I constantly change my definition of rationality to allow for different tolerances of risk. The most straightforward definition is to assign utility to every possible outcome, calculate the utilities and maximize them.
But this strategic scheme makes no statement about KN-23 ballistic missiles or anything like that. This is not a board game.
Estimation and decision-making under practical uncertainty is tricky. Using knowledge, that is, “a justified true belief,” to minimize being atomized by deadly projectiles is rational individually but might be irrational if everyone at the Sunday outdoor market chooses to rush to the same bomb shelter at the same time.
We want to avoid the rationality of the commons, as it were.
Which brings me to New York and Toretsk, two cities in eastern Ukraine which are currently being bombed and overrun. The pink blob east of Pokrovsk is only 10 kilometers away.
I watched Z’s pep talk last night.
[I]t is undoubtedly important for us that our partners remove the barriers that prevent us from weakening Russian positions as required by the course of the war. The long-range capabilities of our forces are the answer to all the most important, to all the most strategic issues of this war.
Actually, no. It’s a little more complicated than that.
We discussed Schwerpunkt almost two years ago1.
What I’m thinking about this morning is defensive fortifications that were paid for and not built. I’m old enough to remember being told that 2024 was supposed to be “the year of digging in.”
Never let tactical answers get in the way of strategic questions. There are bigger problems than your own beef.
Fear the rationality of the Commons.