The problem is that, even if the players were fully rational, the game itself is foggy and obscured. Miscommunication, incorrect information, false positives,

The problem is that, even if the players were fully rational, the game itself is foggy and obscured. Miscommunication, incorrect information, false positives, echo chambers, bellicose advisors ... These increase the chances of a catastrophic cascade of events. We know of (at least) three cases[1][2][3] during the cold war where a single person prevented such a (possible) cascade from happening (and there's undoubtedly more that were kept under the rug). Yes, rationally speaking North Korea and the USA are not going to attack each other since the potential losses by far outweigh any potential gains. They know it, they also know that the other side knows it, and they know that the other side knows that they know that ... etc. But at the same time, at least from the POV of North Korea, they think they're pretty close to a win-by-stalemate situation (multiple mobile ICBMs that can retaliate against the continental USA, ensuring they will never be attacked.) so it stands to 'reason' that the USA would attack right now, because it's their last chance to stop North Korea from winning. Humans are not rational, we can only build control systems and hope they catch and filter out any irrationality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-...