Evolution and International Politics Lecture 4, Part Two Evolution and Nuclear Deterrence Objectives ª Implications of Evolution’s Contribution to Deterrence ª What Is Rational Deterrence Theory (RDT) ª What Evolution Provides ª Rationality is Very Complicated, Conditional, Many Factors Affect It, Not Identified by Rational Deterrence Theorists ª RDT Will Fail In Domain of Losses ª Deterrence Is a Function of Political Variables and Military Capabilities ª Convincing an Opponent Not to Take an Action, Deterrence is a Negative Concept, Difficult to Know If It Is Working ª Deterrence by Denial and by Punishment ª Denial Focuses on Military Objectives ª Punishment Focuses on What the Opponent Values What Is Rational Deterrence Theory What Is Rational Deterrence Theory ª Deterrence (by Punishment) Should Obtain When Benefits are Outweighed by Costs ª Secure Second-Strike Capabilities Make Costs Very High, and So Augment Deterrence ª Survivable Forces (e.g. triad) ª Survivable Command and Control Systems ª Low Risk of Nuclear Inadvertence (Always/Never Dilemma) What Is Rational Deterrence Theory ªWith Secure Second Strike Capabilities Deterrence Should Be Relatively Easy to Obtain ªThe Costs are Understandable Across Time, Culture, Religion, Ideology, etc. ªEmpirical Evidence Very Strong— Absence of Nuclear Wars Despite Great Security Competition Evolution’s Contribution ª Applies in Some Cases: One, or Small Number of People Making Decisions Concerning Nuclear Use—N. Korea, al Qaeda ª Humans Do Not Possess a Cartesian Mind ª Baron Cohen’s Theory of Mind: Many Different Brains ª Empathy > Systemizing = Most Females ª S > E = Most Males ª S >> E =Systemizing Hyper-Developed, Empathizing Hypo-Developed ª True for Autistics, but also Most Leaders (of States, Business, etc.) Evolution’s Contribution ªMales More Aggressive, More Likely to Murder, More Likely to Create Tight Dominance Hierarchy, Less Concern for Feelings, Difference Communication ªAll Because Brain Is Different than Most Women, and Among Men ªAnecdote: Many Males with Asperger’s in International/Natural Security Field Evolution’s Contribution ªCognitive Abilities Vary Due to: ªHuman Evolution and Biology ªVariation in Genotype ªPhobias, e.g. of Snakes ª“Dual Process” Cognitive Functioning— Autonomous System of Thought with Analytic Built on Top of It—An Imperfect Structure ª“Run from any animal approaching” Evolution’s Contribution ªCognitive Abilities Vary Due to: ªInfection, Intoxication, or Emotional or Physical Trauma ªPhineas Gage (1848). Explosion removed much of his limbic area (concerned with moral reasoning) ªVentromedial Prefrontal Cortex (VMPC), our “Guardian Angel,” trauma limits emotion, and emotional response Evolution’s Contribution ª Leaders Are Overwhelmingly: ª Not a Normal Population ª Male, Older than Average, Overrepresentation of the Characteristics of the Extreme Male Mind ªGreat Ambition ªGreat Sensitivity to Threat or Challenge to Status ªHigh Tolerance of Risk ªLow Empathy ªMao, Stalin, Einstein, Newton Evolution’s Contribution ª Mind Is the Product of the Brain and Somatic Inputs Such as Emotion ª Brain and Body Integrated by Means of Interacting Biochemical and Neural Regulatory Circuits ª Both Interact with environment ª Feeling Is Result of Brain and Body ª Coding and Memory Retrieval May Be Mood Dependent, Interfere with Factual Information, Past Experience ª Culture Can Make This Worse, “Cultures of Honor,” where Protection of Reputation of Probity and Strength Done by Violence Evolution’s Contribution ªProspect Theory Confirmed (Kahneman and Tversky) ªFraming Effects Are Real, People’s Choices Are Altered by Irrelevant Changes in How the Alternatives Are Presented—Which Cancer Treatment Do You Prefer, One with a 90% Survival Rate or One with a 10% Mortality Rate Evolution’s Contribution ª In Certain Circumstances, Humans Are Risk Seeking, Greater Risks Incurred to Win a Large Prize ª Humans More Risk Accepting in the Domains of Losses, Loss of Possessions Felt Most Acutely ª Risk of the Loss of Power for Ruler With Extreme Mind Will Cause Him to Take Great Chances, Incur Great Risks What It Means for Deterrence Theory ª Choices Fallible, Patterns of Fallibility May Be Identified, and So Assumption of Rational Choices Questioned ª Leaders Are a Certain Type of Human ª Decision-making Will Diverge from the Expectations of RDT in the Domain of Losses ª These Problems Cannot Be Turned Off, Only Overridden or Countervailing Pressures ª Mind of Kim Jong-un, Not Thomas Schelling