3 ms·

While people may like to call the RAND Corporation as an entity of "nuclear hawks," it seems a bit dismissive of the mission and nature of what the RAND Corpora

While people may like to call the RAND Corporation as an entity of "nuclear hawks," it seems a bit dismissive of the mission and nature of what the RAND Corporation was chartered to do. They were tasked, and encouraged, to apply their creativity, brain power, quantitative skills, to study decision spaces, future possibilities and analyze these to arrive at recommendations and methods for best achieving desired outcomes, as well as identifying and understanding blind spots in thinking. In the above context of nuclear war, I don't believe nuclear war was an organizationally desired outcome, however they had to contemplate it and its implications. This is the organization that concluded based on application of quantitative methods (e.g. game theory) that for example, pursuing a credible strategy of mutually assured destruction was objectively the best way to avoid a nuclear war. I recommend looking for references to the phrase "Thinking the Unthinkable" to get additional insight to some of RAND's studies.

Spooky23 2y ago
Think tanks are not about the talent, they are about who pays the bills. The USAF paid the bills. The guy signing the checks was Curtis LeMay, who was a… reactionary who ended up as running mate to the George Wallace. He was an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear war and inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. MAD came a bit later, many of the key folks assumed and accepted that nuclear conflict was inevitable. And they may have been right.
- ferfumarma 2y ago
  The article provides several concrete examples where RAND drew conclusions counter to the implied interests of the USAF. In the absence of counterexamples your argument sounds plausible, but incorrect.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Fortunately, other resources exist. Try reading the book “Soldiers of Reason”. RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. In that era, several of the principals fully expected that there would be a nuclear exchange in the 60s or 70s.
    - esotericimpl 2y ago
      [dead]
    - moandcompany 2y ago
      > RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. This is literally a stretch of reality. Was the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) founded to figure out how to wage intergalactic space domination, and is CalTech the brain of NASA? RAND, and the concept of FFRDCs (as well as UARCs), was created in the mid 1940s because of the recognition that the US government's partnership and direct ties to private sector industries for many national security matters was overexposed to the private sector's self-interest or potential conflict of interest. It was founded to create a gap between the government and private sector of contractors that bid on contracts to (mass) produce "weapons" systems. The thinking was, because the US Government and its armed services do not (sufficiently) have its own organic or dedicated personnel or a workforce for "R&D," it needed an expert workforce (i.e. "think-tanks") to help research requirements, core technologies, and guide the rest of the "R&D" process for "weapons" systems development -- and those experts should not be the companies that ultimately produce (i.e. prime contractors that bid on production contracts) those systems because of conflicts of interest. Similarly, by being directly involved in the "R&D" of a system's requirements/design, etc, conflicts of interest might preclude those contractors from being able to bid and be awarded contracts to produce those systems under US Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) The US Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force, were reliant on R&D efforts from for-profit contractors such as Douglas Aircraft (it's worth mentioning that this is the same era of Howard Hughes and Hughes Aircraft) to develop requirements, "weapons" systems designs, and ultimately produce those systems. The starting pieces of the RAND Corporation were a split-off of Douglas Aircraft's R&D groups to create organizational distance and gaps for mitigating conflict of interest. [Note: this doesn't mean that the idea of "self-licking ice cream cones" don't exist in the world of FFRDCs/UARCs, and the tendency of large organizations or bureaucracies to act in a manner to perpetuate their own existence certainly applies] See US FAR 35.017-2: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629
- moandcompany 2y ago
  Indeed, everyone and every organization ends up having to consider how the bills get paid (i.e. "be careful about biting the hand that feeds). That's probably a universal understanding. Yet we also have real life examples where people and organizations still act in a manner that differs from providing the most expedient or most self-interested outcome. RAND itself is the place where Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers from.

Spooky23 2y ago

Think tanks are not about the talent, they are about who pays the bills. The USAF paid the bills. The guy signing the checks was Curtis LeMay, who was a… reactionary who ended up as running mate to the George Wallace. He was an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear war and inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. MAD came a bit later, many of the key folks assumed and accepted that nuclear conflict was inevitable. And they may have been right.

ferfumarma 2y ago
The article provides several concrete examples where RAND drew conclusions counter to the implied interests of the USAF. In the absence of counterexamples your argument sounds plausible, but incorrect.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Fortunately, other resources exist. Try reading the book “Soldiers of Reason”. RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. In that era, several of the principals fully expected that there would be a nuclear exchange in the 60s or 70s.
  - esotericimpl 2y ago
    [dead]
  - moandcompany 2y ago
    > RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. This is literally a stretch of reality. Was the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) founded to figure out how to wage intergalactic space domination, and is CalTech the brain of NASA? RAND, and the concept of FFRDCs (as well as UARCs), was created in the mid 1940s because of the recognition that the US government's partnership and direct ties to private sector industries for many national security matters was overexposed to the private sector's self-interest or potential conflict of interest. It was founded to create a gap between the government and private sector of contractors that bid on contracts to (mass) produce "weapons" systems. The thinking was, because the US Government and its armed services do not (sufficiently) have its own organic or dedicated personnel or a workforce for "R&D," it needed an expert workforce (i.e. "think-tanks") to help research requirements, core technologies, and guide the rest of the "R&D" process for "weapons" systems development -- and those experts should not be the companies that ultimately produce (i.e. prime contractors that bid on production contracts) those systems because of conflicts of interest. Similarly, by being directly involved in the "R&D" of a system's requirements/design, etc, conflicts of interest might preclude those contractors from being able to bid and be awarded contracts to produce those systems under US Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) The US Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force, were reliant on R&D efforts from for-profit contractors such as Douglas Aircraft (it's worth mentioning that this is the same era of Howard Hughes and Hughes Aircraft) to develop requirements, "weapons" systems designs, and ultimately produce those systems. The starting pieces of the RAND Corporation were a split-off of Douglas Aircraft's R&D groups to create organizational distance and gaps for mitigating conflict of interest. [Note: this doesn't mean that the idea of "self-licking ice cream cones" don't exist in the world of FFRDCs/UARCs, and the tendency of large organizations or bureaucracies to act in a manner to perpetuate their own existence certainly applies] See US FAR 35.017-2: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629
moandcompany 2y ago
Indeed, everyone and every organization ends up having to consider how the bills get paid (i.e. "be careful about biting the hand that feeds). That's probably a universal understanding. Yet we also have real life examples where people and organizations still act in a manner that differs from providing the most expedient or most self-interested outcome. RAND itself is the place where Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers from.