From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:23:05 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
In-Reply-To: <199607231854.LAA28030@netcom7.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9607231938.AA01857@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




>I don't understand this conclusion.  One book people aside, it is generally
>believed that humans evolved in an evolutionary context and they certainly
>frequently use cooperative strategies.  Cooperation usually also involves
>the ability to sanction misbehavior.  Unilateral disarmament is throwing
>away your sanction.

That depends on the circumstances. If you are arguing the case for 
unilateral disarmament or unilateral reduction. In many cases there was a
deliberated attempt to confuse one with the other. Unilateral 
reduction can be the right move to make.

In the case of a minor nuclear power such as the UK unilateral
disarmament may be the right move if the force is insignificant and
the cost of maintaining it is more than the ecconomy can afford or
if it requires compromise of foreign policy in general to keep
the supplier happy.

Somehow I think it should be obvious that issues such as disarmament
are rather more complex than a theoretical game theory model can
capture. Theory should inform understanding, uncovering cause/effect
relationships. That does not mean that all such relationships can
be captured.

The attempt to move from game theory to nuclear disarmament policy
is a tenuous enough move which works primarily because both sides 
are rational actors who are employing the same ideological and 
analytical framework to achieve a common goal (avoiding mutual 
anihilation). It is an even more tenuous connection to apply it to 
the home burglar situation. Burglars are not rational actors, and
are more likely to have their behaviour determined by drugs or
alcohol than analytical game theory.

The facts are very clear, if you have a handgun in the house it is
far more likely to kill a member of the familly than stop an
intruder. The NRA know this which is why they have lobbied for the
CDC to stop research in this area - they do not like the facts.

As someone who qualifies to be issued with a handgun under the UK
regulations I have been informed that the protection offered is
marginal at best. An intruder is certain to be more prepared than
the intended victim, it is extreemly unlikely that the intruder will
not get the first shot in.


		Phill