• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The Nuclear Disarmament Game

A

amorrow2

Member
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
I have an idea about how to achieve nuclear Disarmament. I call it the Nuclear Disarmament Game. It involves two steps.

1. Gather representatives of the existing nuclear powers to some neutral territory such as Iceland to hold an international conference to workout the rules of the game. To keep things simple, let us just say that it is a game of rolling dice. For example, in the first round, the country with the high score destroys one nuclear weapon. During the second round, the country with the low score destroys one nuke. During the third round, the country with the most nukes destroys one nuke and so on.

One of the design goals of the game is to maintain nuclear parity as it currently exists. Another design goal is to achieve a final round where no dice are rolled and every country destroys it final nuclear weapon simultaneously.

2. The representatives of the nuclear powers then gather again in Iceland and play the game. They play a round maybe once a week or once a month and, in essence, run the nuclear Arms Race slowly in reverse. The time to roll the dice again will drive the process forward, slowly and inexorably.

Humanity will still the technology to create nuclear weapons, but actually creating another one will be treated as a crime against humanity.

Is it not a more rational world where we do not have these devices at-the-ready to violently kill very many millions of people in a matter of a few hours?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I am sure you can readily see the failing here.

I'll play the game while I am winning, then when I lose I will go back to whatever traditional means has let me do what I want in the past.

There is simply too much value in cheating the system, because now every other bugger is helpless, and I still have nukes.

That's also game theory.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so.
Click to expand...


Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action

...

In environmental science, the "tragedy of the commons" is often cited in connection with sustainable development,[14] meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming.[15] It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation, and sociology.[16]
Click to expand...

As with the first example, the issue with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that rational agents can accrue the most benefit by being selfish. It's a zero sum game - there's 100 units of resource which could be managed for all to participate in, but would only allow each rational agent 10 of those resources. Or, they could cheat and take 20. Each rational agent cheats and takes 20, and now there's no more resource.

If a nation is unwilling to give up its nukes, then it's not going to participate faithfully in a game which will cause it to lose its nukes, even more so when there's a chance according to the way the game is setup that <I> could lose all my nukes before <that bugger I've always hated> loses hers.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
Again, the idea is that the rules of the game are designed to maintain nuclear parity while the game and the disarmament are progressing. I suppose that the dice are just a device: the progress and outcome of the game are mostly predetermined.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Oh, I understand.

The foundational idea being to provide a means for nations with nuclear stockpiles to plot a path towards disarmament without fearing they're exposing themselves to risk because other nations retain their nuclear weapons.

The problem, of course, is that if nations were willing to participate in such an event, then they'd be willing to opt for the much simpler, more rational, and easier to manage standard disarmament treaties wherein nations agree to cut their nuclear stockpiles by a specific number or by a percentage.

Standard disarmament treaties are less arbitrary and don't induce any suggestion that one might simply fall foul of a run of bad luck and find oneself nuke-free while one's 'lucky' neighbor never landed on a hotel in Mayfair.

Of course, there's also the issue of nations who don't want to disarm their nuclear arsenal and so would neither sign up to a disarmament treaty or place a game of disarmament, which in turn means that the remaining nations will never disarm lest they expose themselves to the nuclear nation's aggression.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
Also does not take into account countries that say they do not have any nukes despite having them, like Israel.
Or countries that say they have nukes, but kinda dont, like North Korea. I hear they are about to develop a new prototype of boat soon, that might be able to reach the US.
Nevermind that building nuclear warheads is really easy, as long as you have nuclear material and the explosion lens(Surprisingly, that one hasnt made it to the internet yet, but still easy enough to get). The real problem aint the warheads, but the rockets they put them in. As long as you have ICBMs, you can just whip up a warhead anytime.
 
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
About seven years a I visited Stanford University and listened to George Shultz give a talk where he talked some about nuclear weapons. He died this past February. Back then, he stressed that unilateral disarmament by the USA was unacceptable. That got me to thinking: what would an acceptable pathway towards global nuclear D/disarmament look like?

You could just inventory the existing nuclear arsenals and make a computer program list out each round of the game and then not use dice at all. The list would just say: "OK. In this round it is this country's turn and then in the next round it is that country's turn". I just thought that having a small element of chance with the dice would be more interesting.

My intention was that the rules of the game would be very carefully designed and very restrictive so that you would always be very close to the no-dice outcome. Again, the overall design is to almost run the historic Arms Race slowly in reverse except that in the final round, each nation has only one nuke left. I am disappointed that I never got the chance to bounce the idea off Shultz himself.

Shultz was present at the 1986

Reykjavík Summit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

where Gorbachev proposed complete nuclear disarmament. Reagan rejected his proposal because Gorbachev insisted that Reagan stop spending money on Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) research. I consider that to be a tragic lost opportunity for a better world. Now we are stuck with Putin for probably the rest of his life. Putin would never consider such a proposal. Tragic.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Most of the old nuclear powers understand by now that strategic nuclear weapons are not viable due to MAD.

As a result, they are shifting the emphasis to tactical nuclear weapons.

However, the "wanna-bes" - North Korea et al - still want to be nuclear powers.

Indeed, North Korea's leader has said that they want to become a nuclear power, and only then seek global disarmament.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
amorrow2 said:
President Obama gave a speech in Prague in 2009 that talked about a nuclear-free world as a goal. That speech probably played a role in his winning the Nobel Peace prize that year.

Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | whitehouse.gov

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

He did not accomplish his vision, but at least he dared to present such a vision.
Click to expand...
Then Obama went on to drone strike hospitals and civilians and dropped bombs on seven different countries. Not sure how much stock I would put in that his talk when his actions speak so much louder.
 
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
There is also this recent treaty:

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but it is, of course, an effort by the non-nuclear powers, i.e. the rest of the world. That seems rational to me: nuclear weapons are inherently for committing crimes against humanity. I think it is rational to suggest that we should get rid of them altogether.

Again, forget the dice. There are about 15K warheads on Earth according to

List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You could easily just write a computer program to list out the 15K turns of the game, maintaining nuclear parity and such and just get the representatives together and start playing the game, maybe a round a day. (Destroying one warhead per day). It would still take around 50 years to play the game to the final round.

That is at least a plan with no sudden big changes. Again, you would declare big penalties for any nation that ever created a nuclear weapon again.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
The US and UK are currently planning to increase their nuclear arsenal. Well, the US is actually planning to and the UK was just floating the idea so far.
 
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
The total number of warheads maxed out in 1985 at about 60K according to

Historical nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear tests by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

so we have had a big reduction in the past fourth years. I am just saying that we can make a plan that just continues that long term trend to it's endpoint: zero warheads. Like you said, because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) we should never use them anyway.

I suppose the alternative is just to get all of the nuclear powers to sign the Prohibition treaty simultaneously but that strikes me as too much change too fast.
 
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
Typo: I meant to write big reduction in the number of nuclear weapons I the past 40 years.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
A treaty like that would not be worth the blood its written on.

You see, there is a big problem with international law. There is no one to enforce it. The US decides to meddle here and there if it suits them, but apart from that, international law is completly toothless.

To actuallly get anything done on this topic, the US, EU, China and Russia at least would have to form close relations and find common ground. Now China, Russia and the EU are pretty stable leadership-wise, Russia only till Putin retires, but the US is a frikking coin toss every election from now on. Sadly, the biggest obstacle as far as making any progress globally is concerned, is the Republican Party.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Speaking as somebody who was an anti-nuclear activist and CND member back in the '80s, there are few discussions I find more pointless. The discussion was over as soon as states with radicals in charge decided they were going to try. Nobody in their right mind would contemplate disarming while the shitshow that is the Middle East, along with North Korea, could make a move toward WMDs.

Not going to happen. As daft as your infantile thread about population reduction.
 
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top