5 ms·
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-d
by otakucode 12y ago
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're actually advocating such a thing.
- icebraining 12y agoTheories don't advocate things, only people do.
- otakucode 12y agoWhether a persons advocacy is consistent with the theory or not, however, is an important point. And so far as I know, Nash's claim that game theory supported a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR was never claimed to be in any way flawed from a game-theoretic perspective.
- unabridged 12y agoAll game theory results depend entirely on your utility functions. If you set: (value of Russian civilian lives) = 0 (value of the world after nuking Russia) > (value of the world where Russia takes over) * (probability of Russia taking over) Then game theory would suggest first strike would be best solution.
- unabridged 12y agoBut most people interpreted (value of the world after nuking Russia) to be quite low because Russia would automatically launch a retaliation, and the same vice versa from Russia's perspective. So with this utility game theory predicted the Mutually Assured Destruction standoff that so far has turned out correct.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoNow did it? As far as I know, the whole MAD thing was based on precommitting to strike if struck, therefore negating the benefit of first strike for both parties.