Mike Lorrey wrote:
> "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
> 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
Excuse me but part of what got us into this mess is considering
such restrictions "pollyannish" in practice and doing more than
a few dirty deeds around the world. We have not been above
initiating the dirty deed either.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT