What do Joseph Tainter and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor have in common?
You guessed right if you said "declining marginal returns on investment in complexity"!
According to wikipedia "Upgrading the first 183 aircraft to the 3.2 upgrade is estimated to cost $8 billion." - which works out to $43 million per plane.
Don't you wish you had that software development contract?
Sure the contractors make more money - but civilization suffers as a whole.
The wikipedia also notes that "the Ada software language was blamed for slow progress and increased costs on the program, leading to a reorganization in 2011."
When in doubt - blame the tool.
But what is this really about?
Why are these planes needed?
Why are the new capabilities that these planes represent needed?
Why are the upgrades needed?
Incremental threat escalation.
It is not a called an arms race for nothing.
These planes with these newer capabilities and upgrades are needed to respond to incremental threat escalation.
Which increases complexity.
Which drives down returns.
Which drives up investment requirements.
Which drives up the percentage of GDP is required to support the military industrial complex.
Which drives up the burden on the taxpayer.
Which weakens the civilization.
Which increases the probability of collapse, invasion by "barbarians," collapse due to environmental catastrophe.
Solution?
Return to low cost, high impact warfare.
With reduced budgets and increased threats, military leaders have no choice left but to use the only tools they can AFFORD to use.
Intuitively nuclear strikes appear cost effective, but there are the fallout costs, literally and figuratively - but when used again a minor threat it might serve to enhance compliance. On the other hand - it might consolidate support among non-aligned nations to remove the US.
What would Rome do?
You guessed right if you said "declining marginal returns on investment in complexity"!
According to wikipedia "Upgrading the first 183 aircraft to the 3.2 upgrade is estimated to cost $8 billion." - which works out to $43 million per plane.
Don't you wish you had that software development contract?
Sure the contractors make more money - but civilization suffers as a whole.
The wikipedia also notes that "the Ada software language was blamed for slow progress and increased costs on the program, leading to a reorganization in 2011."
When in doubt - blame the tool.
But what is this really about?
Why are these planes needed?
Why are the new capabilities that these planes represent needed?
Why are the upgrades needed?
Incremental threat escalation.
It is not a called an arms race for nothing.
These planes with these newer capabilities and upgrades are needed to respond to incremental threat escalation.
Which increases complexity.
Which drives down returns.
Which drives up investment requirements.
Which drives up the percentage of GDP is required to support the military industrial complex.
Which drives up the burden on the taxpayer.
Which weakens the civilization.
Which increases the probability of collapse, invasion by "barbarians," collapse due to environmental catastrophe.
Solution?
Return to low cost, high impact warfare.
With reduced budgets and increased threats, military leaders have no choice left but to use the only tools they can AFFORD to use.
Intuitively nuclear strikes appear cost effective, but there are the fallout costs, literally and figuratively - but when used again a minor threat it might serve to enhance compliance. On the other hand - it might consolidate support among non-aligned nations to remove the US.
What would Rome do?
Comments