Researchers find selfishness can sometimes help the common good

Scientists have overturned the conventional wisdom that cooperation is essential for the well-being of the whole population, finding evidence that slackers can sometimes help the common good. Researchers, from Imperial College London, the Universities of Bath and Oxford, University College London and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology studied populations of yeast and found that a mixture of 'co-operators' and 'cheats' grew faster than a more utopian one of only "co-operators."

The study, publishing next week in the online, open access journal , used both laboratory experiments and a to understand why and how a little "selfishness" can benefit the whole .

In the study, the "co-operator" yeast produce a protein called invertase that breaks down sugar (sucrose) to give food (glucose) that is available to the rest of the population. The "cheats" eat the broken down sugar but don't make invertase themselves, and so save their energy.

Professor Laurence Hurst, Royal Society-Wolfson Research Merit Award Holder at the University of Bath, explained: "We found that yeast used sugar more efficiently when it was scarce, and so having 'cheats' in the population stopped the yeast from wasting their food. Secondly we found that because yeast cannot tell how much sucrose is available to be broken down, they waste energy making invertase even after there is no sugar left. This puts a brake on population growth. But if most of the population are 'co-operators' and the remainder are 'cheats,' not all of the population is wasting their energy and limiting growth. For these effects to matter, we found that 'co-operators' needed to be next to other 'co-operators' so they get more of the glucose they produce. If any of these three conditions were changed, the 'cheats' no longer benefitted the population."

Dr. Ivana Gudelj, NERC Advanced Fellow and Lecturer in Applied Mathematics at Imperial College London added: "Our work illustrates that the commonly used language of 'co-operators' and 'cheats' could in fact obscure the reality. When the addition of more invertase producers reduces the fitness of all, it is hard to see invertase production as co-operation, even if it behaves in a more classical co-operative manner, benefitting all, when rare."

The researchers suggest similar situations may exist in other species where 'cheats' help rather than hinder the population.


Explore further

Social parasites of the smaller kind

More information: MacLean RC, Fuentes-Hernandez A, Greig D, Hurst LD, Gudelj I (2010) A Mixture of ''Cheats'' and ''Co-Operators'' Can Enable Maximal Group Benefit. PLoS Biol 8(9): e1000486. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000486
Citation: Researchers find selfishness can sometimes help the common good (2010, September 14) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-09-selfishness-common-good.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 14, 2010
Today's propaganda from the business community. Greed is good says it more obviously.

This is a great distortion.

Sep 14, 2010
Today's propaganda from the business community. Greed is good says it more obviously.

This is a great distortion.

The truth doesn't care what our preferences are. Sometimes the truth is "inconvenient". Sometimes the truth hurts. Just as quoted above, all the cool products and services that make your life better aren't made out of the goodness of the hearts of the people in the companies. They're made so the owners and employees can make a profit. You benefit by their and their competitors attempts to out do the other to win your choice of who to trade cash for product. Your decision isn't based out of the goodness of your heart either. Your buying to satisfy a need or want for yourself or those close to you. As a result of your self interest and the self interest of the people competing for your money, we all win. Products and services improve over time, for the most part, because of this. It's like natural selection and evolution. The freedom to choose...

Sep 14, 2010
ormondotvos, what do you propose, an ideological answer which has a 100% failure rate?

Sep 14, 2010
Either stance is oversimplification.
all sysems rely on feedback circuits to maximize efficiency.

Some are more responsive than others, because some have fewer inhibitory processes inbuilt. A yeast population is a far more simple system than an economy.

And, I will add, far more "honest" when responding to feedback -as opposed to an economy as defined by mongo and CS, above, which is well-known for actively resisting/cheating/colluding to overcome negative feedback fron it's "environment" -whether that be from consumers, competitors, regulation or legal intervention.

Sep 14, 2010
Today's propaganda from the business community. Greed is good says it more obviously.

This is a great distortion.


Why do liberals believe so readily in Darwinism, and believe so deeply in its folly?

Sep 14, 2010
Investment into development is far more important than the willingness to do good.

Sep 15, 2010

They ran the test with only co-operators but
I wonder what the results would have been if only "cheats" were in the mixture??

I'm assuming a population of only cheaters would die quickly. The invertase is used to convert un-usable sucrose into usable glucose, so without the co-operators no food source would be available.

Sep 15, 2010
Communist states have proven this over and over....

Yeah, because yeast that waste energy producing an enzyme that benefits other yeast without any reciprocal benefit (i.e. trade) from those other yeast are somehow equivalent to the capitalist, who will only do anything with his resources if he gets the most benefit out of it.

Both pure capitalism and pure communism suffer from the same flaw. They only work, even theoretically, if everyone was basically benevolent, trusting and trustworthy and nobody lacked the relevant knowledge they need to make decisions. A judicious compromise between the two is the only reasonable answer. It seems as if the yeast agree.

Sep 15, 2010
In any situation where a large population is dependent upon its constitutents one must have variation, be it physiologically or psychologically in order to maintain group functionality. If everyone was greedy no wealth would exist as resources wouldn't circulate. If everyone was altruistic wealth wouldn't exist as there would be no basis upon which wealth would be created. As seen in biology, economics, psychology, and sociology, a group of same individuals always fails in the long run.

Sep 15, 2010

And, I will add, far more "honest" when responding to feedback -as opposed to an economy as defined by mongo and CS, above, which is well-known for actively resisting/cheating/colluding to overcome negative feedback fron it's "environment" -whether that be from consumers, competitors, regulation or legal intervention.

Are you suggesting consumers can provide a negative feedback to an economy? Without the govt holding their hands?


Maryjane,
Do you want to restate what it is that you are suggesting I'm suggesting? It's difficult to respond to a disingenuous question? When it's doubled?

Moron.

Sep 15, 2010

And, I will add, far more "honest" when responding to feedback -as opposed to an economy as defined by mongo and CS, above, which is well-known for actively resisting/cheating/colluding to overcome negative feedback fron it's "environment" -whether that be from consumers, competitors, regulation or legal intervention.

Are you suggesting consumers can provide a negative feedback to an economy? Without the govt holding their hands?


Maryjane,
Do you want to restate what it is that you are suggesting I'm suggesting? It's difficult to respond to a disingenuous question? When it's doubled?

Moron.

My question is quite clear. Maybe you should restate if I didn't understand your 'brilliance'.


It wasn't at all- in fact, wasn't? even? a proper? Question?

Go blow noise from your datapointarmchair-equipped mangyhole, and don't look to me to sort out your inanity.

Sep 15, 2010
Cali, the question:
"Are you suggesting consumers can provide a negative feedback to an economy? "
Clear enough?


I think that is a pretty well-established principle. Unfortunately, without complete, timely, relevant information, in addition to regulation and legal consequences, consumer negative feedback is insufficient, in and of itself, as a method of redress in all cases.

Don't you agree?

Sep 16, 2010
Cali, the question:
"Are you suggesting consumers can provide a negative feedback to an economy? "
Clear enough?


I think that is a pretty well-established principle. Unfortunately, without complete, timely, relevant information, in addition to regulation and legal consequences, consumer negative feedback is insufficient, in and of itself, as a method of redress in all cases.

Don't you agree?

No.


Well, that certainly comes as no surprise. I have often noted the ever-widening abyss between the wilfully ignorant wishful thinking you indulge in and actual reality.

Moron.


Sep 18, 2010
... Microsoft did a disservice to mankind and destroyed a lot of courageous businesses and invalidated a lot of ingenious work. For the capitalist market is not driven by honesty.

False logic. You don't explain the relation between honesty and the good of mankind. The very thought of it is absurdly Disney. Any strong species is driven by self interest. Any cooperation is ultimately done in self interest. Selflessness, by helping the weaker, is, while not in all cases, in general that which cripples a species, as you can easily understand. What's important to remember is to never suffer from this type of hubris and simply assume you can possibly decide what's best for mankind, neither you nor I are that wise.
The best system is without doubt liberal and capitalistic. Why? Because it's darwinistic, just like our universe. It follows our reality, and plays by its rules, instead of desperately trying to cheat them by giving false hope--such as the case of communism.

Sep 19, 2010
For the capitalist market is not driven by honesty.

Of course is must be to stay in business.
Put the pipe down.

worse products were better advertized

They were not worse for the customers. Quality is meeting the need of the customer.

And marketing is conning the customer into thinking that your product is more well suited to their needs.
Microsoft did a disservice to mankind and destroyed a lot of courageous businesses and invalidated a lot of ingenious work.
@Frajo, that is the nature of business. Microsoft has created a more connected world, along with many other companies. Far from a disservice.

Sep 19, 2010
It's funny how people can still insist that communism works, given that _every_ communist state has crashed completely. Then again idealists don't really think, as much as they hope. And they always project their egocentrical views upon others, paving the way for dictatorship. What's worse is that these people aren't ashamed of it. They would be up for the task as ruling dictator if given the opportunity. Then they dare talk about "honesty" and the "good of mankind". Fortunately most idealists are kids that hopefully will grow up and see the flaws of their logic.

Sep 19, 2010
Of business in a capitalist world, yes.
There is no other world currently in existence so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Microsoft has created a more connected world, along with many other companies.
MS has _created_ exactly nothing technically. They have adulterated and exploited technical progress but they didn't _create_ it.
I'm sorry but this is patently false. They've inplemented the majority of universal code compliance models which allow for information systems to function as they do today. Without MS, we may not have anywhere near the interoperability that we do today.
The dominance of MS operating systems is the worst case of any conceivable OS world dominance pattern.
Actually that title belongs to Novell's security context, Netware.
Therefore, anyone who is really interested should visit a OS neutral OS forum like osnews.com
Which is run by 3 of the biggest names in LINUX. Hardly neutral frajo.

Sep 19, 2010
We get it frajo, you love FOSS. So do I. You're however confusing FOSS with socialism. FOSS belongs to the liberals, and if you can't see the relation between FREEDOM and LIBERAL I have no more to say. All I'm thinking right now is that I'm discussing idealism with a kid, and that it is rather pointless. I'm sorry to be repeating what you've heard a million times but: you'll understand when you get older. We were all once idealists.

Sep 19, 2010
You couldn't just google it?

http://en.wikiped...software

Sep 19, 2010
You can't define terms?
Writing classes used to teach how to add footnotes and references.
As Rush says, people value what they pay for. How much does FOSS cost?

My apologies. I suppose I assume most people know how to utilize the most broadly used function on internet. I suppose you're asking what FOSS is worth to the consumer, and that I'm completely uninterested in. In a business environment your strongest argument is just that--cost. And I'll promise you one thing, if you tell the management that your solution is free, then there is no discussion about it.

Sep 19, 2010
In a free market, businesses are kept honest by competition.
Yes, I guess melamine may actually have been healthier for babies and companion animals. And orange juice for babies may not actually need orange juice in it to be nutritious... enough.
MS has _created_ exactly nothing technically. They have adulterated and exploited technical progress but they didn't _create_ it.
Are you nuts??
What is FOSS?
Its pretty near to FOAD in google.

Sep 19, 2010
Heroes always use more resources than the average one.
It's easily forgiven.

Sep 19, 2010
Funny all the posts on society, this study was about yeast. Extrapolating to humans is quite a leap.

Sep 19, 2010
I find the title disingenuous. The study found that the entire population focusing all its efforts on producing an enzyme for a limited resource is less advantageous than only part of it creating that one enzyme. Nothing really exciting about that, overproduction is rarely, if ever, advantageous, although I guess it doesn't make as good of an article.

Sep 19, 2010
Funny all the posts on society, this study was about yeast. Extrapolating to humans is quite a leap.

There is a study about anti-oxidants here that extrapolates from rats.

Our biochemistry is very similar.

Sep 19, 2010
Consumers discovered the contamination and the importer, subject to product liability, recalled the products.
Yeah, because some babies and some pets died. Because unbridled competition drove manufacturers to cheat. Which is inevitable.

Sep 20, 2010
Capitalism and greed are far better at generating wealth than any other system that's been tried, but quality of life isn't only dependent on wealth. The computer I'm typing this on exists because of capitalism, but I can afford it because of public education and taxpayer-supported university places.

The world hasn't seen pure capitalism or pure communism. Pure communism would be better at generating wealth than pure capitalism - cooperation trumps competition. But we haven't seen this yet - people are (in general) too dumb for pure communism, and too smart for pure capitalism.

As for me, I'm happy living in a country with socialized health care - I pay less tax and have more $ invested than if I earned the same money (anything less than about $300k... I got bored before I figured out the exact amount) in Silicon Valley, and I don't need to worry about health insurance. Or my job. 5.1% unemployment is sweet...

Sep 20, 2010
Today's propaganda from the business community. Greed is good says it more obviously.

This is a great distortion.


Why do liberals believe so readily in Darwinism, and believe so deeply in its folly?


This is a great assumption. I consider myself to be "progressive" in my beliefs, in that I believe the government and society have little role in people's personal lives. I tend to be more conservative in my economic views, as I believe that the free market is the greatest engine of innovation the world has ever known. That said, Democrats and Republicans offer almost the exact same political practices. Just check the administrations and congress's under both parties through history. In the last 50 years they have operated almost identically once in power, despite their claimed differences in opinion. Don't be to quick to trust any politician, no matter what side they claim to be on.

Sep 20, 2010
Chinese companies hired NSF to certify their products as the govt can't be trusted.
Because they were forced to?

"Two men have been executed in China for selling hundreds of tonnes of contaminated milk that killed six babies and made 300,000 ill."

Sep 20, 2010
That society is made up of INDIVIDUALS.
Any wealth 'distribution' must respect the individual or it will fail.
Your body is made up of individual cells, yet the food you eat and water you drink is shared equitably between them based on need. When this resource distribution system fails, you die. Would you like to see society die?
Our biochemistry is very similar.
The biochemistry of each human is not the same.

Sorry, you are not a unique and individual snowflake tailored by a great creator.

You're a slightly evolved ape that has the same biochemical signatures as all other apes to an extent of 99.9999999% If you would like to refute that, start publishing your evidence.

If you were right, there'd be a lot more dead people out there with no liver, no kidneys, no blood, no bone marrow, etc, etc, etc.

Sep 20, 2010
Marjon, if what you insinuate were true, no drug or food would ever do the same thing to two people. Hasn't your mother ever told you that it's not the differences that matter, but how we're all the same? We are far, far more alike than different, that's why medicine works at all. Your insistence that you are different, unique and special, and your aversion to anything that connects you to other people, or other people to each other, is the strongest hallmark of a sociopath.

Sep 20, 2010
We do celebrate diversity. The basis of diversity is tolerance. The foundation of tolerance is the recognition that fundamentally, we are all the same, with the same basic wants, needs, hopes and fears.

I am opposed to fascism, where one or a group of powerful, private individuals co-opt control of a society, and force it to serve their desires. Your individualism is not a celebration of the uniqueness of of each of us, but a denial of our ability to band together to protect ourselves from the tyrant and barbarian. You view this protection as oppressive socialism, and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you want the freedom to be a tyrant and barbarian, that you oppose anyone's freedom who does not bow to yours first.

Sep 20, 2010
Thrasymachus is correct, if you value your individuality you must be tolerant of others. If a group of people want to form a socialist government to live under, your government has no right to say they cant, anymore then they they have the right to force their views on you. The irony of men is their double-vision... fear leads them to guard their own perceived freedoms at the expense of others around them.

It would be better if our society recognized a new right, the right for any citizen to form a government and for any citizen to join any government of their choosing. This would allow for various groups to experiment with different social ideas without having to force others into compliance who aren't interested. All governments would need to pay into basics like police and defense but besides that it should all depend on the government you choose to create/join.

Sep 20, 2010
I remain stunned that many clutter this scientific website with their deeply held political agendas. It's preferable to leave political and religious biases on FaceBook and instead consider the evidence and ideas put forward here.

A blend of "cooperators" and "cheats" provides the greatest benefit in yeast, just as a blend of altruism and self-interest provides for the greatest common good. This is why capitalism left unchecked has consistently led to monopolies with a few wealthy people at the top and most in poverty. Free information, the rule of law, and a few people sacrificing their own self-interest for the common good has been necessary to restore persistent imbalances which threaten market economies.

It is not in the interest of the planet for humans to consume all the available resources. We would do well to consider the optimal balance of supply and demand to ensure a sustainable future.

Here we may choose to differ from yeast.

Sep 21, 2010
The biochemistry of each human is not the same


It's pretty gosh darn similar given that we're all part of the same species.

Sep 21, 2010
We all can't share the same blood or organs.

Celebrate diversity!
This shows the ignorance in your posts. Medically our organs operate for the machine in which they were grown. The proteins that construct them are the same in all cases. As to my transplant comments, that was in reference to the multitude of non-human organs that we use in transplants.
BS. Only governments can establish and protect monopolies.
Free markets enable competition. 'Unchecked capitalism' is an oxymoron. Capitalism is 'checked' by competition and consumers.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Sep 21, 2010
BS. Only governments can establish and protect monopolies.
Free markets enable competition. 'Unchecked capitalism' is an oxymoron. Capitalism is 'checked' by competition and consumers.

Bs. Monopolies are almost self-created, and then maintained and expanded through undue influence over governmental apparatus to create regulation favorable to that monopoly's maintenance. Just as maryjane uses physorg to promote and maintain her near-monopoly of hypocrisy.

"Consumers"(as opposed to "Producers") can only refuse to purchase things that they can readily live -and function- without. See how long you could make it without heat or fresh water, margie- those eruptions on your backside would soon befoul your datapoint armchair to such an extent that you would be forced to exit the mangyhole!!

Which would be a very good thing thing for the rest of us.

Sep 21, 2010
You do realize, marjon, that there are laws on the books that compel the Attorney General to prosecute and break up monopolies in the U.S., right? The propensity of a firm to become a monopoly is well known, and they don't have to rely on government force to do it. In any competitive situation where winning the competition contributes to success in further competition, early winners come to dominate all subsequent competition. In business terms, this means they are able to lower their prices to such a degree that nobody else could compete and capture enough profit to cover the costs of entry. Eventually, the firm that is able to get its product to the market at the lowest cost is the only one left. No effective competition means no or very slow innovation, and the actions monopolies take to defend themselves from innovation inevitably corrupt governments.

Sep 21, 2010
The very fact that blood transfusions work at all undermines your point marjon.

Sep 21, 2010

If no competition exists in a free market, it is because their is insufficient demand.


OR a MONOPOLY exists, and/or it is a mature market and/or a saturated market.

Your bucket of sophistry doesn't hold water, moron.

Sep 21, 2010
Government power is corrupted when there are no internal checks and balances to the exercise of that power and private firms become powerful enough to influence its decision making processes and bribe legislators and regulators to write new law/regulations and enforce them in its favor. Government power is a necessary preventative for unchecked private power, which is after all one of the reasons we have a government in the first place. The complete absence of government, which is what you continually imply that you want, simply doesn't work.

Sep 22, 2010
War lords do enjoy their freedom from governments. The general population not so much.
War lords are the government in those instances. Anarchy doesn't work because there is always a person, or group of people, in power, which is "government". Anarchy is only a transitional state between different types of government, and is often a rather short lived transition at that.

Sep 22, 2010
Essentially, we agree. But I wouldn't use the term "government" for this kind of unformatted exertion of power. Perhaps "virtual government"?
Well, perhaps I see it a little differently. Effectively this is tribal government, typically based on who has the most primary or secondary reinforcers allowing totalitarian like dominance over the "population". If anything the government in this instance would be the "virtual government" while the warlords would represent the actual authority.

Sep 22, 2010
Evidence for a society without government: Somalia.

http://www.nytime...lia.html

Sep 22, 2010
We would probably have to refer to those people living beyond the reach of Warlords as having an "amorphous" government -some would practice actual democracy, some terror, some communism or socialism- it would run the gamut, depending upon the operational size of the group referred to.

Sep 22, 2010
Historically, if a government has not been an outright dictatorship, it has been some form of semi-democratic plutocratic bureaucracy. Dictatorships are what you might call the "ground state" of civilized government. Easy to administer, fast to make decisions, and cheap to fund. The more pure democracy you have in your government, the more political energy, and money, it takes to get anything done. Modern republics are semi-democratic bureaucracies that are not designed to be specifically plutocratic, but the influence of money on politics has meant that largely they are still plutocratic. The general trend of social advancement has been to slowly limit the influence of the plutocrats on the political process. Marjon would want to eliminate all such limitations on the power of any private individual, and so would throw us back to the most primitive form of civilized governance, the dictatorship.

Sep 23, 2010
They didn't work for Native People, they didn't work for Blacks, they didn't work for women.
They don't work for Afghanistan and Iraq.
They work for the wealthy ones - if there are no "Marxists".
You want everything NOW? The west is a work in progress.

The groups you mention are free, largely, after much work. Afghanistan and Iraq need to surrender their obsession with the past, live in the present, or they will remain a serious danger to world peace and stability.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, Iraq. Innocent victims, justified by preachers of "inherent rights".
Your disaffected idealism is sometimes cloying. You forgot to mention the kurds, the marsh arabs, kuwaitis, pol pot, the rape of nanking, bataan death march, etc.

Sep 23, 2010
Spontaneous in its formation and wide-ranging in its composition, the tea party upwelling is the first genuine grassroots movement in American politics in decades."
Baloney. Tea party is Ross Perot all over again, Designed to split the conservative vote when it counts, ensure a continuing liberal majority, and keep the money presses running. Probably.

Sep 24, 2010
"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. "
Yes, Tea Party supporters, not tea party members. Showing us once again that the corporate intelligensia is supporting the TEA party.

Sep 24, 2010
Maybe that is why so many oppose liberty in general, it leads to responsibility, as Frankl posits with his Statue of Responsibility.


Or, in maryjane's case, liberty confers the Responsibility to serve Corporatocracy.

What was that Dylan song-- "You Gotta Serve Someone"?

Was he referring to your God, MAMMON, mongo?

I'm thinking that your Masters should erect a statue of Mammon at the Ground Zero site, and then they could employ you full-time to coat it with laminate of troll-emissions. At least you would then serve some understandable purpose.


Sep 25, 2010
You forgot that I was answering marjon's apotheosis of the US Constitution. The crimes in your list cannot - IMHO - be attributed to supporters of the US Constitution.
Nothing in there that says the US can't assist allies in need- such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia- or oppressed peoples anywhere, by using force to do so.

Sep 25, 2010
Freed of their lives.
Saddam was once asked why he invaded Kuwait. He answered "because my army was beginning to be a problem." So he sent them on a mission which left them arrayed in long straight lines in the desert, and the US had no choice but to carpet-bomb them into oblivion, because their actions also presented a danger to Saudi arabia. Mutual problem solved. Win-win-win.

The same thing happened in afghanistan with the Taliban and the US-allied northern alliance. It exposes a macchiavellian truth about standing armies- if they are not used, they become a problem; they become active politically, and begin warring against their own people. They also forget how to fight; the enemy no longer fears them and their own people can not depend on their protection.

And so history shows time and again how armies are expended to preserve peace. Their very existence makes their use inevitable.

Sep 25, 2010
Unfortunately, volunteer armies like the Greek city-states had cannot compete with professionals- they lack the training and discipline, and technology. So another unfortunate dilemma- standing armies, while essential for a nations security, can also be a great danger to it. Welcome to the real world.

Sep 25, 2010
The US has a professional volunteer Army.
The service academies drill into their students the chain of command starts with a civilian and a 4 star is still lower than a civilian in rank.
Myth. You were talking about militias.

Sep 26, 2010
What is myth?
-That your comment had anything to do with mine.

The 'military industrial complex' as people here are fond of referring to, is a potent political force. And it includes the military power structure in addition to civilian CEOs and their corps. The US military has been kept active enough in conflicts to maintain hugh budgets. But if lasting peace were to break out in the world, it could turn into another beast entirely.

I am only paraphrasing and extrapolating macchiavelli in my posts- these are not new ideas. And we can see the results in various 3rd world countries where an idle officer corps has decided it knows best how to run a country and quell social unrest.
Cont.

Sep 26, 2010
-But of course there are bigger Issues at stake.

Our Iran sanctions are targeting the republican guard who haven't fought in a generation and are becoming a business and political power unto themselves as a result. The US might find itself doing a-jad the same favor it did Hussein, by destroying yet one more army.

Or at least offering it 'field training in earnest' to further hone the skills of both sides and so bolster regional Stability through mutual Controlled hostility.

Irans Nuke threat is yet one more reason for western military budgets to remain high, isn't it? And the west would have no Reason to develop cutting edge technologies without worthy adversaries to test them with.
Cont.

Sep 26, 2010
-Which leads us to yet one more regrettable Truth of war- new tactics and the technologies they are based on are worthless unless tested under actual combat conditions.

There is no way to know for certain that they can be relied on, unless they are actually used in battle against a credible Foe. And yet the need to know this is absolutely Essential. One more Reason to expect conflicts to be Planned and the Results safely Predetermined. Scientifically, so to speak.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more