Increasing Instability

One of Taleb's general predictions in The Black Swan is that because of the interconnectedness of events, Black Swans - unpredictable events of large impact - will become increasingly common. As prediction becomes more difficult, the strategy of being nimble will be of more value than trying to anticipate and prepare for all outcomes. It is unsurprising that I relate this to theological speculations.

It will have an increasing political effect until we adjust to it. Politicians will see more and more events go astray from their planning, and opposition parties will try to get mileage out of that. Retrospective criticism should always be viewed with suspicion. Events look inevitable in retrospect, and our replays of "what would have happened" usually assume that all other events remain unchanged. Der Hahn has mentioned in the comments here (last heard from in September) that the single actor fallacy is often a part of this.

Taleb points out, quite justly, that war is enormously unstable, among the most unstable of human events, and that politicians don't appreciate that as they should. One sees him looking out the corner of his eye at Iraq at that, but he refrains from partisanship. I entirely agree with that observation. I mentioned in my last post that the war currently seems to be going well. That can change overnight.

In the face of that, how could a nation risk going to war at all? Why voluntarily enter in to an unstable situation?

Because wars tend to occur when the situation is already unstable, that's why. In an unstable situation, all actions might increase instability. Stepping up diplomacy, imposing sanctions, sitting on your hands, and taking a break for English muffins might all unleash events which are even more dangerous. Not going to war is an action with long-term consequences, and as PJ O'Rourke notes "Peace Kills." Morally, the situation has not changed from simpler times, though the consequences are more dire.