myegorov

Consider if the recovery might be thwarted by airports unable to accept arriving crews, hospitals and shelters without power and water, the fallout from a high tech hub taken out of operations for months etc. There's also the conundrum that -- because there's no metric in place to differentiate between structures that would perform vastly differently under a seismic event -- there's no rational way to estimate the damage. You may be at once overpaying and overvaluing your earthquake insurance. Your insurance has no way of reliably estimating its risks, which undermines its solvency, which unwittingly reduces its worth to the consumer. One might not be in a position to rebuild.

The issue is that our society at present does not single out life-critical operations and provide for them accordingly. The cost-benefit analysis has not been done.

I wonder how many here realize that the only social contract (between building engineers and the rest of us in North America) is that for the absolute majority of buildings (> 99.9% of building stock) under the scenario known as the maximum considered earthquake a building shall not collapse. Meaning that any damage beyond repair or any failure of structurally non-critical components that can possibly entail lives lost is acceptable.

If you're looking for historical examples:

Stefan Banach, Israel Gelfand, Edward Witten...

I understand your point is that direct confrontation at times cannot be avoided. In particular, you may be provoked to defend yourself, as in the Soviet Union entering WWII upon Germany violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm of the opinion that only this latter case of agression justifies taking up arms. Any violence by way of preventive action lends itself too easily to abuses, as we see with the so-called war on terrorism. In the context of WWII, it's not at all clear that anything other than collective action of the allies and the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany. And for that, the events had to run their course. One can find fault with indecision on refugees, but not with appeasement efforts.

I agree that with asymmetrical warfare resorting to terrorism is rational. What seems irrational is our inability to recognize the struggle of our enemy for what it's worth and our refusal to negotiate. I can't think of an example where negotiations (as in granting that your partner in negotiations is your peer) haven't led to a net positive outcome. To take but one example close to home: The Soviet Union was founded by a terrorist group. The ultimate recognition of the state by western powers and their foreign policy of engagement -- aside from the Cold War era -- was instrumental in bringing the enemy to its knees (whatever the wider repercussions of this outcome).

...is the tutorial any shorter than 400 page books?