The Economist: War Games as Pentagon Simulations

I played an excellent evening of board games not too long ago, and I was prompted to dig up this short but interesting article about wargaming:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599016-understand-war-american-officials-are-playing-board-games-war-games

This is a practice that hearkens back to the elite of ancient India, where the future military leaders of the Gupta Empire honed their skills on a recognizable predecessor of modern (Western) chess. The game was adopted by the Persians, the Islamic caliphate, and made its way into Europe. There were other, similar games, such as Chinese chess and the Scandinavian hnefatafl (sometimes called "Viking chess"), but none that achieved the international cachet that chess enjoys (the former is a more regional pastime, and the latter is practically extinct). "The sport of kings," as chess was often called, became a status symbol across many civilizations; skill at the game required not only a modicum of natural talent, but also much training, which was usually only accessible to those with the leisure to pursue it. It was only natural that most chess masters of old belonged to the military elite and ruling classes.

Modern wargaming adheres to much the same logic. It is a common pastime for ordinary citizens, to be sure, but it uses the same set of skills that chess was meant to hone in princes and generals. It stands to reason that the Pentagon would commission its own wargames -- now we have only to wait for them to appear in stores. One wonders: has military strategy been, like many other educational topics, been democratized?

The New Yorker: Why Abraham Lincoln Loved Infographics

A (too) short, intriguing piece on the early history of infographics and data mapping:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/why-abraham-lincoln-loved-infographics.html

As a consequence of the way our brains perceive our surroundings, we humans are visual creatures with a knack for finding patterns (sometimes even where they don't exist, hence conspiracy theories!). It's easy to see why infographics would appeal to those of us trying to make sense of large amounts of information, like leaders considering their constituencies and commanders looking over battlefields. I'd wager that infographics first came about in the late 1700s not because of any lack of interest in the format, but rather because it was significantly more difficult to gather the data necessary to populate them! Once there were more reliable and timely reports of populations, troop movements, &c., it seems inevitable that somebody would have had the notion to display the information in a visually succinct fashion.

The Civil War, by virtue of its chronological place in history, was the first major American engagement after the advent of proper infographics; it stands to reason that Lincoln would have been delighted with this useful new instrument at his disposal. It's also worthwhile to note that the Union Army would have been leaps and bounds ahead of the Confederates in its ability to gather the type of data best suited to infographics. Not only did the North have access to decades of records, it also had by far more extensive postal and transportation systems. Lincoln's maps and charts would have been significantly more comprehensive than what Jefferson Davis had.

Lincoln's extremely detailed slave population map

These days, we have precisely the opposite problem. Information is much easier to come by -- so much so that we're constantly inundated by facts and figures in the news. Infographics have become, rather than a tool for aggregation, a tool for selection and analysis. (This is, of course, aided by technologies unfathomable in Lincoln's time.) We like charts and graphs because they speak to that ancient part of our brains that latches onto patterns, turning the night sky into constellations and the landscape into mythology. They shape a flood of information into a cohesive narrative -- and narrative is essential to how humans define who we are and how we fit into this universe.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Free Will and Nuclear Winter

I've been thinking, lately, about free will -- and I recalled this article that I read last year. It's a good, concise analysis of causality (particularly the bits about levels of complexity), and addresses some of the fallacies of breaking down human behavior into ever-smaller constituent components:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will_mean_and_how_did_it_evolve.html

The question is a version of "are we more than the sum of our parts?" Many people attempt to derive an answer from religion, espousing a concept of "soul," a metaphysical quantity that science is -- by definition -- unable to prove or disprove. But in the absence of such a belief, are we not just collections of atoms? Isn't each of our thought processes a mere chemical reaction in our neurons? It's a chilling way to think about ourselves; the idea that there is only one possible course of events because our actions are governed by a set immutable physical laws, that each circumstance leads logically into a specific next circumstance, is essentially a secular version of the idea of fate or predestination.

But there's a scientific argument against fate: the multiverse. If there is an infinite number of possible universes, infinitely many points at which one universe becomes multiple, then there isn't one logical state for the universe at any given point in time. The possibility of parallel universes implies, if not conscious choice at all times, then at least many possible outcomes, none of which are certain to happen. Quantum physics likewise deals with uncertainty -- with thought experiments such as Schroedinger's Cat, in which a situation manifests both possible outcomes simultaneously. Science, it appears, disproves fate.

Then, there are situations like this one, in which one person's choice, a split-second decision in a situation of incomplete information, may have prevented all-out nuclear destruction:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831

Given a circumstance like this, it's hard not to believe in free will. I'm sure that there's a parallel universe out there in which the world ended on September 26, 1983.

BBC: Royal Pardon for Alan Turing (Finally!)

Two days ago, fifty-nine years after he was driven to suicide by discrimination and the overwhelming solitude of misunderstanding, Alan Turing finally received a royal pardon for violating the so-called "gross indecency" laws of his time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315

Though his downfall was perhaps not as well-publicized and posthumously noted as that of Oscar Wilde in the century before his, it was no less a travesty for humanity. (And to think that society had not budged an inch on homosexuality between 1900 and 1954!) Turing was one of the finest cryptanalysts in history, as well as one of the founding fathers of modern computer science, and he was just forty-one years old when he died. One can't help but wonder what great and wonderful things he might have accomplished in his later years had he lived.

I am reminded, somewhat, of the story of Johnny Gunther, immortalized in his father's memoir Death Be Not Proud. Gunther was another extremely promising young man who died even younger, as a teenager, after a valiant struggle with brain cancer. Untimely "early" deaths, like those of Turing, Wilde, and Gunther seem especially tragic because of the injustice of the situation (particularly with Turing and Wilde, whose deaths were entirely preventable) and the abruptly curtailed possibilities of their later lives. Entirely due to human stupidity and prejudice, Turing was never afforded the opportunity to reach his full potential. I can only imagine, for a person brimming with ideas, curiosity, and the drive to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge, to hold in his hand the poisoned apple and think that such an exit was preferable to the future that lay before him...

The royal pardon is too little, too late, but at least some six decades later, we recognize and regret the human cruelty that hounded Alan Turing to his death, and move forward as a society with an awareness that we did not have before.

The Renaissance Faire!

Last weekend, some friends and I went to the Renaissance Faire!

I've been to a few Faires over the years, both in California and here in New York. They're great fun -- cheesy as all hell, and you'll certainly be disappointed if you're a hard-core re-enactor or history buff who expects most everything to be historically accurate (that got me the first time, but I've learned to ignore it). There're all sorts of things to see -- human chess, birds of prey, dancing, acrobats, and even jousting.

Here I am at the archery range. The target is rather low to the ground. Full disclosure: the bow I'm using has a draw weight of only twenty pounds or so, and the fletching on the arrow is rather bent out of shape (not to mention that the entire kit is made of plastic!). I did ask for the heaviest bow they had on loan. (photo by Irina)

Here I am being kidnapped (and my bag being ransacked) by pirates! We are all too amused to look properly frightened/menacing. (photo by Irina)

And here is the castle and tourney field (click to enlarge). You can see the lions of England hanging from the castle walls, and the unicorn of Scotland above the stable doors. There was also a knight from France, and one from the Holy Roman Empire, though you can't see their heraldry in this shot. (photo by Deb and Terence)

I'm already looking forward to next year's Faire! Can't wait to break out the corset and skirts again. :-P

Reality, Relativity, and Light

I read José Saramago's The History of the Siege of Lisbon last week -- in translation, of course, since I don't read Portuguese. It's excellent, and somewhat stylistically and structurally unusual. But I was struck, in particular, by this line, spoken to the protagonist by his lover (the relationship is rather more complicated than that, of course):

Switch on the light, she said, I want to know if this is real. (p264)

The relationship between any two people -- even within family, even between people who might have known each other their whole lives -- is a fragile thing. Within that relationship, there are layers of reality, of perception. It's a sort of relativity, even -- one that isn't governed by any laws of physics. His reality and hers could be completely different, and each moment's reality different from the next. It's odd to think that we can never know what another person's reality looks like; the closest we can come is to achieve an understanding of how our reality compares to what we perceive to be their reality, with full awareness that our vantage point colours our reading.

This is especially relevant to the subject matter because the 1147 Siege of Lisbon, about which the protagonist writes, was a manifestation of a centuries-old clash of cultures and religions, a battle between two peoples who understood the same God through different scriptures and different prophets. Elizabeth I once said, in another century about another religious conflict, "I would not open windows into men's souls." Such windows can only be approximated, even in the best of circumstances.

I'm also taken by the Saramago's use of light in this scene -- something one normally associates with visual art rather than with prose. It's ripe with symbolism; the notion of shedding light on something intangible, that our eyes can tell us about reality between two people, &c. I'm reminded of two things:

Perhaps we may frighten away the ghost of so many years ago with a little illumination...
~ "The Phantom of the Opera," Act I, Scene 1

So many years after the events of "The Phantom of the Opera," the very chandelier that was associated with the disaster perpetrated by the Phantom is now a source of illumination -- both as a refurbished light fixture, and as a window into the murky past, the audience's introduction to the story. Because it is an inanimate object with a lofty vantage point, it is, in a fashion, the impartial observer of the story. And yet, it is also a crucial "participant" in the story. Its impartiality is not so much due to its placement, a lamp hanging high above the human characters, but rather because it has no free will, no desires or motivations of its own.

The second thing is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Our understanding of what goes on inside another person's mind is rather like to the prisoners' understanding of the shadows on the wall. Another person's reality undergoes several layers of translation before it becomes comprehensible to us; the "truth" is distorted by their perception, interpreted by their mind, conveyed by their words, filtered by our ears, and only then is it analyzed by our minds. Plato's prisoners are eventually unchained, but there is no way for any of us to overcome this process of interpretation. The amount that must get lost in translation is mind-boggling. It makes me wonder what a society of perfect communication (of telepathy, essentially) would look like.

Edit: Soon after writing this post, I chanced upon an io9 article about philosophical thought experiments: http://io9.com/9-philosophical-thought-experiments-that-will-keep-you-1340952809@AnnaleeNewitz. The third entry therein, "The Beetle in the Box" (aka the Private Language Argument), is very much like what I discuss above. The second entry, "Mary the Colorblind Neuroscientist" (aka the Inverted Spectrum Problem), is also quite similar to the Allegory of the Cave. It's well worth reading.

The Rise of Agriculture: the Worst Mistake in Human History?

I recently found this article by Jared Diamond, a scholar and writer I admire (famously the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel):
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

It's an excellent piece, and not too long, so you should read it for yourself! The gist of it is: structured, populous (agrarian) societies naturally develop lopsided hierarchies, putting a portion of the population at significant disadvantage (compared to the unstructured, sparsely populated communities of hunter-gatherers). The quality of life of the average hunter-gatherer was actually better than that of the average farmer, despite the relative sophistication of the latter's society; the reason for the prevalence of agriculture and husbandry over hunting and gathering is that "quality over quantity" doesn't apply when one population can overwhelm another by sheer numbers. (I bet Leonidas of Sparta would have something to say about that!)

Another interesting point Diamond raises is that gender dynamics tend to be more equal in hunter-gatherer societies -- partially because such conditions are less conducive to hierarchy in general (see above), and also because the practical day-to-day circumstances of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support any house-bound, "idle" population, be they women or an aristocracy. Women who had to be on their feet all the time simply couldn't bear as many children in quick succession -- especially since the children had to be as mobile/portable as everyone else. The patriarchy couldn't simply turn them into brood mares, because the women contributed valuable labor and the children had to be spaced at large enough intervals that their mothers only ever had to carry (whether in utero or on her back) one child at a time. (Methinks twins wouldn't have fared as well in these societies.)

This is actually quite relevant to our own times. Notice how, as women have become increasingly educated (on par with men, especially if we consider university completion rates) and increasingly productive in the work force (issues of equal pay aside), they tend to have fewer children, and said children are born later in the mother's life. Unchecked childbearing, it appears, has always been a way for the patriarchy to turn women into second-class citizens. (Anti-abortion/birth control Republicans, I'm looking at you!)

World War II in Real Time, 72 Years Later

If I used Twitter, this is one of the Twitter accounts I would most likely be following:
https://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII

It's a "real time" update feed on the events of the Second World War, transposed exactly 72 years into the present day. It includes such gems as:

Athens rumour: Greek soldier Konstantinos Koukidis refused to raise swastika over Acropolis; instead leaped to death wrapped in Greek flag.
— WW2 Tweets from 1941 (@RealTimeWWII) April 27, 2013

and

Noel Coward, UK actor & spy, reports from London: "At the Savoy. Pretty bad blitz, but orchestra kept on playing." twitter.com/RealTimeWWII/s…
— WW2 Tweets from 1941 (@RealTimeWWII) April 20, 2013

and

Royal Canadian Mounted Police are hunting 28 escaped Luftwaffe airmen, prisoners from UK who've tunneled out of a PoW camp in remote Ontario
— WW2 Tweets from 1941 (@RealTimeWWII) April 19, 2013

This is such an amazing project, not least because (I imagine) it takes a lot of research to put together. It appears to be a labor of love, or at least of deep fascination. I especially appreciate that it features events not typically covered in textbooks, true and relevant quotations, and lesser-known arenas of the war.

NYTimes: Richard III, Lost and Found

In recent news -- making both archaeological and regular news headlines around the world -- the bones of Richard III were discovered under a parking lot in Leicester:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?hp

I'm inclined to be more sympathetic towards Richard III than literature portrays him (Shakespeare's play was an instrument of the Tudor smear campaign against the Plantagenets). He probably suffered from "younger sibling syndrome," as did many "spare heirs" of monarchs in the Middle Ages -- see Scar vs. Mufasa in The Lion King (and play "spot the Shakespeare references"). This was also probably exacerbated by his uninspiring physical appearance -- see Tyrion Lannister in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. (Especially in those days, physical birth defects were seen as portents of ill fortune.) Richard came by the throne in a slightly roundabout way that involved some unsavory tactics; certainly, he can't have been completely innocent in the Princes in the Tower episode. But he was by and large a competent administrator who contributed significantly to the nascent English legal system and, notably, lifted most public and private censorship of written work -- not a move to be taken lightly, especially given the political turmoil surrounding his ascension and reign. He was ruthless, to be sure, sometimes excessively so, but his were much more violent times. (Nasty, brutish, and short would be about right.) Richard III was not, among his peers, particularly remarkable in his ruthlessness -- which the Tudors, Shakespeare, and partisan historians conveniently forget.

Anyhow. I imagine it must have been a fascinating experience for the modern-day descendants of Richard III, a few of whom contributed some DNA to the project.

The Economist: Is the EU the Holy Roman Empire 2.0?

A thought-provoking historical perspective on the current economic and political situation in the EU:
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568659-old-empire-offers-surprising-lessons-european-union-today-european-disunion-done

Several such entities have been attempted in Europe through its long history, from the classical Roman Empire to today's European Union. Though the continent derives some unity from its vaunted Greco-Roman roots, it contains a great deal of diversity in terms of language, ethnicity, culture -- all the necessary components of national identity. There are, in fact, a number of key differences (some articulated in the above article, some not) between the current EU and comparable historical entities (interestingly, they all begin with 'c'). Here's my (history buff's) perspective (it's longer than usual, so I've put it under the cut):

NYTimes: Genes on the March

A very interesting, if somewhat inaccurate (well, I'm just being nitpicky here) piece on genetic history, à la Mongolian warlord: 
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/genes-on-the-march/?hp

There's likely Khan blood somewhere in my family, though the probability's lower than that of the average Chinese, seeing as we're from the south. Even if there were, though, I doubt any of my relatives would be too pleased, given the most logical method of transmission, as it were.

Washington Post: Interactive Civil War Map

The Washington Post posted a bunch of articles and things about the American Civil War, in honor of the 150th anniversary of the war. This is one of the coolest of the lot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/lifestyle/special/civil-war-interactive/civil-war-battles-and-casualties-interactive-map/

The design of the thing is sheer brilliance. Hit the play button to really get a sense of the progression of the war. Even though the map doesn't show them, you can sort of follow troop movements based on the shifting locations of major battles. I wish it had a way of indicating the generals involved on each side, but that would probably make the thing a little too complicated and unwieldy.

io9: Pigeon-Guided Missile Could Have Changed the Course of WWII

Well, in theory, it could have worked:
http://io9.com/5828298/pigeon+guided-missile-could-have-changed-the-course-of-world-war-ii

Carrier pigeons have actually been used in war, of course, but using them as missiles takes it to a whole new level.

For another, more humorous use of homing pigeons, check out the last section of the Wikipedia article.

The Real Wonder Woman: WWII Hero Nancy Wake Dies at 98

Working with science fiction and fantasy, I see a lot of fictional heroines who kick some serious butt. They seem to be all the rage these days -- women who wield flaming swords, rescue their men from the clutches of fell beasts, and single-handedly take on the entire Dark Lord's army. Sometimes it goes overboard in its eagerness to affirm feminist ideals (culinary ability isn't the first step to subservience, really). But there is some real life precedent for all of this:

http://www.bust.com/blog/2011/08/12/the-real-wonder-woman-wwii-hero-nancy-wake-dies-at-98.html

How's that for female empowerment? (Note, of course, that the premise of her mission's success was at least partially that the enemy would categorically underestimate her based on her gender.)

Today

is the 484th anniversary of the Sack of Rome. Since there have been multiple Sacks of Rome (makes Rome sound a bit like potatoes?), I'm referring to the one where Charles V's troops ran amok after the death of their commander Duke Charles and pillaged Rome. (Duke Charles III and Charles V were not the same person; Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor and Charles III was the Duke of Bourbon.) His second-in-command (sort of) Philibert de Châlon, Prince of Orange, was a bit of a wet blanket, and nobody listened to him, so there was no one to prevent the troops from doing as they pleased. Not to mention that Charles V, while outwardly condemning the lawlessness of his men, actually stood to benefit greatly from the Sack of Rome, as it put Pope Clement VII under Hapsburg control -- so I would imagine that Charles V didn't do much in the way of preventing the Sack.

Edit: I realize, upon re-reading it a day later, that this post is rather incoherent. I blame lack of sleep...

NYTimes: Disunion (A Blog Series)

Every so often, The New York Times runs an extended blog series on a particular subject, usually something very interesting and slightly off the beaten track. I recently found this one, and I think it's brilliant:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/disunion/ 

It's about the American Civil War, it's wonderfully written and analyzed, and of course, I would find it interesting. I'm more of a European history person than an American one, generally, but I'm enough of a history buff not to be choosy. The Civil War is one of my favorite periods in US history; I think I've been interested in it ever since I read The Killer Angels almost a decade ago. (It's a really great book; if you haven't read it, you should.) I think the Civil War (and that book) is probably the conflict that really taught me about shades of grey (Robert E. Lee, tragic antihero, for certain definitions of the term, and possibly my favorite American general of all time), a concept I've applied to literary analysis ever since.

And then, several years back, I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, another truly excellent book, and the one which cemented Lincoln in my mind as my favorite US president ever (yes, I have favorite US presidents -- and so?). It's on my Kindle, and I still reread parts of it from time to time. Especially Lincoln's speeches; I have those bookmarked. The man was a genius, I tell you.

Anyhow, read the blog; it's quite good.

Clerk Foils Robbery Attempt with Katana

The title, methinks, is pretty self-explanatory, but if you're curious, the news story is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029060-504083.html



Sword > gun? Believe it.

NYTimes: The U.S.S Prius

A very interesting, ingenious mash-up of the sometimes-antagonistic causes of environmentalism and the Iraq war:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html

It's brilliant, isn't it? It's a perfect argument for reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil that appeals to not only the "bleeding-heart, granola-crunching" segment of the American populace (which is often analogous to preaching to the choir), but also to the more conservative, more militarily-minded constituency. Military initiative has historically been one of the greatest catalysts for technological innovation (look at the internet, for example). If the military sticks with this, really pushes it and invests in it, imagine what our carbon footprints might look like in ten years.

It's going to happen, it really is. Yes we can.

NYTimes: Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

A major victory for civil rights -- on the order of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some have said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

At long last, military honor. It's something to celebrate this season.

NYTimes: Centuries-Old Rifles See Use in Afghanistan

Apologies for disappearing for a week; finals happened. Anyhow...

I've always had a certain fascination with antique weaponry. My area of interest lies more in pre-modern weaponry (before guns, or at least, not much later than the arquebus), but this is pretty interesting:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/rifles-of-advanced-age-remain-in-use-in-afghanistan

They're using Civil War-era rifles! And they still work!

And the Martini-Henries! I'm sad, though not especially surprised, that they've fallen into such disrepair, though. Old rifles (of the Civil War era) tend to be finicky to maintain, I've heard, if they actually see use.

And the comment at the end about firearms and ammunition being a system is very true -- you see it in ballistae and their bolts, too, though of course, ballistae bolts are easier to modify to fit.