= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Thomas C. Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
I think from a rational perspective, the answer must be yes. Under this hypothetical policy, if the USSR didn't want to be nuked, then it would have done whatever was necessary to dispel the US's suspicion (which of course it would have voiced first).
Do you really prefer the alternative that actually happened? That is, allow the USSR and many other countries to develop nuclear weapons and then depend on MAD and luck to prevent world destruction? Even if you personally do prefer this, it's hard to see how that was a rational choice for the US.
BTW, please stop editing so much! You're making me waste all my good retorts. :)
I'm not sure everything would have happened as you describe, and thus not sure I prefer the alternative that actually happened. But your questions make me curious: do you also think the US was game-theoretically right to attack Iraq and will be right to attack Iran because those countries didn't do "whatever was necessary" to convince you they aren't developing WMDs?
My understanding is that the Iraq invasion was done mainly to test the "spread democracy" strategy, which the Bush administration believed in, and WMDs were more or less an excuse. Since that didn't work out so well, there seems to be little chance that Iran will be attacked in a similar way.
Game theoretically, physically invading a country to stop WMDs is much too costly, and not a credible threat, especially since lots of countries have already developed WMDs without being invaded.