of power" he mentions? He mentions propaganda. But how effective is Western propaganda on people that don't live in the West? He also has this line: "in peace most people care about things other than war." I am not so sure about that. Seems very naive. If your opponent does not care about democracy, liberalism or markets, the peace option is appeasement.

But the peace option might be a good strategy if the war is only "on pause" while you prepare to re-engage for annihilation.

In any event, I think Nate has it right: "To defeat an antifragile opponent you must disable the systems that make them antifragile."

So, what makes an opponent antifragile? A couple of things. One, I think it is the inability (for various reasons) or the unwillingness (for various reasons) to take and permanently control territory, particularly territory that contains/produces relevant resources. This is our problem in Afghanistan and the middle east. This is Israel's problem with the anti-fragile Palestinians. This is NOT Russia's problem with Ukraine or a problem that China has.

Two, I think antifragility depends on an opponent being unwilling or unable to extinguish a given way of thinking either by extermination (in various ways) or by compelling or co-opting a change in thought/culture. Again, this seems a problem that is particular to the modern West. The Catholics did not have this problem. China does not have this problem. Russia is solving this problem by demographic extermination.

Blogger SciVo February 25, 2021 10:25 PM  

@John Rockwell:
To match and surpass the OODA loops of the adversary. It involves devolving more of the decision making process all down the chain.

And giving all levels more leeway by the decentralization of the decision making process whilst all sharing the same mission.


Yes, and so Julian Assange's explicit goal was to damage Leviathan's internal trust to the point that it wouldn't be able to do that. Welcome to 15 years ago!

Blogger doctrev February 25, 2021 10:59 PM  

The whole article from beginning to end is asinine. Every worthwhile army, from the tribes following Arminius to Army Group North, should become experienced through fighting. Units that break down and can't improve their skills over time (fragile) are worth as much as a porcelain cannon. Resilience is good, but improving through combat is better.

The writer is too lazy to realize that point 2 was idealized by the Tet Offensive as the VC committed the bulk of their forces to a disastrously wrong-headed goal, and were defeated piecemeal. Yet the American public believed themselves the losers, proving that communists had 5G warfare down before 4GW was talked about. Point 3 speaks of "raids," but actually covers the futility of dropping bombs to "exhaust" popular revolts. It's so stupid that I assume that was what VD found amusing.

Blogger Daniel February 25, 2021 11:06 PM  

Here is something the OODA fetishists miss - antifragile orgs dont have OODA loops. They can get inside yours, like a virus, but you cant get inside theirs. Think of antifragile does as caltrops: the harder you stomp, the more it hurts you.

Blogger Noah B. February 26, 2021 12:24 AM  

The author views the adversary in his scenarios as being strictly reactive rather than proactive and following its own strategy. An adversary not fully challenged by the attacks made against it can always choose to initiate offensives, perhaps robbing and pillaging to help it grow stronger. For a somewhat modern example of this, see Paul von Lettow's handling of the East Africa campaign in WW1. So the third strategy presented - the intentional waging of very limited attacks - is absurd.

But the worst part is the second paragraph of the conclusion rejecting the consideration of a continuum of conflict between war and peace, axiomatically rejecting Sun Tzu's conclusion that the supreme art of war is subduing the enemy without fighting. Refusing to consider non-violent methods of subduing an adversary (other than by letting peace slowly take its toll) imposes unnecessary limitations on available strategic options and is a massive, amateurish blunder.

Blogger John Rockwell February 26, 2021 1:44 AM  

SciVo wrote:@John Rockwell:

To match and surpass the OODA loops of the adversary. It involves devolving more of the decision making process all down the chain.

And giving all levels more leeway by the decentralization of the decision making process whilst all sharing the same mission.


Yes, and so Julian Assange's explicit goal was to damage Leviathan's internal trust to the point that it wouldn't be able to do that. Welcome to 15 years ago!


Well it looks like Leviathan got screwed permanently.

Blogger John Rockwell February 26, 2021 1:46 AM  

Uncompliant wrote:

So, what makes an opponent antifragile? A couple of things. One, I think it is the inability (for various reasons) or the unwillingness (for various reasons) to take and permanently control territory, particularly territory that contains/produces relevant resources. This is our problem in Afghanistan and the middle east. This is Israel's problem with the anti-fragile Palestinians. This is NOT Russia's problem with Ukraine or a problem that China has.

Two, I think antifragility depends on an opponent being unwilling or unable to extinguish a given way of thinking either by extermination (in various ways) or by compelling or co-opting a change in thought/culture. Again, this seems a problem that is particular to the modern West. The Catholics did not have this problem. China does not have this problem. Russia is solving this problem by demographic extermination.


Spain at one point had its Y-Chromosomes entirely replaced. One can guess at what happened to the Males of that region.

Blogger Tomato bear February 26, 2021 2:22 AM  

4th is typical and 1st is amusingly wrong.

Thanks VD

Blogger Adam P February 26, 2021 2:46 AM  

"During war societies tend to get more homogenous and United when facing a common adversary."

Well, this guy has obviously never played Civ 3.

Blogger Noah B. February 26, 2021 3:29 AM  

For example, what are these "non-violent instruments of power" he mentions?

At least he did mention this in passing but it deserves much more attention. Non-violent instruments of power would include tactics like bribing certain of your adversary's most influential members; enslaving large portions of your own population so that you can undercut your adversary's manufacturing economy while expanding your own; currency manipulation; selling your enemy huge quantities of highly toxic recreational drugs; destroying your enemy's economy under the guise of a pandemic; or giving away free subscriptions to Disney Plus.

Insidious attacks are arguably even more serious than direct military attacks and recognizing this is one of the central problems facing the West.

Blogger ChewbacaTW February 26, 2021 4:28 AM  

I don't hear no fat lady singing... Besides, the US is NOT an anti fragile adversary.

Blogger Unknown February 26, 2021 5:41 AM  

In Michigan, the nazi dyke attorney general brought a literal raft of charges against a gymnastics coach for being the friend of a pedo doctor.

The charges were brought to distract from the governor dropping the cases against all the Michigan State University democratically connected administrators, stating the investigations were all attorney client privileged.

Oddly enough, the coach was found dead and instantly declared a suicide. And redeclared, and declared again this morning in a full media blitz.

A whole lot of declaring and redeclaring.

It is obvious it is a lie, it is obvious why the charges were brought, and piled on. What is not obvious to me, is where the democratic power structure is fragile in all this. What is the weak point (s)?

Blogger Cappuccinobear February 26, 2021 6:06 AM  

Yes, but civ 3 also has nuclear war cause global warming.

Blogger wreckage February 26, 2021 6:39 AM  

I would say option 3 is logically false. If repeated engagement weakens the opponent, the opponent was not antifragile, merely resilient. Repeated underwhelming attack is identical to repeated failed attack. This strategy will strengthen an antifragile opponent.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 26, 2021 10:07 AM  

Revelation Means Hope wrote:France ... relying on their anti fragile Maginot line.
You believe the Maginot Line was anti fragile? Or perhaps made France anti fragile? Please explain?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 26, 2021 10:12 AM  

Uncompliant wrote:One, I think it is the inability (for various reasons) or the unwillingness (for various reasons) to take and permanently control territory, particularly territory that contains/produces relevant resources.
If we had colonized Afghanistan - kicked out the local tribes and replaced them with small farmers from a different nation - Afghanistan would no longer be Afghanistan, and we would have won that war. Afghanistan would have been a great place to insert some Tutsis or Hutus, or what ever tribe in Africa was facing genocide that year.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 26, 2021 10:14 AM  

Unknown wrote:What is not obvious to me, is where the democratic power structure is fragile in all this. What is the weak point (s)?
Their strength is Western Civ's weakness: their enemy is law abiding, and they have hijacked the law. When their enemy stops being law abiding, they will have no more power.

Blogger DudeThatLovesProverbs February 26, 2021 11:08 PM  

I think I'm going to guess number 3 is wrong

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts