Question 3: It is common to use game theory to analyze international relations.

Question

Question 3: It is common to use game theory to analyze international relations. The following game deals with the Cuban Missile Crisis: USSR Don't Attack Attack USSR get:s USSR get:s Don't Attack|USA gets USA USA gets -5 USSR get:s USSR gets Attack -5 -3 USA gets USA gets -3 (a) This game has a dominant strategy equilibrium; explain what that means and how you can tell it is true for this game. Specify what the dominant strategy equilibrium is for this game. (b) Is the equilibrium outcome predicted in this game (which you gave in (a)) the same as the real-world result (which was that USA did not attack, USSR did not attack)? If they are not the same, explain why the real-world outcome might be different than the one-shot equilibrium above. Answer:

Explanation / Answer

Ans

It is an equilbrium resulting from each player choosing its dominant strategy which is here to attack.

2 No its not same. In real world players take into consideration all facts and effects of counteraction.In reality the consequences of nuclear attack are too great so that players choose not to attack In other words 0,0 situation is more practical. Players are rational in reality. They are not misled by shorterm gains

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.