The Game Theory And Politics

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

Security dilemma is a situation in which a nation or state has to increase its security forces like military strength, army forces or making alliances to protect themselves from the threat that other state or nation can cause because of the increase in their security measures. It is the situation which only increases tension which creates conflict without any desire by any of the nations. It actually occurs when one state or nation in relation to other states or nations, senses or has the feeling of insecurity which arouses the tension and stress in the state where both the party doesn’t desires it. In this the states doesn’t want the relation between them and other nations to weaken and decline but each state acts on its military and protection measures to make themselves protected which causes other nations to depict it as threat and are forced to make undesirable changes and increase in security measures. Because of all this there causes a untrustworthy relation between states because of the fear that one state might become too

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

The Cold War was the start of the major changes in human history. Two important events that occurred were the arms race and the space race. “An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime. A close examination of the historical evidence reveals a different picture. Political purposes almost always drive and govern arms races. It is common for a major race to be initiated by a state interested in changing the political status quo” (Arms Race). The arms race was a major rearmament between the USSR and the United States. Each country was producing new weapons at an alarming rate to be better than the other. The newly created nuclear weapons were a major playing force for the arms race. Each country

“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign

In his article, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Marc Trachtenberg considers three historical approaches to the role that nuclear arms played during the 1962 conflict: first, the view that nuclear arms played no role at all, with U.S. and Soviet weapons cancelling each other out, second, the interpretation that the risk involved with nuclear warfare heavily influenced policy making, and finally the view that the strategic imbalance of nuclear force, characterized by a substantial American advantage, significantly impacted the outcome of the crisis. In weighing the three interpretations, Trachtenberg dismisses the first in supporting the existence of the second, using a variety of primary sources to identify instances when decision-makers were influenced by the risk of nuclear warfare. The focus of the article, however, is on advancing and complicating the third approach, which Trachtenberg claims is congruous with the second. In this third section, Trachtenberg advances the approach that the imbalance of nuclear capabilities impacted Soviet strategy but not American decision making. Accordingly, Trachtenberg’s article is characterized by two central claims: that risk of nuclear war influenced policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that American nuclear superiority disproportionately affected Soviet decision-making.

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

Games can be very hard. States can be only observes to a certain extend. Multiple agents choose Actions, stochastic pays off and state transition depends on state and other

For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course; both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of Mankind's final war.

With many nations around the world currently spending a great deal of capital on their military, it is evident that an arms race is recurring once again in history. This being the 21st century, many countries are becoming heavily focused on nuclear weapons more than anything else. The question is why is an arms race building up in the first place. One reason could be because of the international competition between nations. While this may be a general reasoning, different nations ostensibly have their own motives. However, one compelling factor regarding this is that it can generate an international conflict, a statement that is also addressed in the article "Is Nuclear Armageddon More Likely than Ever?" (by The Week Staff).

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

A guided response paper presented to the faculty of the U.S. Army War College, in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Theory of War and Strategy (TWS) course.

The arms race was a way to make the two countries scare one another, and it was to see who could build or have the most devastating guns and bombs (Brubaker, 2001). The deadlier the weapons the more

In the post-cold war era, with the rise of globalisation and the interdependence of markets, one can observe the moribund decline of traditional inter-state conflicts and the rise of more complex intra-state conflicts. The reasons behind these conflicts are manifold but at the heart is arguably always a conflict of interest between two or more groups. The Uppsala Conflict Data Project (2016) defines armed

My independent study on Game Theory this past semester has been an extremely rewarding experience. It has pushed me to learn more about myself, to approach the world with new perspectives, to see similarities across discipline, and to cross-apply knowledge to improve my models.