Order-preserving allocation of jobs to two machines

In this paper, we consider the problem of minimizing the mean flow time of jobs to be processed on two machines. The jobs have a predetermined order, perhaps reflecting the order of arrival, and each job has a known processing time. We wish to assign the jobs to machines so as to minimize the mean flow time, with the constraint that the original order must be preserved within the subset of jobs assigned to each machine. An efficient algorithm based on dynamic programming is developed.     

Toward optimal bidding strategies

In this paper we investigate a form of rational behavior in response to an oligopoly pricing problem where only one buyer is involved. We investigate the problem from the standpoint of the seller who wants to maximize his gain from the transaction. In particular, we deal with the problem of one seller's response to an invitation to submit a sealed (i. e., noncooperative) bid to a government or other dominant purchasing agency for supplying a specified bundle of goods and services for which either (1) no other demand exists, or (2) the terms or quantities involved cannot, at least in the short run, be obtained from another source. Although treated from a normative standpoint, i. e., what bid the supplier should make, the paper also has implications for the buyer's behavior and oligopoly-monopsony pricing in a more general sense.     

Determining the most vital link in a flow network

The most vital link in a single commodity flow network is that are whose removal results in the greatest reduction in the value of the maximal flow in the network between a source node and a sink node. This paper develops an iterative labeling algorithm to determine the most vital link in the network. A necessary condition for an are to be the most vital link is established and is employed to decrease the number of ares which must be considered.     

Restricted planar location problems and applications

Facility location problems in the plane are among the most widely used tools of Mathematical Programming in modeling real-world problems. In many of these problems restrictions have to be considered which correspond to regions in which a placement of new locations is forbidden. We consider center and median problems where the forbidden set is a union of pairwise disjoint convex sets. As applications we discuss the assembly of printed circuit boards, obnoxious facility location and the location of emergency facilities. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Multidirectional scheduling scheme in resource‐constrained project schedulingproblem

In 2000, Klein showed that bidirectional scheduling schemes (bidss) outperform single‐directional scheduling schemes (e.g., forward or backward schemes). In 2010, Yoosefzadeh, et al. [J Math Model Algor 9 (2010), 357–373] showed that depending on the nature of the problems and also the type of priority rules used, schedules produced by a so‐called tridirectional scheduling scheme (trdss) yields shorter makespans when compared to forward, backward, and even bidss. Since the justification technique is applied in many of the state‐of‐the‐art algorithms nowadays, we show that the tuned version of the trdss outperforms the double justification technique. Moreover, we investigate the circumstances under which the trdss is more probable to generate schedules with shorter makespans. To this end, we introduce a new measure of resource requirements and their distributions, namely total amount of overflows. Our analytical as well as empirical investigations show that when the new measure is increased, it is more probable to obtain schedules with shorter makespans using the trdss. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 61: 44–55, 2014     

Critics gone wild: Counterinsurgency as the root of all evil

The Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced a heated polemic concerning the merits and demerits of counterinsurgency – the operational approach underpinning both campaigns. The two books reviewed here provide a good summation of the arguments against counterinsurgency: it is not a strategy and will fail when mistaken as such; its theory does not make intervention and war significantly easier; and even the most successful counterinsurgency campaigns have been bloody, violent, and protracted. Yet as this review highlights, beyond these central points, criticism of counterinsurgency is too often off the mark in its approach and totalizing in its pretentions. There is much to criticize and an urgent need to learn from past campaigns, yet bold claims and broad generalizations can mislead rather than enlighten. The analysis is particularly unhelpful when the definition of the central issue at hand – counterinsurgency – is being unwittingly or deliberately distorted. In the end, these two books form a poor basis for the debate that must now take place, because they are too ideological in tone, too undisciplined in approach, and therefore too unqualified in what they finally say.     

Contents and Author Index,Volume 19, 2012

The U.S. Congress, charged with overseeing U.S. nuclear weapons policy and programs, usually addresses such policies and programs through the annual authorization and appropriations process, focusing mostly on questions of how many and what types of weapons the United States should deploy, with little attention paid to questions about nuclear weapons strategy, doctrine, and policy. The oversight process has brought about some significant changes in the plans for U.S. nuclear weapons, including the elimination of funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study and the shift of that funding into a study of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. But with the focus on authorizations and appropriations, along with the divided jurisdiction over nuclear weapons policy and programs in congressional committees, Congress has not, either recently or during the Cold War and post–Cold War eras, conducted a more comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy, policy, or force structure. Changes in committee jurisdictions could affect the oversight process, but as long as nuclear weapons policy and programs remain a relatively low priority for most members of Congress, and the country at large, it is unlikely that Congress will pursue such a comprehensive debate.     

Boost-glide Weapons and US-China Strategic Stability

ABSTRACT

The United States and China are testing boost-glide weapons, long-range strike systems capable of flying at Mach 5 or faster through the upper atmosphere. For the United States, these systems would provide a conventional prompt global strike capability, which, together with US ballistic missile defense programs, Chinese experts regard as a threat to China's ability to conduct nuclear retaliation. This perception is encouraging the Chinese military to modify its nuclear posture in ways that tend to create greater risks for both sides. If China's own boost-glide systems are meant to carry nuclear payloads only, their deployment would not fundamentally alter the current situation between the two states. However, if they were conventionally armed or dual-purpose, or if the United States could not determine the payloads they carried, the deployment of Chinese boost-glide systems could compound problems of strategic stability created by the introduction of ballistic missile defense, antisatellite, and antiship ballistic missile capabilities. If the technical hurdles can be overcome, it may be difficult for the two sides to refrain from these deployments in the absence of strong mutual trust or an established arms-control relationship. New confidence-building measures and expanded mutual transparency are warranted to avoid creating new dangers.