As a mathematician I wonder is there is some kind of equilibrium that we could propose, or at least promoting an scenary in which what each side want is clearer. There is no way to reason when the rules implie a contradiction, but at least we could try to find an unsatisfacible model in which to prove (the execution plan of MAD) is delayed. That would nee to entangle economic, geopolitical and psychological models. We could model that in a bayesian framework given some priors. I don't know how political science and bayesian modelling is now. Another analogy is in poker, how could you train the current models to detect the best move?
Edited: I am thinking about this from https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2410
Then a striking 1976 result called Aumann’s Theorem states that their opinions must be equal. Or, as it’s summarized: “rational agents with common priors can never agree to disagree about anything.”
So it seems is fundamental to know what are the priors of the agents. I don't know if Aumann's Theorem and poker have been studied before.
Edited: I am thinking about this from https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2410 Then a striking 1976 result called Aumann’s Theorem states that their opinions must be equal. Or, as it’s summarized: “rational agents with common priors can never agree to disagree about anything.”
So it seems is fundamental to know what are the priors of the agents. I don't know if Aumann's Theorem and poker have been studied before.
Edited: Something related https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-is-playing-poker-with-us...