= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov 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)
If the allies are rational, they should agree that it's in their interest to establish this strategy. The enemy of everyone is the all-out nuclear war.
This strikes me as a variant of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game">ultimatum game</a>. The allies would have to accept a large asymmetry of power. If even one of them rejects the ultimatum you're stuck with the prospect of giving up your strategy (having burned most or all of your political capital with other nations), or committing mass murder.
When you add in the inability of governments to make binding commitments, this doesn't strike me as a viable strategy.
Links in the Markdown syntax are written like this: