format described in the CON assumptions: first came discussion of technical feasibility, then economic, then political.
The technical feasibility debate ran to great lengths. PRO constructed alternative after alternative, only to see each one knocked down by CON. But PRO responded to the CON objections, refining the alternatives to overcome the objections one by one. Bill realizes that he sees the evolution of a high-level design for strategic defense outlined before him.
Two-thirds of the way down the screen, the discussion ends, the PRO side triumphant. They have constructed over a hundred different approaches. CON has marked up all but two with bright red fetal flaws, but those two approaches seem capable of defense against words, and maybe also missiles.
Then the debate on the economics begins. This is a short discussion, surprisingly. Both sides agree upon a single criterion for economic viability: Can the system knock a missile down for less money than it costs to put a missile up? If you can shoot them down for more than they cost, then the defense is cheap; if you cannot, then the whole thing is easily defeated by building more missiles. A small amber button glows next to this agreement, which expands to explain the underlying assumption that the defender is not so much wealthier than the attacker that he can afford an extravagant imbalance. A millionaire can spend thousands of dollars protecting himself from a ten-dollar pistol, for example, and easily afford it.
Here both sides invoke large windows filled with spreadsheet calculations. Again, the PRO side shows one possible way of keeping the costs within the economic limit, while CON shows the other approach would fail. Both sides note the inaccuracies in these forecasts, and the size of the ranges. But only one successful approach is needed. The strategic defense system has passed the economic test.
Hammond explains that the political feasibility test is where the CON duelist had focused his attention all along. It is here that the brilliant thrust took place, the insight that makes this a classic in decision dueling. For though there are several approaches that are technically feasible, and one of those is indeed economically feasible, there are thousands of approaches that would fail. With brutal clarity the CON duelist demonstrates, with one military program after another, that the American military development system cannot select a solution that is better than mediocre. With the wings of the C-5, with the computers of TACFIRE, with the armor of the Bradley, the CON duelist demonstrates mediocre solutions that cost factors of two and three times as much as good solutions should.
The PRO duelist concedes: given the American system of military research and development, strategic defense is a hopeless proposition.
"And as everyone here knows, this early decision duel predicted the future quite accurately." Hammond sighs. "This also demonstrates another fundamental consideration of the decision duel—one that engineers all too often forget: the critical importance of finding an approach that can succeed, not only technically and economically, but also politically. This engineering blind spot mirrors the politician's tendency to forget technical viability. Politicians live in a universe where reality seems to be controlled by the perceptions of other politicians. In the heat of finding an approach that he can get other politicians to agree to, he forgets that there are laws he has no control over."
They walk from the room. The warning in asphalt-black from the top of the dueling display continues to etch itself in Bill Hardie's mind.
CUT. After several more demonstrations of Zetetic networks and techniques, he shuts off his flatcam. There is nothing in the Sampler to help him humiliate the Zetetic Institute.
A man could easily starve, wandering the halls of the Pentagon in search of an exit. The faceless, endless corridors contain few distinguishing
The technical feasibility debate ran to great lengths. PRO constructed alternative after alternative, only to see each one knocked down by CON. But PRO responded to the CON objections, refining the alternatives to overcome the objections one by one. Bill realizes that he sees the evolution of a high-level design for strategic defense outlined before him.
Two-thirds of the way down the screen, the discussion ends, the PRO side triumphant. They have constructed over a hundred different approaches. CON has marked up all but two with bright red fetal flaws, but those two approaches seem capable of defense against words, and maybe also missiles.
Then the debate on the economics begins. This is a short discussion, surprisingly. Both sides agree upon a single criterion for economic viability: Can the system knock a missile down for less money than it costs to put a missile up? If you can shoot them down for more than they cost, then the defense is cheap; if you cannot, then the whole thing is easily defeated by building more missiles. A small amber button glows next to this agreement, which expands to explain the underlying assumption that the defender is not so much wealthier than the attacker that he can afford an extravagant imbalance. A millionaire can spend thousands of dollars protecting himself from a ten-dollar pistol, for example, and easily afford it.
Here both sides invoke large windows filled with spreadsheet calculations. Again, the PRO side shows one possible way of keeping the costs within the economic limit, while CON shows the other approach would fail. Both sides note the inaccuracies in these forecasts, and the size of the ranges. But only one successful approach is needed. The strategic defense system has passed the economic test.
Hammond explains that the political feasibility test is where the CON duelist had focused his attention all along. It is here that the brilliant thrust took place, the insight that makes this a classic in decision dueling. For though there are several approaches that are technically feasible, and one of those is indeed economically feasible, there are thousands of approaches that would fail. With brutal clarity the CON duelist demonstrates, with one military program after another, that the American military development system cannot select a solution that is better than mediocre. With the wings of the C-5, with the computers of TACFIRE, with the armor of the Bradley, the CON duelist demonstrates mediocre solutions that cost factors of two and three times as much as good solutions should.
The PRO duelist concedes: given the American system of military research and development, strategic defense is a hopeless proposition.
"And as everyone here knows, this early decision duel predicted the future quite accurately." Hammond sighs. "This also demonstrates another fundamental consideration of the decision duel—one that engineers all too often forget: the critical importance of finding an approach that can succeed, not only technically and economically, but also politically. This engineering blind spot mirrors the politician's tendency to forget technical viability. Politicians live in a universe where reality seems to be controlled by the perceptions of other politicians. In the heat of finding an approach that he can get other politicians to agree to, he forgets that there are laws he has no control over."
They walk from the room. The warning in asphalt-black from the top of the dueling display continues to etch itself in Bill Hardie's mind.
CUT. After several more demonstrations of Zetetic networks and techniques, he shuts off his flatcam. There is nothing in the Sampler to help him humiliate the Zetetic Institute.
A man could easily starve, wandering the halls of the Pentagon in search of an exit. The faceless, endless corridors contain few distinguishing
Similar Books
