4. 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

7. Nuclear States Today

8. 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

9. 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?

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

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

14. Stay Silent
Confess
Stay Silent
Confess 5 20 20 10

15. Stay Silent
Confess
Stay Silent 5
Confess 20 10

16. 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.

17. 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

18. GOLDEN BALLS

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

20. 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.