Game Theory and Politics
Understanding The Cold War through Game Theory
War is mutually assured destruction
Nobody wins a war; one side loses more slowly than the other — The Wire, Drama Series
The backdrop to the Cold War was the dissolution of the wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, which left the USA and the Soviet Union as two political and economic behemoths with wholly disparate ideologies. The end of World War 2 brought the advent of nuclear weapons, and both the USA and the Soviet Union began to focus their military strategies around their nuclear arsenal.
A full-scale nuclear Armageddon
In the face of a full-scale nuclear Armageddon, things were pretty tense, but did everyone need to be worried? A leading game theorist, Thomas Schelling, didn’t think so, seeing nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Beyond specifically the Cold War, wars, in general, are abounding with instances in which game theory could be applied. When Japan plotted its pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbour during World War II, it was ployed in hopes of keeping the United States out of the Pacific Theatre. Instead, their plan backfired and resulted in perhaps one of the largest military mobilizations in history.
The Cold War — An Infinite Game
Now, the Cold War can be imagined as an infinite game. An infinite game is one in which there are known and unknown players, the rules are changeable and the objective is to perpetuate the game. In an infinite game, there are no winners or losers. These games end only when a player decides to drop out, either because they have run out of resources or the will to play. And that is what happened in this case as well.
While the USA and the USSR never clashed directly on the battlefield throughout this time, their competition for nuclear supremacy resulted in the ever-present threat of an all-out nuclear war between the two nations and their allies. This quickly became a scenario in which neither nation could gain the upper hand through a nuclear bombardment; the repercussions would be too devastating, as the opposing nation would be in possession of the same weapons and would be completely capable of issuing a counterattack via the second strike. This doctrine is referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction, which is found strongly in game theory and is, in itself, a form of Nash equilibrium in which both sides neither have any incentive to initiate a conflict nor to disarm.
Selfish Interests
In such a game, both players must assume the other is only concerned with their own self-interest and as such, will limit risk by adopting a dominant strategy. In-game theory, this learning rule is known as fictitious play, first introduced by George W. Brown. In it, each player presumes that the opponents are playing stationary strategies. At each round, each player thus best responds to the empirical frequency of play of their opponent. Such a method is of course adequate if the opponent indeed uses a stationary strategy, while it is flawed if the opponent’s strategy is non-stationary.
If the balance of power was swayed by one nation building an excess of bomb shelters or a missile defense system, it might have violated the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and consequently initiated a nuclear war. Thus, both the nations worked to prevent such imbalances, such as targeting enemy missile silos being built while hiding their own nuclear armaments on land, sea, and sky.
In addition, the US and USSR also held various negotiations during which they discussed weapons control and the possibility of disarmament. These meetings could be considered repeated games that promoted cooperation while punishing defection. Eventually, these repeated conferences led to a degree of trust and disarmament between the two powers.
Although the two players were engaged in a Nash Equilibrium which is supposed to go on indefinitely, the Cold War eventually ended when the Soviet Union fell apart and forfeited the game. When the Berlin Wall came down, the US government however committed probably the biggest political blunder of the 20th century by announcing that they had won the Cold War.
Still Alive (?)
The truth, however, is that the Cold War is still alive, but with a new contender having entered the arena to take over global nuclear supremacy. The scenario today with North Korea is analogous to that with the Soviet Union — the same parables that were helpful for thinking about strategy then could be helpful today as well.
The pillars of strategy and logical thinking remain the same, but can we step into each other’s shoes and learn from history?
That’s all for today! Stay tuned for more interesting insights on how Game Theory is controlling the world.
Author — Game Theorist Sanchit Garg, The Indian Game Theory Society — Delhi Technological University
