Cold War: A Prisoner’s Dilemma
The prisoner’s dilemma is a decision making model that explains the pros and cons of cooperation and non-cooperation. By cooperating, a party only has a one-fourth, or twenty-five percent, chance of coming out on top. That small chance is contingent on the other party involved cooperating as well. Thus, even the slightest mistrust can lead to one or both parties acting through fear of the other party’s possible actions.
The two opposing forces in the Cold War were communism and democracy. This clash made ideological and political enemies out of the USSR and the United States. During the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union had been allies and fought on the same side. However, that alliance was short-lived and ended not long after the conclusion of the war. Mistrust of the opposing government caused each to take actions while imagining what the other might be pondering. For instance, the United States maintained a policy of containment following World War II. Containment was the United State’s policy to restrain the expansion of the Soviet Union and, more importantly, communism. The development of this policy was based on the belief that the USSR would avoid taking risks at all costs and would easily back down when faced with opposition. This policy exemplifies how, in the prisoner’s dilemma, one tries to predict and control the other’s actions.
The hostile environment caused the United States and the USSR to be constantly prepared to partake in violent military aggression (in other words, war). This preparedness is evident in the US foreign policy of brinkmanship. Brinkmanship meant that the US planned to meet any Soviet aggression with massive nuclear retaliation. United States Secretary of State John Dulles, who is most often associated with this policy, didn’t think that simply containing communism was enough. Although the prospect of nuclear war horrified people, in the war between communism and democracy, this fear was insignificant. In the prisoner’s dilemma, one always considers how it might be possible to cover one’s tracks if the opponent acts out in an unexpected way.
The fear of communism made people act strangely. In the United States, this fear culminated in the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin began the communist hysteria when he gave his well-known speech in which he held up a piece of paper which he proclaimed to hold the names of hundreds of known communists within the State Department. The search for communists in the United States, which has been likened to the witch hunts and Salem Witch Trials of the 1600s, impeded on citizen’s rights, as laid out in the Constitution. McCarthy-ism spread through the nation like a virus and turned colleagues on colleagues. For instance, in Hollywood, actors, directors, and other people associated with the movie industry were ‘blacklisted.’ In other words, when a Hollywood name was dropped in association with communism, studios would no longer hire them. Outside of Hollywood, many actors and directors involved in the Group Theatre in New York were also named. When playwright/director Elia Kazan was called before the House committee, he did something considered an unforgivable offense. He named names of his fellow thespians. Faced with the prospect of never being able to work again, he chose his career over his colleagues. Fear of communism led people to lose their jobs and lives and to act to save themselves from self-destruction. Fear is a large part of the decision making process of the prisoner’s dilemma.
Saving themselves from self-destruction was not only done on the small scale with individuals in the United States. On a larger scale, the Soviet Union also acted to protect itself. Viewing democracy as bad and evil, an economic, social and military barrier was put up around the USSR and other communist countries of Eastern Europe. Known as the “Iron Curtain,” this metaphorical barrier isolated communist peoples from those of other socio-political-economic systems – especially democracy. Protecting oneself is another large factor of the prisoner’s dilemma.
Attempts to comply and cooperate with each other were few and infrequent. Some attempts at peaceful dealings were made. These attempts came in the form of treaties. For instance, the policy of dÃ?©tente, which was developed by Richard Nixon (US) and Henry Kissinger (Great Britain), focused on easing tensions through negotiations. One example of a product of this policy was the first SALT treaty (1972). The United Nations, individual countries and treaty organizations like NATO worked at reducing stress through discussions and subsequent treaties. Cooperation always will benefit both parties the most, so this is a valid option that must tried (if possible) or at least considered in the prisoner’s dilemma.
Unfortunately, the attempts at peaceful dealings were infrequent and, to some extent, ineffective. Tensions came to an all-time high as the threat of nuclear war and the Third World War faced the world. After the failed attempt by the US of invading Cuba, the USSR secretly began loading up Cuba with armaments. When the US learned of this, as well as the fact that the missiles were aimed directly at the United States, Cuba was immediately blockaded, and it demanded that the USSR remove the weapons. Khrushchev of the USSR backed down and removed the missiles under UN supervision. The blockade was lifted, but the Cuban Missile Crisis had already left its mark. In the quest of national security, all the involved nations had failed to work together peacefully and, therefore, failed to cooperate with each other. Non-cooperation is the safety net in the prisoner’s dilemma, but that doesn’t mean it is best or actually safest for each player.
The prisoner’s dilemma comes down to parties looking for security. In the quest for security, the security of others is sometimes compromised. This is what happened during the Cold War. Aside from that, the ruling emotions altered people’s logical thinking. Fear was a key player in decision making, as is always is the case with the prisoner’s dilemma. That resulted in, again, the compromising of other’s security. The Cold War was undoubtedly a prisoner’s dilemma and more often than not, the players chose to play if ‘safe’ and not cooperate.
