3 ms·
Seems like no conclusion can be drawn? > We show that the inter-arrival times among major conflicts are extremely long, and consistent with a homogenous Poisso
by throwawaysea 6y ago
Seems like no conclusion can be drawn?
> We show that the inter-arrival times among major conflicts are extremely long, and consistent with a homogenous Poisson process: therefore no specific trend can be established: we as humans can not be deemed as less belligerent than usual. For a conflict generating at least 10 million casualties, an event less bloody than WW1 or WW2, the waiting time is on average 136 years, with a mean absolute deviation of 267 (or 52 years and 61 deviations for data rescaled to today’s population). The seventy years of what is called the "Long Peace" are clearly not enough to state much about the possibility of WW3 in the near future.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoAt least not on the basis of backward-looking statistics, assuming that inter-arrival times of major wars are correctly/most closely modeled by Poisson processes as the authors believe. You could make a claim based on other things. For example, you could claim that the speed and fidelity of information transfer render it now more difficult to have a major war. You could argue that the incredible amount and speed of power projection we now have access to render international warfare game-theoretically very difficult. (For example, there will not likely ever be another amphibious invasion conflict between of equiv-tech major powers. There are too many weapons systems that can accurately destroy surface ships, so it would be impossible to get close enough to make landfall.) But any such claims could not be based on statistics.