Synthese

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 185–200 | Cite as

National security games

  • Steven J. Brams
  • D. Marc Kilgour
Article

Abstract

Issues that arise in using game theory to model national security problems are discussed, including positing nation-states as players, assuming that their decision makers act rationally and possess complete information, and modeling certain conflicts as two-person games. A generic two-person game called the Conflict Game, which captures strategic features of such variable-sum games as Chicken and Prisoners' Dilemma, is then analyzed. Unlike these classical games, however, the Conflict Game is a two-stage game in which each player can threaten to retaliate — and carry out this threat in the second stage — if its opponent chose noncooperation in the first stage.

Conditions for the existence of different pure-strategy Nash equilibria, or stable outcomes, are found, and these results are extended to situations in which the players can select mixed strategies (i.e., make probabilistic threats or choices). Although the Conflict Game sheds light on the rational foundations underlying arms races, nuclear deterrence, and other strategic situations, more detailed assumptions are required to tie this generic game to specific conflicts.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Game Theory National Security Mixed Strategy Security Problem 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brams, Steven J.: 1985a,Rational Politics: Decisions, Games, and Strategy, CQ Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Brams, Steven J.: 1985b,Superpower Games: Applying Game Theory to Superpower Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  3. Brams, Steven J., and D. Marc Kilgour: 1988,Game Theory and National Security, Basil Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Harvard Nuclear Study Group: 1983,Living with Nuclear Weapons, Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Lebow, Richard Ned: 1987,Nuclear Crisis Management: A Dangerous Illusion, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Nacht, Michael: 1985,The Age of Vulnerability: Threats to the Nuclear Stalemate, Brookings, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Nash, John: 1951, ‘Non-cooperative Games’,Annals of Mathematics 54, 286–95.Google Scholar
  8. O'Flaherty, Brendan: 1985,Rational Commitment: A Foundation for Macroeconomics, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  9. Selten, Reinhard: 1975, ‘Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games’,International Journal of Game Theory 4, 25–55.Google Scholar
  10. Wagner, R. Harrison: 1982, ‘Deterrence and Bargaining’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 23, 329–58.Google Scholar
  11. Wagner, R. Harrison: 1983, ‘The Theory of Games and the Problem of International Cooperation’,American Political Science Review 77, 330–46.Google Scholar
  12. Witt, Ulrich: 1986, ‘Evolution and Stability of Cooperation without Enforceable Contracts’,Kyklos 39, 245–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Brams
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Marc Kilgour
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of PoliticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of MathematicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations