SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A mathematical model that looked at the sudden collapse of empires or states was created, with an intent to look at why social disorder can appear from an apparently stable state (an example cited is the Arab Spring in 2011). Factions within a state make choices described by game-theory about whether to accept the political status quo, or to attempt to better their circumstances through costly rebellion.
We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality. Contrary to intuition, a state is predicted to be least stable when its leadership is at the height of its political power and thus most able to exert its influence through external warfare, lavish expense or autocratic decree.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by githaron on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:30PM
At least until the "The Military" is comprised almost completely of robots that take commands directly from the monarch, dictator, president, etc. At that point, the only way the people win is if the leader has a heart attack or they find some bug to exploit in the robots' software.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:50PM
Carried to its extreme, the leader is only safe when imprisoned in a cell in a bunker.
And once he's imprisoned he's a fixed high value target (whoops, sucks to be him) or his underlings can rebel by feeding him a stream of pure refined BS, at which point as long as the cognitive dissonance holds everyone not locked up in the bunker is free.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:29PM
That reminds me of a Far Side cartoon.
"Sorry, your highness, but you're really not the dictator of Ithuania, a small European republic. In fact, there is no Ithuania. The hordes of admirers, the military parades, this office - we faked it all as en experiment in human psychology. In fact, your highness, your real name is Edward Belcher, you're from Long Island, New York, and it's time to go home, Eddie."
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:05PM
Ha! We should be so lucky.
Most politicians are HORRIBLE military commanders. Absolutely horrible. That's because politicians, even dictators, are all about organizing consensus, getting people to agree on high-level goals, while military command is about management - supply lines, logistics, manpower, artillery barrages, combined-arms assaults, etc. There are very, very few people who have been able to combine both, and all the examples that come to mind (Caesar, Eisenhower, Napoleon) are ones who started on the military side, and migrated into politics, rather than vice versa.
If we ever get a President in direct control of the military, with no officers between him and the grunts, we'll be set for a revolution. And well-staffed for it, too, with all the soldiers who recently lost their jobs.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:14PM
Caesar started as a politician and an aristocrat. Eisenhower wasn't a great general, though he was a decent organizer of other generals.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:05PM
Eisenhower wasn't a great general, though he was a decent organizer of other generals.
That is what a good military leader does, particularly at Eisenhower's level. It's called the chain of command - you do not micromanage the people below you unless you're an NCO. You give them objectives, give them the personnel and materiel to do their job, and keep everyone working in unison.
The general who wins the war isn't the one who commands the troops into battle. The general who wins the war is the one who makes sure his soldiers have more food, fuel and firepower than their opponents. Eisenhower understood that.
The military bureaucracy is infamously horrible, but as far as actual management techniques, most corporate managers could learn something from the great generals. Give your people what they need, give them an objective, keep them informed and protected, then stay out of their way while they do their job.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:42PM
Paton and McArthur were reasonably great generals. Eisenhower was a good coordinator. Not the same, though I agree that coordination is an important part of a general's toolkit.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:59PM
Most politicians are HORRIBLE military commanders
It seems like now would be an apt time to quote Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA-12) aka Bird Colonel John Patrick Murtha, Jr. USMC Retired.
"I like guys who got five deferments and [who have] never been there and [who] send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
He was referring, of course, to the chickenhawks in the Dubya administration (y'know, the Deserter-in-Chief). [texasmonthly.com]
There is still a $10,000 reward [google.com] for anyone who can provide proof that George W. Bush showed up and served in the Alabama National Guard during, y'know, "a time of war" as the never-served warmongers like to call those.
-- gewg_