Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war

Looks like Gourley and his research group have had their latest research published in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature. What's more they seem to have beaten out all other stories and Nature is leading with their work on the cover. Whether or not you agree with the results, this research really is a break through in our understanding of modern war.

Also, another important and missed interpretation of this data is that he has relied solely on the MEDIA to gather the data... the media will either report many attacks with few killed (but totalling many), or few attacks with many killed (thus still totalling many)... by nature of media filtering they WILL NOT report a single small attack in which 1 person was killed, as this would be non-sensical during a war...

Not every televised attack is a insurgent attack, hence, this whole report is a huge missed opportunity. Especially reflecting on the data that proves key attacks cause rises in fragmentation, thus possibly indicating that the fragmentation of these nations is in fact by design of the invading forces. The analysis of this data is naive at best because of the insinuation that the presence of allied forces is as mere peace makers and not considering the possibility that many attacks are allied

Smart, but please focus on something peaceful and do not distract our mind

compromise and accomodate..

This stuff blows my mind. I'm sure I dont understand some of it but I can kind of grasp the idea. Really just blows my mind.

I does a certain sense. Bomb blows up, is a show of force, strength, insurgent groups feel like they found a leader to folow. They join forces. US troops attack, put pressure, group fragments again, so that they have a better chance to escape.

The explosons and assaults that kill more people are less likely than the explosions that kill less people. Thats obvious. Plus he did not link up his model to the different real factors that could affect the model. Well one way you can affect it is by giving terrorists and guerillas smaller guns or less effective explosives, that way the slope will maybe have more inclined slope.
He should have brought in a statistician along with him, instead of all those physicists.

you're forgeting something yourself. noone "gives" guns to guerillas and terrorists. they buy it on the blackmarket, where the usually tend to get themselves the best gun avaliable.
If you want to start a war, and you can get yourself a handgun or an ak47, the handgun probably wont be your weapon of choice.
He said: the more pressure you apply, the more diverted and the harder to find the groups are going to be. "more force" therefor isn't the best solution.

Forgive the typos... now, we do nothing. If you want to do something, send your child to Westpoint, and let the pentagon take care of the rest.