Bare assertions of non-hostility cannot substitute for authenticable facts

Evidence

But, in most of the cases that one can imagine, it is insufficient simply to assert that one is not engaging in a strategic strike or that one is not in a menacing posture. There has to be some way of authenticating certain facts, the facts presumably involving the disposition of forces. We would have to prove not only that we were not intending to exploit our position, but that our actual position was one that could not be exploited to doublecross the enemy if he should take us at our word and restrain his own forces. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 569

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘provable non-exploitability’ requirement is the essence of Schelling’s credible commitment — connecting to the Godfather bond as hostage-type security over the Don’s restraint. Directly supports reader’s Milgrom/Gambetta mapping. — connects to: Observable disputes in trade cannot be resolved without verification of the underlying claims — PAUL R. MILGRO, PAUL R. MILGRO - THE ROLE OF…, 68; Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902; Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence #corroborates (0.88) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902
• Ignorance of another’s intentions yields neither trust nor distrust #exemplifies (0.80)
• Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation #exemplifies (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237