Sound Military Decision – U.S. Naval War College - Naval Institute Press Annapolis, Maryland

This book is the 1942 edition of a book originally published in 1936 by the U.S. Naval War College

The discussion in Chapter II deals, first, with the natural mental processes employed by the normal mature human being before taking deliberate action.

With the necessity for logical thought thus established, there arises a need for valid statements of cause and effect, i.e., of relationships resulting from the operation of natural laws, for use as reliable rules of action. The discussion of this subject explains the dangers inherent in the use of faulty rules, emphasizes the role played by the various factors applicable in particular cases, and describes the method of formulating reliable rules, i.e., principles.

All living beings and their surroundings are understood, on the basis of informed authority, to be governed in their characteristic activities by natural law. The natural forces inherent in living things and in their environment are continually reacting upon each other, either maintaining the existing condition or creating a new one, each of which is a situation or state of affairs. There is thus always a relationship existing between such natural forces and the resultant condition which they produce. The natural forces are causes; the resultant conditions are effects.

It is a recognized natural phenomenon that every effect is the result of a certain cause, or of a combination of causes, and that each effect is itself, in turn, the cause of additional effects. Action and reaction are the basis of natural law. Cause and effect, the latter being the cause of further effects, follow each other in ceaseless succession in the world of human affairs.

Except by putting proper natural causes into action, it is impossible to produce the effect desired. It follows that specific knowledge of causes is necessary for the planned production of specific effects. Toward the accumulation of such knowledge the methods of science are constantly directed.

The uncertainties of war are largely the outgrowth of the fact that the minds of men are pitted against one other. Because of this, a knowledge of the manner in which the human mind seeks its way out of difficulties is a great military asset. Consideration is next given, therefore, to the natural mental processes employed and to certain human tendencies which have been known to militate against their successful employment.

The mental processes employed by the normal mature human being before taking deliberate action, or in making studied provision for possible future action, are natural procedures, in that they employ the intellectual powers bestowed by nature, without artificial modification or embellishment.

When the individual concerned has a background of adequate knowledge and experience, his ability to solve problems is limited only by his native intellectual endowment. That he falls short does not necessarily indicate, however, that the limit of native endowment has been reached. It happens frequently that latent powers have not been cultivated, or have not been utilized.

A problem is, by definition, a perplexing question. In any human activity, a problem appears when a perplexity arises as to a way out of a difficulty inherent in a situation. The question involved then is, what is a way, more especially the best way, out of the seeming difficulty?

To determine the best way out of the difficulty, i.e., the best solution of the problem, involves:

(1) The establishment of the proper basis for the solution of the problem,

(2) The actual solution of the problem through the employment of the reasoning power in the consideration of various possible solutions and the selection of the best solution, and

(3) The conclusion, i.e., the decision, embodying the best solution.

Considered in greater detail, the process has its inception in a combination of circumstances, existent or assumed, which, constitutes a situation. No problem will result however, unless the situation involves an apparent difficulty. Even in such a case, a problem will result only if such involvement exists and gives rise to a perplexity as to a way, more especially as to the best way, out of the seeming difficulty.

The problem will require solution only when accompanied by an incentive which demands a changed situation or resistance against a threatened change. A recognition of the incentive thus necessarily involves realization of a desire or need to maintain the existing situation or to change it into a new one.

Such realization may come on the initiative of the person confronted with the situation, or because he has received instructions from someone in authority. In either case, the effect so indicated is the outcome of a desire for change or for resisting change, and may therefore be [21]regarded properly as an effect desired.

As so far outlined, therefore, the establishment of the correct basis for the solution of the problem involves (1) a grasp of the salient features of the situation, (2) a recognition of the incentive, and (3) an appreciation of the effect desired.

The “appropriate” effect desired will necessarily be suitable to the further effects which are inherent in the situation. An effect to be attained is accepted as appropriate when, after due examination, its relationship with the further effects involved, in all their pertinent implications, has been found to be in accordance with the dictates of sound judgment.

The establishment of the basis for the solution of the problem will also require an understanding of the resources involved, as influenced by the conditions obtaining, for the maintenance of the existing situation or for the creation of a new one.

The resources available, as influenced by the conditions obtaining, are correctly considered on a relative basis as compared to those of any persons who may oppose the effort.

With the basis for the solution of the problem established in this manner, the actual solution involves the consideration of one or more plans, i.e., proposed methods of procedure, and the selection of the one considered to be the best.

The person concerned, taking cognizance of the present condition, i.e., the existing situation, first considers whether this situation, if maintained, will be suitable to the appropriate effect desired. Then, unless satisfied that he desires no change, he creates one or more images of future conditions, i.e., mental pictures of new situations, which will also be suitable to this end. The maintenance of the existing situation, or the creation of a new one, will in each case involve a plan.

Necessarily, each such plan includes provision for (1) an effect to be produced by the person solving the problem, which effect will be the maintenance of the existing situation or the creation of a new one as visualized by himself, and (2) the action required to produce this effect and so to attain the appropriate effect desired, already established as an essential part of the basis of his problem.

After systematic examination of such plans, those retained for further consideration can be subjected to a comparison as to their relative merits. The best plan, selected accordingly, is then incorporated into a decision as to the procedure to be adopted. This decision is then available as a general plan, or may be developed into one, to serve as a basis if necessary for a more detailed plan for the attainment of the appropriate effect desired. Later development, herein, of the details of this procedure will disclose many ramifications. The treatment, so far, points to the fact that the best method of reaching sound decision is through systematic thought which employs logic, i.e., sound reasoning, as its machinery.

The Necessity for Logical Thought. Logical thought separates the rational from the irrational. Its use avoids the wastefulness of the trial-and-error method. By its insistent employment, dormant powers of reasoning are awakened, and the danger that attends instinctive, spontaneous, impulsive, or emotional acceptance of conclusions is lessened. The evil effects of an inclination to dodge the issue or of a disinclination to face the facts are thus also avoided. The fallacy of employing the reasoning power to justify conclusions already reached, whether on the basis of tradition or habit, or because of the bias or bent of a school of thought, or because of the tendency of human nature to accept plausible suggestions, is also made apparent. Through the deliberate practice of testing and weighing, the faculty of arriving swiftly at accurate decisions is strengthened and is brought more quickly into play when time is a matter of immediate concern.

Principles in their Relation to Logical Thought. Because of the necessity for the exercise of judgment in the systematic arrangement of thought, the relationship between cause and effect, as expressed in principles, is of great assistance in applying logical processes to the problems of human life.

A principle establishes a correct relation between cause and effect. The word, derived from the Latin “principium”, meaning a foundation, beginning, source, origin, or cause, has, because a cause implies an effect, acquired in correct usage the significance of a true statement of relationship between cause and effect. A principle, so formulated, is a natural law because it expresses a fact of nature; it thus becomes a reliable rule of action and may be confidently adopted as a governing law of conduct. If basic in its field, such a rule or law becomes a general or fundamental principle with respect thereto; each such basic truth may be the basis for the determination of many corollary or subordinate principles dealing with the details of the particular subject.

The formulation of a principle, therefore, requires the determination of the causes that generate a particular effect (or effects), and the accurate expression of the resultant relationship. Such expression frequently takes the form of a proportion. In the mathematical sciences the proportion may represent a precise balance; its statement may be an exact formula. In other sciences, a definite relationship between cause and effect has likewise been established in many cases, though not always with mathematical precision. Comparable exactitude has not been attained, in some cases, because the field has not been so thoroughly explored; moreover, greater difficulty is experienced, at times, in isolating the cause, or causes. The balance represented by such equations, therefore, is based on quantities whose weights vary within wide ranges.

Human conduct does not lend itself to analysis as readily as do mathematical and physical phenomena. The advance in the psychological and sociological sciences is not so marked as in the physical, and the actions and reactions of the mind of man have not yet proved to be susceptible of reduction to exact formulae. Nevertheless, man, in his intuitive search for valid guides for his own action, has been able, with the advance of time, greatly to improve his own lot through the medium of the scientific approach to human problems.

The insistent search of the human mind for reliable rules of action is a recognized natural phenomenon. As understood on the basis of expert investigation of the subject, this trait results from the recognition, conscious or otherwise, by countless generations of mankind, of the relationships between cause and effect as evidenced in the workings of the laws of nature. A logical outcome, therefore, of experience, this instinctive demand of the mind constitutes a force which defies opposition. Properly utilized, this force affords a powerful and natural aid in the solution of problems.

Inasmuch as a valid rule, or principle, is of great assistance in arriving at sound decisions and in formulating effective plans, this demand for reliable guides is logical, as well as natural. In any event, the demand for such guidance, if not met by provision for reliable rules of action, may result in the adoption of faulty rules, with frequent unfortunate consequences.

The formulation of principles, already referred to in this connection, constitutes in itself a recognized problem of great difficulty; for it is a human failing to avoid the mental effort involved in thinking through such a problem, and to rely on rules whose plausibility and seeming simplicity are frequently a measure of their incompleteness and inaccuracy.

Since the earliest days, man has attempted to formulate the relationships between causes and effects without, however, always possessing the specific knowledge essential to accuracy. Pithy statements have always had great appeal to man, as evidenced by the existence of proverbs, maxims, and adages preserved from times of great antiquity. Frequently, however, such statements are not expressive of the truth. Sometimes, again, they state facts, without, nevertheless, expressing the whole truth.

Only when the relationship between cause and effect has been demonstrated to be always true can the trained, inquiring mind receive its statement as a valid guide, acceptable as a principle in the light of the knowledge of the day.

To rely upon rules of action which do not express the whole truth is to court the danger of encountering exceptions which may entail serious consequences. The value of those rules known to be inexpressive of the whole truth lies in the fact that they may invite attention to circumstances which are sometimes encountered, or may suggest methods of action which are sometimes appropriate. Danger lies in the fact that such rules may fail to give proper emphasis to other circumstances or other methods which are encountered or are more appropriate in other cases.

Such a rule may fail to consider the entire problem. Its use, therefore, implies the necessity of recognizing cases to which it is not applicable. This may frequently be difficult in the active operations of war, when nervous strain and the urgency of events are handicaps to quick and accurate thinking.

To express the whole truth, a rule of action calls to attention all circumstances, or causes, which may ever influence the result. The saying that “the exception proves the rule” is properly interpreted only in the older sense that an exception “tests” the rule, indicating by the mere fact of exception that the rule is to such extent incomplete.

Subject to variations of phraseology, the old adage “circumstances alter cases” is the sole reliable and fundamental rule of action. A corresponding maxim of the military profession, “It depends on the situation”, has its root in recognition of the same fact, i.e., that the action taken in any situation depends, properly, on the circumstances of the case, and that the relationship between cause and effect is always the governing consideration. The principles deduced hereafter have these irrefutable findings as their foundation.

Factors: A situation is by definition a combination of circumstances, which are the effects of certain causes. To these causes, the term “factors”, long in use in the military profession, is customarily applied in many other activities. Through their influence as causes, these factors operate to produce, as their effects, the circumstances which, in combination, constitute the situation. A combination of factors, therefore, gives to each situation its distinctive character, differentiating it from other situations.

To maintain an existing situation, it is necessary to preserve, in total effect, the influence of factors already present, or to introduce new factors to offset the influence of any which tend to cause a change. To change the situation, it is necessary to introduce factors which will exert the desired influence; or, change may be effected by altering the influence of factors already present. To say, therefore, that “It depends on the situation”, as in the maxim cited (above), is to state that under all circumstances, the proper action depends on, or is determined by, the influence of the factors involved. Any valid rule, or principle, will accordingly take into account the factors applicable to the case.

The application of any rule will similarly take into account the influence of the particular factors involved. The danger of the application of such factors to all circumstances, without due circumspection as to their value in the existing situation, lies in the fact that, in any particular combination of circumstances, they do not necessarily carry equal weight.

If this view be accepted, it follows that in many situations certain factors may, after mature deliberation, be rejected, or relegated to a relatively inferior status, without detracting from their potential value as fundamental considerations in all situations.

Value and Limitations of Lists of Principles of War. The human preference for catchwords has, by many writers on the science and art of war, been extended to the attempted condensation of a principle or of several principles into a single all-inclusive word or phrase. As a result, varying lists of abstract nouns and phrases have been advanced to constitute epitomes of the principles of war. Subject to minor differences in number and in designation, the list most frequently encountered comprises The Objective, Superiority, The Offensive, Economy of Force, Movement, Cooperation, Surprise, Security, and Simplicity.

To rely on a list of this nature, as a condensation of the fundamentals of war, has been known to cause confusion and to result in failure to recognize the principles which are intended to be brought to mind.

For example, misunderstanding has resulted from the designation of the single word, surprise, as a “principle of war”. On the one hand, it has been denied that surprise embodies a principle, the reason being advanced that it is neither always necessary, nor feasible, nor even desirable to attempt to obtain surprise. On the other hand, the acceptance of the word surprise, as itself expressing a universal truth (which it of course does not except by inference), has been known to result in the incorrect belief that surprise is always essential to success. Action based on such a viewpoint is the equivalent of applying general treatment to specific cases, regardless of circumstances.

Thus there have resulted distortions of the simple fact that a relationship exists between the employment of the unexpected, and the creation of a disadvantage which will hamper an opponent. The correct formulation of a principle, or of several principles, governing the employment of surprise, will result in a definite statement that its appropriate employment is dependent upon the various factors that make up the situation, the influence of each of which requires evaluation in each separate situation.

Analysis, in like manner, of the so-called “principle of the objective” as a “principle of war” will show that the objective of a military force is, in itself, no more a principle of war than the direction of a physical force is, in itself, a principle of mechanics. Both concepts, however, involve certain matters of fact which can best be explained by principles. Such principles take note of the factors pertaining to the subjects, and indicate the underlying relationships in a manner to be later shown herein.

Certainly the preceding list (above) of isolated expressions includes no item which, in the abstract, may not properly be considered as possibly vital from the strategical and tactical standpoints. But that these expressions are always vital, and that there are no other considerations, can scarcely be accepted as final. Even if this objection could be removed by the inclusion of all factors well known to be vital, the fact would still remain that these expressions, standing alone, fail to satisfy the real need; i.e., they fail to indicate any practical application of the concepts which they are intended to imply. They do no more than provide a useful point of origin for further inquiry. When understood on this basis, they possess a certain value.

The concept underlying the application of principles is correct with respect to military problems, as well as for all others. This purpose, however, cannot be served by a mere collection of nouns or noun-phrases. Such expressions make no statements of cause and effect. Their meaning is therefore left to inference and to the idiosyncrasy of individual interpretation. The formulation, moreover, of useful principles cannot be satisfactorily established by the more-or-less random selection of matters, however important, pertaining to the subject at hand. What is required is a systematic analysis of the essentials of the subject, with resultant emphasis on the fundamental causes and effects whose relationships are to be expressed.

Formulation and Use of Principles. The formulation of a principle, referred to previously as itself a difficult problem, requires a citation of the factors pertaining to the subject. On the basis of these factors as causes, the principles, when properly formulated, also state the effects which may properly be expected.

The relationship between causes and effects, or between effects and their causes, may be expressed in various ways. The requirement is that the expression be one of fact and that, if the principle purport to cover the entire subject, all of the pertinent facts be stated, though not necessarily all the details involved.

In addition to the principles of general application, the later discussion herein includes numerous other principles, with reference to matters of detail. To some of these principles the treatment invites special attention. All principles included have been phrased with due care, to ensure conformity with the requirements above stated. The preferred form, herein, for the usual statement of cause and effect is through the use of phraseology such as that certain effects “depend on” or are “dependent on” certain causes, or that certain causes “determine” certain effects, or that the latter “are determined by” certain causes.

From the standpoint of the exercise of judgment, it is a principle that the due determination of effects to be produced depends on the proper consideration of pertinent factors. Once the principles applicable to any subject have been formulated in necessary detail, the evaluation of the cited factors with respect to a particular situation becomes the vital procedure as to any problem where that subject is involved. In the course of this evaluation, corollary or subordinate principles may be of assistance. In military problems, however, the evaluation usually involves many factors not susceptible of reasonably exact determination by the use of formulae. In such cases, experience, education, and training afford the only secure basis for judgment which will produce reliable conclusions. The principles, therefore, provide reliable guides by citing the factors to be evaluated in order to arrive at desired results, but the principles cannot replace logical thought in the evaluation of the factors.

In formulating principles as practical guides for action, as well as in using them when formulated, failure to give consideration to all pertinent factors may result in vitiating the effort based on their application. Danger also lies in the fact that any particular factor will infrequently have the same value—the same influence on the situation—in any two problems. Therefore, in each situation, each factor requires to be weighed in connection with the others. The soundness of the resulting conclusion will depend on the extent of the knowledge available and on its useful employment.

Summary of Fundamental Considerations. The factors involved in determining the nature of an effect and of the action to attain it become fundamental considerations when it is desired to arrive at such a result under a particular set of circumstances.

The relationships obtaining between the desired effect and the action to attain it, on the one hand, and the factors involved, on the other, are best expressed in the form of principles. The next chapter is therefore devoted to the development of basic principles applicable to military problems.

via: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28178/28178-h/28178-h.htm

via: http://fantastic.library.cornell.edu

The String Theory predicts the existence of more than the 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension we are all familiar with. According to string theory, there are additional dimensions that we are unfamiliar with because they are curled up into tiny complicated shapes that can only be seen on tiny scales. If we could shrink to this tiny, Planck-sized scale we could see that at every 3D point in space, we can also explore 6 additional dimensions. This visualisation shows a Calabi-Yau surface which is a projection of these higher dimensions into the more familiar dimensions we are aware of.

Visualization by Jeff Bryant and based on concepts from A.J. Hanson.

A.J. Hanson, “A Construction for Computer Visualization of Certain Complex Curves,” in “Computers and Mathematics” column, ed. Keith Devlin, of Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 41, No. 9, pp. 1156–1163 (American Math. Soc., Providence, November/December, 1994).

via: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hanson/