Brane Space: game theory

Showing posts with label game theory. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Iran Deal Is The Best The World Could Get: So Critics Must Stop Bellyaching About It!

To hear the parade of warmongering Neocon repukes squawking, as well as Israel's deranged PM Benji Netanyahu, you'd think Obama had sold the Southern states to Iran along with Israel's Gaza strip. All you heard is bombastic bloviation such as out of bonehead Mitch McConnell's mouth that the ideal deal would be "one through which Iran gets no nuclear weapons" which is as full of hot air as when he claimed we needed a war in Syria 3 years ago to put Assad in his place.

Meanwhile,, perpetual Reeptard nincompoop Darrell Issa insisted the deal was "junior varsity foreign policy grounded in childlike optimism rather than clear-eyed realism". Clearly unable to tell the difference between them, since this deal - as I will show - is about as realistic as one can get, short of all out war which is really what most of these jabbering assholes want.

The editorial pages of newspapers split along typically Neocon v. non-belligerents' lines with The NY Times accurately calling the deal "one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history" while the now neocon -contaminated WashPo claimed "it was a complex and costly deal that poses a major threat to the United States and its allies."

Meanwhile, the reactionary Wall Street Journal op ed pages featured almost end to end 'hair on fire' columns such as Patrick Kagan's "Why The Iranians Are Cheering". But what would you expect? Bear in mind the only viable alternative to this diplomatic solution would be war. That means millions of tons of weapons, including cruise missiles, obliterated which then have to be remanufactured - jacking up defense budgets and share values for contractors.

Then there is the low grade tabloid press, including the NY Post and Daily News called the deal a joke, but what do you expect coming from media bottom feeders that are themselves jokes?

Anyone remotely familiar with cooperative game theory principles would understand this was the best deal we could obtain, i.e. that didn't totally shank one side. Indeed, the fact hardliners in both the U.S. and Iran are railing against it shows it struck the exact right balance between hideous and effective.

As nuclear compliance specialist Joe Cirincione ('Ploughshares Fund' President) put it on Rachel Maddow two nights ago:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

This is critical because it means the harshest critics - namely the Repukes, the Wall Street Journal op-ed bunch and Netanyahu- are not aware of the modern in situ sensor inspection capacity, i.e. that allows the Iranian facilities to be electronically "spy" monitored 24/7. Why hasn't more been published on this technology to reduce the widespread ignorance? Probably because the spooks like in the NSA - who use it in other venues - do not want the details known. Fair enough, but the problem is we are then forced to listen to critics' complaints based on their antiquated perceptions from what they understood about the old time inspections using actual humans in Iraq.

Getting back to the game theory aspect let us recall again a ‘game’ means any mutual interplay between one or more players- which could be individuals, corporations or nations – in which one stands to gain a larger payoff than the other.

In each such game, the respective players (in this case, the U.S. and Iran) make choices from respective sets: S _i (where in this case i= 1,…n). In addition we have n-real valued functions (in this case n = 2) described as:

P _i= S1 X ………S _n ® R (i= 1,…n)

Where R defines the Cartesian space. The set S _i is called Player i’s ‘strategy space; while P _i is called the “payoff function”. We take S _i to be the set of actions available to the character called Player i, and we insist each Player must choose some action – and even a “non-action” can be included in the set since it can provoke a response in the other Player. Note there will also be some actions that have joint consequences, and that P _i basically measures Player i’s assessment of the consequence.

Other basics:

Cooperative Game: One for which some kind of binding agreement is possible

Non-Cooperative Game: One for which no binding agreement is possible.

Strategy: involves a set of rules S _i which defines which action is taken at each point in the game.

A ‘strategy pair’ i.e. (a*, b*) is such that a* represents A’s best move when B plays b*, and b* represents B’s best move when A plays a*.

In a Nash Equilibrium, no player has an incentive to change strategy.

A “Dominant strategy” is optimal no matter what the other player does.

A sequential game is one which evolves in time and for which Payoffs P _i are exchanged based on sequential actions S _i, eventually leading to a denouement- or a stalemate.

From the above, we see this nuclear deal is predicated on a cooperative - sequential game. (As many have said, and I reiterate, this is not one 'done' deal but an unfolding process over YEARS.) The U.S. and its treaty collaborators (including from Europe and Russia) gain nuclear weapon neutralization while Iraq's payoffs include getting access to the global finance system and lessening of sanctions.

In the case of the treaty template, each : S _i denotes an in situ inspection (via 24/7 electronic sensors) which then determine whether and to what extent the set of payoffs sets: P _i will be delivered.

The fact the deal is rigorously restricted to one objective also aids in assuring its ultimate successful outcome, so there is no muddying the water with Iran's past history, whether it is a "good actor" on the Middle East stage or wants conventional weapons or whatever. It is strictly about preventing Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. As Obama put it yesterday, in an interview with Thomas Friedmann:

"We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”

Let us finally acknowledge that it is primarily the reactionary Beltway bozos and poltroons reacting negatively. Americans by significant majorities want this deal. Maddow cited a Quinnipiac poll, for example, that 73 percent favored it. And another poll showing 57 percent.

Will the politicos, especially on the Right, obey the will of the people, or go off half-cocked on their own as they have done with the efforts at gun control legislation, i.e. following the 2012 Aurora Theater then Newtown massacres? We will see!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Could the U.S. Alone Defeat Russia in a Conventional War? NO!

One stage of a recent game of GO. The black markers could represent NATO, expanded (via U.S. pressure) to try to surround the white (Russia). All responses are merited therefore which are in the interest of the defense of white.

Our President, alas, continues to babble on the mounting Ukraine crisis from a perception that is more in line with Neocon thinking than that of a rational person who is geopolitically informed. This is not surprising because the meme of American exceptionalism and hubris contaminates the thinking of most of our leaders - who seem - after a time, to just parrot each other's talking points. Thus, last night in a CBS interview (CBS Evening News) Obama - when asked about the current crisis - replied that Russia is "responding from a position of weakness".

This is, of course, Neocon drivel. If Obama understood even the basics of the strategic game of 'GO' (an ancient and complex game of oriental origin that predates chess) he would never have made such a dumb remark. In 'GO', you see, the object is not to capture pieces, but to prevail by virtue of effectively surrounding the opponent's pieces. (Pieces are in the shape of black and white circular, or roundish discs.) At the point of maximal surround, the hapless opponent either has no legal moves left, or he loses pieces (usually in the center of the board) because the encircling is so effective it allows them to be removed from play (not the same as capture, since they are effectively useless so are redundant).

Indeed, the image presented above shows white backed against the side of the board by an ever more aggressive black. For the purposes of illustration, I identify the U.S.- instigated NATO expansion as the black force. Meanwhile, Russia - backed against the side of the board (or it would be if it allowed NATO to take Ukraine as one its puppets)- is identified with the white force-pieces. This presentation or situation is totally in line with what I formerly described in terms of game theory . See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html

As I observed in that post, in terms of the game theory context of 'spheres of influence':

In this game context, I look at a 20-plus year sequential game played by the U.S. vs. Russia and for which the subtext and most basic assumption is the “sphere of influence”. This is taken to mean the geographic and geo-political domain in which a nation’s actions are justified and wherein it exhibits maximal latitude to determine its own self-interest especially in matters of national security.

The most thoroughly studied solution concept is the Nash equilibrium (see e.g. the book, The Essential John Nash, Princeton University Press, 2002, Ch. 6 ‘Non-Cooperative Games’ – facsimile of Nash’s Ph.D. Thesis, and Ch. 7, presented in regular book font format). This is the outcome that results when the players maximize their own payoffs – taking the other player’s behavior as given.

In the game space graphic shown, I place the Nash equilibrium for the U.S. – Russia contest just 2-3 yrs. past the point where in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev refused to use force to keep the Soviet Union together and allowed Germany to peacefully reunify. In exchange, US President George H.W. Bush agreed not to expand NATO’s borders east, and certainly not to Russia’s borders.

This translated into a credible 'win-win' (analogous to both persons in the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" refusing to rat on each other), and I argue that this equilibrium – if it had been preserved- would not have led to the current U.S. – Russian standoff.

Alas, the U.S. broke faith and began to play the “dominant” game (i.e. changing strategy to grab a seeming payoff and benefit - breaking the then Nash equilibrium), egged on by its defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and others to grab former Soviet States like Latvia, Estonia etc. – suck them into NATO, and ply them with weapons sales. The reason for adopting the dominant posture is still up for discussion, but according to blogger Eric Margolis, “Washington regarded Russia as a broken-down, third world nation beneath contempt”.

Thus, it is clear - as I also noted - the U.S. -NATO had "too many payoffs" and Russia had no choice other than to respond in aggressive fashion. But this response in the context was from one of defensive strength - not "weakness" - as Obama described it.

Obama was next asked about the buzzing of the U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea by the Russian SU-24 jet, and again delivered a clueless, Neocon -biased, American exceptionalist reply:

"They did that for display but they don't want to get into a war with us. They'd be defeated in a conventional war."

Really, Mr. Prez? You think so? I don't! You need to stop ingesting those MJ 'edibles'. Here are some reasons why Obama is dreaming and the U.S, would be 'smoked' in any conventional engagement:

- After eleven plus years of futile "wars" in which the U.S. couldn't even defeat a ragtag rabble in either Iraq or Afghanistan, the American military is spent, demoralized and literally crippled in mind and body. Hell, the vets returning from these occupations can't even obtain the medical and other disability benefits they sorely need! The military, meanwhile, has featured the highest suicide rate of any group in this country for the last five years, and the brain-damaged toll (from IEDs, etc.) is estimated at possibly as high as 50 percent. That is 50 percent of all vets coming back with some type of PTSD or actual brain damage. You think these guys would be able to face off against a totally revamped Russian military on their turf?

- The sharp reduction of the American defense inventory over approximately the past twenty-five years has been predicated on two basic assumptions. First, that Russia, Washington’s chief Cold War adversary, was no longer a substantial threat following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Second, that no military force or collection of forces on the planet had the technological sophistication to rival the United States. These assumptions are no longer valid.

Russia has already nearly completed a $723 billion modernization program that includes procuring 1,700 warplanes, including cutting edge fighters and new air defense batteries. Reliable German defense reports also note that Russia has revamped its air force with many new craft, including some, like the T-50, that surpass America’s latest fighter, the F-22 Raptor..

- Acting on those concepts, America’s armed forces were substantially reduced. The Navy shrunk from 600 ships to 286, the Air Force from 37 combat air wings to 20, and the Army from 17 divisions to 10. Under the Obama administration, this process has deepened and accelerated. The President has also pursued a course of significant and, in large part unilateral, nuclear arms reduction.

- The costs of the two futile occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq are still being tallied but already best estimates put the total at over $4 trillion. There is no way the American people - certainly the sensible, thinking ones - will go for another major ground war that could empty the Treasury in one fell swoop. Where will the U.S. get the money from such a venture? China? Not too likely! (It is possible, however, that the hypocrite warmonger 'pukes would allow the debt ceiling to be raised past $20 trillion to enable this dubious move.)

- According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Russia is now firmly established as the world’s third-largest military spender, behind the U.S. and China. According to IISS, Russia now operates one aircraft carrier, five cruisers, 18 destroyers, nine frigates and 82 coastal warships as well as 64 submarines — 11 carrying ballistic missiles.

- From all points of view, given the U.S. the last 12 years hasn't been in a major conventional war defined by actual battle lines, air attacks from the opponent, tank combat, facing targeted sophisticated missiles (as opposed to IEDs) and facing well trained troops - as opposed to rag tag goobers, it is doubtful whatever forces Obama lines up will last even one major battle. Most savvy observers see a rout like Dien Bien Phu all over again. And where will these troops come from to fight the Russkies? From the battered and bruised lot already mending wounds and mental pain after multiple tours in Eye-rack? Please. They'd have to be pulled from South Korea (leaving N. Korea free to attack the South) and Afghanistan, where again, they've only faced the Taliban - not exactly the equivalent of the Russians.

- The Russians would be fighting for and IN their own sphere of influence, so would be stoked to the max to defend their interests. In many respects it would be analogous to the massive wave attack of the Chinese after the U.S. -NATO forces pushed too far north in the Korean War. With the advantage of nearby supply lines and forces, the U.S. would have to retreat .

The conclusion here is that the U.S. alone - given its demoralized, PTSD-wrought and diluted forces - would be no match for the vastly superior and improved Russian military which is no longer the 'joke' of the world as blow-dried moron Rob Lowe tried to portray on Bill Maher's Real Time last week. ("These guys couldn't even get locks on the doors of the hotel rooms in Sochi or keep dogs out of the halls!") That is an antiquated view the West and its PR lackeys best get rid of before it engages Russian troops anywhere in their sphere of influence.

The U.S. therefore would need to recruit all its NATO puppets to assist in any conventional ground attack on Russia. The problem with that is that the Russians have retained a “limited use" nuclear doctrine by which they reserve the right to employ nuclear weapons if they feel overwhelmed by conventional outside forces, say NATO’s, see e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/54873/russia-still-addresses-conventional-weapons-gap-with-u-s-via-nukes

As noted therein:

On March 13, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ran a piece by Nikolai Sokov with the paradoxical title Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation.” He writes, “In 1999, at a time when renewed war in

Chechnya

seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in

Yugoslavia

.” It became concerned both that “the

United States

would interfere within its borders” and that the “conventional capabilities that the

United States

and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond

Russia

’s own capacities.”

In response, Russia:

… issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if

Russia

were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike.

In the unnerving 1983 film ‘Threads’ such a scenario played out in a future Iran, after the U.S. and NATO allies bombed a nuclear plant at Isfahan. The Russians used tactical nukes to even the score and halt advancing NATO forces, the U.S. did likewise, and within days the exchange could no longer be controlled and had escalated into a full scale nuclear war. Is this what Obama really wants? Then he better be careful what promises he makes and how he wields his rhetoric.

Here's an even better recommendation: Maybe the Prez ought to first learn the game of GO before he babbles again in an interview about the Russians "acting out of weakness" or that "the U.S. can take them in a conventional war."

Give the American people the truth, Mr. Obama, not a bunch of bollocks and Neocon codswallop!