I mean, Schelling has a pretty long discussion of rationality and irrationality near the beginning of one of his most famous works. He points out the problems with a simple rational/irrational binary or spectrum and covers the definitional issues that make @Griz882 comment simultaneously true and untrue. He also covers the problems with some of the underlying assumptions of positing rational actors. Without going and digging it off the shelf, so from memory, I'm pretty sure he literally says that state actors take irrational actions for all sorts of reasons. I'm not going to go search it out.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Norks' New Strategy?
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
I have not read Schelling, but he is a game theorist among other things. Unless he believes that all his work on game theory was a waste of time and irrelevant, I have a guess that he would agree that states mostly act rationally.
I really can't believe so many here seem to think otherwise. Crazy.
Please how WWI, WWII, or better yet the U.S. Civil War were rational for those executing them (those who started the war)? None of the antagonists you note won their wars - that is the opposite of rational. As for Korea, circa 1950’s, entirely irrational for NK, it resulted in the total destruction of their army. Only China prevented NK from being reunited with the south - a move they probably wouldn’t make again.
When you are done reading Schelling you should review (or study) Lancaster’s equations.
Nation-state rationality is confined to the needs of each nation-state. Using the examples you provided every loser (Confederacy, Germany, Nazis, Imperial Japan) had rational reasons for declaring wars they couldn’t win.
Oh dear. You're saying they were irrational because they couldn't predict the future and ended up losing? That's not what "rational" means.
They all believed they could win, and thought that trying to do so was their best option. The end result is irrelevant.
I've pulled a fairly anodyne definition of Rational Actor to better frame the discussion:
The rational actor model assumes that a rational actor will develop goals that are based on self-interest, and the actor will make the choice that best supports the goal.
Note that this doesn't imply whether an actor is sane or insane, nor does it mean that rational actors can't be delusional about the strength of their military, or about their intel assessment. Do their choices serve their desired end states?
Discuss.
The rational actor model assumes that a rational actor will develop goals that are based on self-interest, and the actor will make the choice that best supports the goal.
Note that this doesn't imply whether an actor is sane or insane, nor does it mean that rational actors can't be delusional about the strength of their military, or about their intel assessment. Do their choices serve their desired end states?
Discuss.
Have you all just been weighing in, making assertions that "all wars are irrational" and claiming specific wars were started by irrational actors, but you didn't even know what a rational actor was or have the courtesy to at least look it up first? I appreciate you at least looking it up after the fact, Brett, and I mean that sincerely.
Perhaps I'm expecting too much, and maybe I'm a prick for saying so, but that's just not a good representation of our community.
Perhaps I'm expecting too much, and maybe I'm a prick for saying so, but that's just not a good representation of our community.
If you think folks here were all aware of the definition, then why did you post the definition? It's not like there are competing definitions and you needed to clarify which one. Clearly you also saw that folks were posting opinions on something without knowing wtf it was they were even saying."After the fact."Thanks for introducing the concept to us.
Because it's clear from reading this thread that nobody seems aware of the definition. Not everyone is as well read as you.
I’ve quoted this before. One of the more insightful things I’ve ever read.
The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyses that seek to justify our assumption, while guaranteeing diplomatic failure: It’s difficult to defeat an enemy or even negotiate with a partner whose moti¬vation you refuse to understand.
A 2023 essay…
Most wars have been irrational in terms of means or ends or both together. This is because choices for war are influenced by emotions, ideologies, domestic politics, and the tyranny of history, as well as by the more rational pursuit of material and strategic interests.
yalebooks.yale.edu
The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyses that seek to justify our assumption, while guaranteeing diplomatic failure: It’s difficult to defeat an enemy or even negotiate with a partner whose moti¬vation you refuse to understand.
War’s irrational motivators
The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyse…
armedforcesjournal.com
Most wars have been irrational in terms of means or ends or both together. This is because choices for war are influenced by emotions, ideologies, domestic politics, and the tyranny of history, as well as by the more rational pursuit of material and strategic interests.
Are Wars Rational? - Yale University Press
Michael Mann— Most wars have been irrational in terms of means or ends or both together. This is because choices for war are influenced by emotions, ideologies, domestic politics, and... READ MORE
yalebooks.yale.edu
Oh dear. You’re saying they were rational because they “thought” they could win? Not only is that not what “rational” means, it isn’t what happened. The U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, and even OIF were all acts of emotion - emotion BEFORE THE FACT - primarily fear combined with a little hope.
The Confederate States, frightened that they would lose their economic base of slavery, never had a “victory strategy” but Lee came closest hoping he could hold off the federalist long enough to get northern Copperheads to sue for peace.
The German Empire feared that the one moment in time when they held just enough industry and military might to control Europe would slip away launched their forces into the catastrophe of WWI. Indeed, within the German command it was assumed defeat would come quickly if the U.S. entered the war…but they hoped the Americans would not.
Of all of them, the Third Reich reversed the script not by reacting to fear, but acting on hope, that a Europe still exhausted from WWII would let them get away with to Hitler’s plan reunify the German peoples and his pursuit of Lebensraum, “living space” that would enable Germans to become economically self-sufficient and militarily secure. The fear came later when they attacked the Soviet Union followed by the foolishness of declaring war on the U.S. in 1941.
Fear and hope, in case you were unaware, are not rational processes.
Last edited:
Great question. If we assume some level of megalomania a’la Hitler or Kim then one must assume that they consider themselves the embodiment of the state. In this case, their choices serve their desires but an assumed end state isn’t an actual concern since the nation state they run couldn’t exist without them in their minds.
On the other hand there are cases where “sane” actors take a choice that is an amalgamation of military strength, internal industrial capacity, national manpower computations (primarily a version of Lancaster) and weigh that against an emotion like fear, revenge, or hope. Some easy examples - the German Empire in 1914, the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. before the U.S. could interfere with their Co-Prosperity Sphere, and less so the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Germans feared they couldn’t keep up with British industry so they launched their war and hoped everything would go right (it didn’t). The Japanese feared U.S. industrial might but hoped the Americans would “be rational” and sue for peace (we weren’t). The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the odd duck here since (and this is my opinion) the US hoped to find enough WMD to justify the war (we did not) but still ended up getting their desired end goal.
With the Germans in WWII, it was more than hope IMO. They also saw themselves as facing down the great "evil" of global Jewry. There was a major ideological component to the war with the Nazi ideology. They also believed they could steam roll the Soviets.
Well, you're closer to the mark, as at least your new thesis hits in the realm of what is rational or not, but you're still way off. You're just taking a conclusion that you want to find, that these wars have been based on emotions, and framing the conflicts in those terms while ignoring everything else. Of course, all humans feel emotions like fear and hope, but that doesn't mean their decisions are solely or even primarily based on them. After all, is that how you live your life? You get angry so you punch someone, you feel fear so you refuse to push forward, or you feel hope so you take a blind leap of faith? Of course not! And doubly so if you were running a country.
You say the Confederates went to war knowing they couldn't win, solely because they were "frightened that they would lose their economic base". They absolutely thought they could win, but more importantly, they thought trying to win was their best path forward because without slavery they thought they were doomed. Yes, they feared a future without slavery, but it was their belief that their right to own slaves was so essential to their future that they had to fight for it that caused them to act, not fear alone. A rational decision that was well thought out, heavily debated, and decided soberly by many states' independent governments... not a conclusion that was rushed to in a panic of fear.
The German Empire didn't choose to go to war, they chose to back their ally Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary chose to go to war because they wanted to crush the Serbian nationalists who killed the heir to their thrown. Basically every other country who fought in the war did so because they had alliances that demanded they do so. All quite rational.
WW2, as you mentioned, was largely because Hitler wanted Lebensraum. That is as rational as it gets, as he thought (correctly) it was an achievable goal that would be the best path forward for the country. Later, the Germans overestimated their capability with respect to Russia, and that led to their demise, but as Brett mentioned, that is irrelevant to any discussion over who is acting as a "rational actor".