Much like the classical Prisoner's Dilemma shown above, MAD has 4 possible choices. However, the four outcomes are altered: Country A and B do nothing and build up arms, Country A nukes B and B doesn't retaliate, Country B nukes A and A doesn't retaliate, or one country nukes the other and their victim retaliates.
The first choice is obviously ideal, and was thankfully the status quo for the entirety of the Cold War. However, as some of the world's top game theorists at US think tank RAND Corporation determined, the most rational decision for each country was to carry out a first strike. Once a first strike from Russia has already destroyed much of the US, the US doesn't bring the country back to life by launching back. The victim has no incentive to carry out their threats to retaliate if they were ever nuked, meaning that their threats are only a bluff. Knowing this, the Russians should take the initiative and strike first, calling the US's bluff. Since the US is in the same position, they too should start a first strike to ensure that they're not nuked. What this leads to is both countries realizing that the most rational decision is to strike first, unless their opponent has demonstrated their willingness to return fire, the worst possible outcome. Only careful diplomacy during tense moments like the Cuban Missile Crisis prevented nuclear annihilation. If both countries had not become locked in Nash equilibrium, where neither country had an incentive to disarm or nuke the other and instead continued to build up their stockpiles, the world today might be struggling to recover from a nuclear war started and ended decades ago.
http://www.davidmeyercreations.com/mysteries-of-history/did-game-theory-save-mankind/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/game-theory5.htm
https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/09/09/mutually-assured-destruction-game-theory-and-the-cold-war/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-dead-hand-nuclear-doomsday-weapon-back-38492
This is a really interesting connection. This dilemma is actually pretty open ended and can apply to a lot of situations or scenarios when decisions must be made. The power people can have over one another is somewhat scary.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to apply these different theories and compare their outcomes. It is also an important lesson presented here that indicates that a theory and its rational are not always best in reality. I think we are extremely lucky that neither side choose to strike first.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good application of game theory where the outcomes have to be considered in context, because while one country would definitely benefit from striking the other, it is probably unlikely that the other country wouldn't retaliate if they could. The two countries in question would also not be the only ones affected by nuclear war, so there were other factors considered as well. Overall, we are all incredibly lucky that the countries stayed locked in Nash Equilibrium.
ReplyDeleteYou provided a great example of Game Theory in the global context. However, many more factors are involved in the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. We also have to consider the formation of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO, the United Nations, so on and so forth. The satellite states and the proxy wars that were going on during the Cold War are also places where Game Theory could take place, but with different events and different outcomes (often exceeding 4). It would be great if Game Theory, in the context of the Cold War, can be studied in more complexity in this post.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting association! I learned this in an US history last year, but it didn't occur to me to associate Game theory with MAD. Indeed, it is best to keep each other at bay and keep the other from using nuclear weapons when both sides are willing to lower the harm and raise the interest.
ReplyDelete