Can You Calculate the Unpredictable? A Scientist Examines the Ways of Chaos
Smoke curls up from a burning cigarette. Oddly, there is no way to predict its twists and swirls as it rises. Burbling brooks and boiling water also defy complete explanation. So do the weather, the stock market and the economy.
For the last few years, the idea of chaos has intrigued scientists in many disciplines as a way to improve their understanding of these phenomena. To the scientists, chaos is unpredictable behavior. Now chaos is being found in the affairs of nations. Alvin M. Saperstein is a theoretical nuclear physicist by training and a student of the impact of science on society by trade. He argues that war is like that smoke rising from the cigarette. It is completely unpredictable.
In an article last year in the British journal Nature, Saperstein applied the ideas and techniques of chaos theory analyzing the transition from peace to war. He concluded that war can be understood as a “breakdown in predictability: a situation in which small perturbations of initial conditions, such as malfunctions of early warning radar systems or irrational acts of individuals disobeying orders, can lead to large unforeseen changes.”
“There is no way . . . to predict the effect of the actions of any participant--analyst, planner, statesman or general--with any certainty,” he says.
This idea is not new to Saperstein, as he is the first to concede. Clausewitz, Tolstoy and Barbara Tuchman have all reflected at length on the unpredictability of war. It is a theme heard in current military analysis. “If a war occurs, it is likely to be intrinsically uncontrollable,” Paul J. Bracken concluded in his book, “The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces” (Yale University Press: 1983), which some people consider to be the best book about nuclear war in many years.
“Uncertainties, random phenomena and the general notion of chaos lead to loss of control,” Saperstein, the chaos theorist, said by telephone from his office at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is trying to come up with a mathematical model to predict when international relations will turn chaotic and lead to war.
Saperstein says his work is an effort to counter a trend by government strategists who have been trying to use mathematics to predict international events. According to Saperstein, their work incorrectly assumes that things will remain predictable after war breaks out. It ignores the chaos factor, he says: “The political scientists and the military strategists who are now playing around with mathematics are a couple of hundred years behind the physical scientists.”
Of particular interest to Saperstein is the area where orderly events turn chaotic. His theory does not yet attempt to understand what happens after a war starts. Physical scientists know that chaos cannot be eliminated, only minimized, and Saperstein believes that political scientists must ultimately accept this state of affairs as well.
James Yorke, a mathematician at the University of Maryland and one of the leaders of the chaos movement, says he thinks it’s reasonable to apply the principles of chaos to human affairs. “There’s been a major change in the conception of people as to how processes evolve in time,” he says. “This instability and unpredictability is an essential aspect of chaos.”
For example, he says, the economy always seems to outwit economists’ explanations of it. “We try to ascribe it to bad data,” he says, “but it’s partly due to the instability of the system, which is essentially chaotic. The system is inherently unstable and remains unstable.”
Saperstein says if his rudimentary chaos model can be improved sufficiently, the shapers of foreign policy will be able to identify areas of potential chaos and steer clear of them. “In terms of our security policies, if this chaos is a legitimate fear, and I believe it is, then you can’t get rid of it and keep your present security policies,” he says. “You’re going to have to start thinking about alternative security policies.”
As with many analyses, however, identifying the problem is easy compared to solving it, which is extremely hard. Saperstein says he thinks it would make sense to bolster conventional military forces and reduce dependence on nuclear weapons. He also thinks the country should pay greater attention to the non-military aspects of national security. Both strategies, he thinks, would help avoid chaotic regions in international relations.
“I’m not a pacifist,” he says. “I’d like to be, but I can’t logically bring myself to that. There must be military elements in a national security policy. But I believe they should be effective military elements, which we are not doing. At the same time, I believe we are ignoring all nonmilitary aspects of a security policy.”
Saperstein is spending his time trying to improve his mathematical model for the onset of war, and he is striving to get better data as well. “It’s hard to get, and it’s hard to interpret,” he says. He’s also trying to see if his very tentative ideas strike a responsive chord among military analysts seeking to improve their understanding and results.
