Strategic Implications of Nuclear Weapons Instantaneous destructive power on an unprecedented scale was now possible, 2) You can destroy an enemy without first defeating their military. requires delivery systems 3) If more than two nations possess nuclear weapons, mutual destruction is possible. 4) Nuclear weapons can serve as a deterrent

Nuclear States Today

Game Theory Actors are rational The study of choice and strategy by actors in a competitive scenario. Assumptions: Actors are rational Actors are motivated by self-interest

Everyone in your group has 10 dollars. You may keep all of it or put some of it into the communal pot. I will total all of the money in the communal pot and triple it regardless of how much is given or how many players give. Then I will divide the communal pot amongst all players equally. Do you contribute and if so how much?

Person A | $10 Person C | $10 Person B | $10 Person D | $10

Zero Sum Game One player’s gain is also another player’s loss.

Stay Silent Confess Stay Silent Confess 5 20 20 10

Stay Silent Confess Stay Silent 5 Confess 20 10

How does the prisoner’s dilemma help us understand the Cold War arms race? A competition between nations for superiority in the development and accumulation of weapons.

USA U.S.S.R Explains the Cold War’s Arms Race Don’t Build Missiles Ahead No Change Same Behind Explains the Cold War’s Arms Race

GOLDEN BALLS

USA U.S.S.R Repeated Game! Launch Missiles Don’t Launch Missiles XXXXX XXXXXXXX Lose Face WIN! XXXXXX Lose Face Repeated Game!

From Charles Platt’s “The Profits of Fear” (August 2005): Game theory began with the logical proposition that in a strategic two-player game, either player may try to obtain an advantage by bluffing. If the stakes are low, perhaps you can take a chance on trusting your opponent when he makes a seemingly fair and decent offer; but when the penalty for being deceived can be nuclear annihilation, taking a chance is out of the question. You work on the principle that the person you are dealing with may be utterly ruthless, unethical, and untrustworthy, no matter how peaceful his intentions may seem. You also have to assume that he may be smart enough to use game theory just like you; and therefore, he will assume that you are ruthless, unethical, and untrustworthy, no matter how peaceful your intentions may seem. In this way a supposedly rational system of assessment leads to a highly emotional outcome in which trust becomes impossible and strategy is based entirely on fear. This is precisely what happened during the decades of the Cold War.