From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 11:29:24 MDT
"Alex F. Bokov" wrote:
>
> ZeroPowers suggested what amounts to tit-for-tat. That creates three
> types of players-- cooperators, defectors, and tit-for-tatters. There
> is still instability (oddly enough, conflict between cooperators and
> tit-for-tatters) but perhaps a better scenario overall.
>
> In fact if our state department, military, and spies functioned as
> intended, we would be a tit-for-tat entity. As you've amply pointed
> out, this is not happening. I wonder, what sorts of changes we need to
> make to keep our defenses in line with a tit-for-tat strategy without
> becoming either cooperators or defectors?
Well, we could start by renaming the DoD as the Department of
Retaliation.
Next, adjust our military Code of Conduct to allow flexibility in action
that is determined by the action of those who attack us. If you obey the
Classical Laws of War, we operate in similar fashion. If you obey
ComIntern tactics of Insurgency, Infiltration, Subversion, AgitProp, and
Terrorism, we use the same tactics against your own home front. Under no
conditions do we initiate force using the lowest common denominator, we
always initiate at the highest standard of behavior until the enemy
proves otherwise inclined.
On that line, we get rid of pollyannish restrictions on doing dirty
deeds in the dark in all circumstances. We let the circumstances
determine the tactics. By operating externally in such a fashion, we
create an incentive for others to operate at the highest standard of
conduct.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:38 MST