The (social) science of warComputer models of unconventional warfare
Wildcats researchers to design intelligent software that can analyze the behavior and customs of political and cultural groups; part of the Asymmetric Threat Response and Analysis Project, known as ATRAP
The U.S. Army has awarded another $2 million to University of Arizona professor Jerzy Rozenblit to fund phase 2 of a project to design intelligent software that can analyze the behavior and customs of political and cultural groups. In 2007 the Army awarded Rozenblit $2 million to fund the recently completed phase 1 of the Asymmetric Threat Response and Analysis Project, known as ATRAP. Rozenblit holds the Raymond J. Oglethorpe Endowed Chair in electrical and computer engineering at the UA, and is head of that department.
In the context of armed conflict, “asymmetric” describes opposing forces that differ in terms of size, strength, resources, tactics, armaments, strategy, technology, or motivation. Forging peace between such disparate belligerents has confounded negotiators for centuries. The ATRAP software will enable intelligence analysts to build up three-dimensional maps of interactions between conflicting groups. By mapping behavior, relationships, resources, events, and timelines, analysts hope to be able to predict, and therefore prevent, eruptions of violence.
Can a computer model prevent a war? It is compelling to imagine what the world look like today had such software been available during historical asymmetric conflicts, such as between the Greeks and Persians at Thermopylae, or the Rebels and British during the Revolutionary War. Few would deny that war is an existential reality of the human condition, but Rozenblit acknowledges that this project is entering the realm of science fiction. “It is very intellectually stimulating and goes well beyond the normal focus of engineering,” he said. “A lot of it is discovery and creation, so it’s fun.”
Rozenblit envisions the ATRAP software as a tool that will allow opposing groups to sit down at the negotiating table and rationalize particular approaches to achieving peace. “I call it CPR, which in this case stands for conflict prediction and resolution,” Rozenblit said. “Ultimately, these mathematical tools are intended to generate solutions that give us equilibrium, or status quo solutions.”
Such solutions require that multiple parties sit around the negotiating table and try to reach a win-win situation, said Rozenblit. “These tools allow us to compute measures that don’t necessarily maximize reward,” he said. “Instead, the tools can be used to convince negotiating parties that it would not be in their interest to deviate from the proposed solution because they would actually lose more than they gain.”
Phase 1 of the project involved “designing the blueprints of the system,” said Rozenblit. “We assembled a very strong team of
