{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

INTL4260_Jan29

INTL4260_Jan29 - Tuesday Fieron If actors were entirely...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 Fieron If actors were entirely rational, there would be few wars because the actors would agree upon the ending results. o Then why do we see conflict/war if actors do not compromise? Rational leaders will fight wars even when compromise is possible. (Gains of winning) +/- (gains of losing) - costs [resolve] o $100 ( .5 x 100 ) + ( .5 x 0 ) – 20 = 30 (expected value) o On average, if both sides fight, they will only get $30 o Is it rational for them to try to negotiate? Yes (31 , 69) (69 , 31) Fieron argues that it’s rational to go to war and not compromise o One or both actors don’t have perfect information expected values mess up Mistakes about relative power Probability of winning o Overestimating how strong you are Ex: Saddam Hussein thought they could defend against U.S. Ex: Bush believed Rumsfeld’s “Shock and Awe” would work, the civilians would become new Iraqis, and want democracy If both sides overestimate: ( .8 x 100 ) + ( 0 – 20 ) = 60 (expected value)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}