Game theorists have used the classic "prisoners' dilemma" to explain why nations find disarmament treaties difficult to uphold. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this analysis, so please bear with me because there is a treat at the end. For those who are not familiar with the "prisoners' dilemma", here is the basic gist of it:
For the sake of pretending that I'm not digressing from the topic of this thread, let us use Russia and the U.S. as players in this game. The goal of each player is of course to win the game, which in this example translates into maximizing national security. Each nation has two basic choices once a disarmament treaty has been signed:
1. Disarm (cooperate)
2. Arm (compete)
While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:
Scenario A - Russia Arms
(Choice 1) If U.S. Disarms: Russia = safe and powerful, U.S. = at risk and weak.
(Choice 2) If U.S. Arms: Russia and U.S. = at risk.
Conclusion: If Russia reneges on its commitment and arms itself, the best choice for the U.S. is clearly to also arm itself.
Scenario B - Russia Disarms
(Choice 1) If U.S. Disarms: Russia and U.S. = safe.
(Choice 2) If U.S. Arms: Russia = at risk and weak, U.S. = safe and powerful.
Conclusion: If Russia upholds its commitment and disarms, the best choice for the U.S. remains to arm itself, since its goal is to maximize its national security.
The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice to arm or disarm, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to arm itself. Of course, Russia conducts a similar analysis and reaches the same conclusion. In the end, both nations choose to arm and the treaty falls apart, leaving
both nations less safe than they would have been if they had both upheld the treaty and disarmed.
In the disarmament game, the dominant strategy, i.e. the strategy that is best for a player regardless of the strategies chosen by other players,
leads to a less than optimal result.
Here is where it gets interesting.
If we apply the "prisoners' dilemma" to a game of defensive armament, the analysis yields a very different result. Check this out:
The goal of each nation is still to maximize its national security. Each nation has two basic choices once the ABM Treaty is signed:
1. Don't build shield (cooperate with ABM Treaty)
2. Build shield (compete)
While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:
Scenario A - Russia Builds Missile Defence Shield
(1) U.S. does not build shield: Russia = safe and powerful, U.S. = at risk and weak.
(2) U.S. builds shield: Russia and U.S. = safe.
Conclusion: If Russia reneges on its commitment and builds a shield, the best choice for the U.S. is clearly to also build a shield.
Scenario B - Russia Does Not Build Shield
(1) U.S. does not build shield: Russia and U.S. = at risk.
(2) U.S. builds shield: Russia = at risk and weak, U.S. = safe and powerful.
Conclusion: If Russia upholds its commitment and does not build the shield, the best choice for the U.S. remains to build the shield, since its goal is to maximize its security.
The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to build the shield. Of course, Russia conducts a similar analysis and reaches the same conclusion. In the end, both nations choose to build shields and the ABM treaty falls apart, only this time,
both nations are safer than they would be if they upheld the treaty!
In the defensive armament game, the dominant strategy, i.e. the strategy that is best for a player regardless of the strategies chosen by other players,
leads to an optimal result!!!
CAVEAT: This only holds if other countries choose to respond to the U.S. defensive armament with their own defensive armament, rather than with offensive armament. One last quick game shows that responding with a defensive armament strategy is in fact the rational and best choice if the goal is to maximize national security:
Each nation has two basic choices:
1. Offensive Armament
2. Defensive Armament
While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:
Scenario A - Russia Responds with Offensive Armament
(1) U.S. Goes Offensive: Russia and U.S. = at risk
(2) U.S. Stays Defensive: Russia and U.S. = at risk
Conclusion: If Russia responds with Offensive Armament, the U.S. has no incentive to change its strategy, as neither strategy has an advantage over the other.
Scenario B - Russia Responds with Defensive Armament
(1) U.S. Goes Offensive: Russia and U.S. = at risk
(2) U.S. Stays Defensive: Russia and U.S. = safe
Conclusion: If Russia responds with Defensive Armament, the best choice for the U.S. if to stick with Defensive Armament, since its goal is to maximize its security.
The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to stay the course with its defensive strategy and build the BMD shield. Of course, Russia should conduct this same analysis and come to the conclusion that responding to the U.S. lead with a defensive strategy of its own is the rational and best choice to maximize its national security. This also applies to China, Japan, Israel, European nations, and anybody else who can afford to play.
I just came up with this theory "on the fly", so feel free to tare the argument apart, it's not like it's my life's work or anything.
Take care,
RDA
