"Gary L. Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> notes:
I couldn't help but notice a news article today where the
president of North Korea is threatening nuclear war (see link
below). I guess that ABC doesn't consider that breaking news?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030301_927.html
... So why is the UN and countries surrounding Korea not all over
that? I can't help but think that a nuclear exchange on the Korean
peninsula would take a bit more priority than Iraq?
The North Korean government has been following its `crazy fearsome
cripple' ploy for some years and has been making money doing so.
However, the US government has decided to resist more than before;
hence the lack of response.
The interaction is based on `games theory'. Here is an example of how
it works:
(Incidentally, many people do not think of a war or the threat of
war as a `game' and find the term repulsive when applied to war or
other deadly confict; perhaps the theory should have been named
differently, such as `a theory of conflict and cooperation'.)
...
Imagine two foolish young men, George and John, probably American,
playing a game called Chicken. In this so-called `game', George
and John race towards each other at high speed, each in his own
car. The driver who swerves loses while the person who doesn't
swerve wins. If both swerve, no one wins. If neither swerve, the
two crash into each other and die. When both die, both lose.
To make the situation more clear, let's put the strategies in a
grid and assign numerical values to each outcome.
The values are the payoff to George, based on what both do.
+------------------------+---------+------------+
| [Payoff to Geo. ] | John | John does |
| | Swerves | Not Swerve |
|------------------------+---------+------------|
| George Swerves | 0 | -1 |
|------------------------+---------+------------|
| George does Not Swerve | 1 | -1000 |
+-----------------------------------------------+
If both George and John swerve, neither wins. The value of the
result is zero.
If George swerves and John does not, George loses a little.
George does not swerve, but John does. George wins. This is the
outcome shown in the lower left of the table.
If neither swerve, they crash into each other; both die.
.... Only if the `loser' accepts continuous losing is the game
safe for the two of them.
This is why cause-of-war theorists point out that a equal `balance
of power' is unstable; and that what is stable is an `imbalance of
power' in which the two sides negotiate rather than fight, with
the weaker side giving up more than the other.
Perceptions of determination need not be accurate.
...
Clearly, accurate perceptions mean that one or other side will know
when to accept a minor loss, and not inadvertently show too much
determination, with a consequent big loss. Since spying is one way to
reduce inaccurate perceptions, some argue that we should support it,
along with international travel, exchanges, students spending a year
abroad, and the like.
Unfortunately, the North Korean and US governments may be as wrong
about the determination of each other as the Argentinian generals were
about the determination of the Thatcher administration to resist the
invasion of the Falkland Islands.
North Korea is following exactly the brinkmanship/games theory actions
I read about in the late 1960s and 1970s. I remember reading that
Nixon claimed to be a bit crazy in his anti-communism, in order to
convince others that he was more determined than rational, and thus
increase his bargaining power.
Incidentally, I think the same analysis applies to the current US-Iraq
conflict. I think the senior members of the Iraqi government believe
thay have a `balance of power' with the US or an imbalance in their
favor: I think they believe that they can make use of the
incompetence the Bush administration has shown in trying to persuade
many people outside of its primary constituency, which are US
conservative Christian voters and rich donors, to favor war.
Moreover, if war comes, I expect the Iraqi government believes that
they can impose sufficient casualties on the US, or on telegenic Iraqi
civilians, to cause the US to pull out, the way it pulled out of
Vietnam, the Lebanon, and Somalia.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
