Nuclear weapons and game theory: calculating the force.

The nuclear force must be powerful. But not too powerful. 

The idea of the game theory is that every species in the world are trying to maximize their benefit. The origin of that theory is in the nuclear weapon strategies. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons in the world. They are offering extreme benefits for the states that own those weapons. But the problem is that if the strike capacity of the state is too high. That causes the problem with own military. 

The problem with its military is if the state has no outside enemies. Own military can turn rebellious. In that case, the own military can attack other states without permission. And without outside enemies, the military can turn against the state leaders. Nuclear weapons are extremely powerful. And only one nuclear warhead that comes through defense can terminate the state leaders. So that is the thing that makes nuclear weapons so good. 

In nuclear strategies, the key element is the strike capacity. When weapons are launched there is no return. Of course, technical advances like warheads that can return from the orbiter if they would not detonate are things that are limiting that model. But there is always the possibility that the attacker will send its warheads to the swarm of orbiting weapons.   And that thing shakes the trust for the nuclear armament. 

There are many scenarios where another nation will make the first strike. One of them is connected with conventional warfare. There is the possibility that the other side of war will destroy the launching platforms of nuclear weapons like submarines. And if the strike capacity of the nuclear weapons decreases too low. That forces the country to use nuclear armament against its opponent.

Do you know why "space bomber" satellites are prohibited?

Do you know why the FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombing System)-weapons are prohibited? The orbital nuclear weapons are not sure actors. There is the possibility that those weapons are not working as they should. The sleeping nuclear bomber satellite can drop from the orbiter. Or the EMP weapon can destroy its electronics. 

Or it can be targeted by killer satellites that are meant to destroy other satellites. In most visions, the killer- or "cannibal" satellites are satellites that are destroying other satellites. So those weapons are not meant to destroy cities. Their purpose is to destroy communication and GPS satellites. And one purpose of those satellite weapons would be to destroy the nuclear weapons parked on the orbiter. 

Nuclear weapons are a very convincing thing. 

The key element in nuclear strategies is the trust in those weapons. And if the trust is gone. Those weapons are not offering shields for the country anymore. Nuclear weapons are a very convincing element in a strategic arsenal. 

And that thing makes them good weapons for treating the other nations. Even ordinary people would see how powerful those weapons are. And the purpose of those things is to give pressure on the opponent state or its leader. 

The message is clear. If you get nuclear weapons or treat us. That thing causes large-size destruction. In the cases of other weapons of mass destruction. There is needed some expert to explain to people what is the virus is or what is the nerve agent? 

If some nation uses nuclear weapons that means. Those weapons are gone. And the third party can attack that country. 

Game theory is the theory where nations are acting like giant macro-organisms. That means the benefit of the group will dominate only when there is an outside enemy. That outcoming threat causes the entirety must combine its force against outsiders. But when the outside threat is gone. That causes the benefit of the certain group of the internal actor to start to highlight. 

And sooner or later the personal benefit of individuals is crossing the benefit of the large entirety. That way of thinking is very well visible in the economical areas. When countries are in an economic depression. Their leaders want to make economical alliances. When some nation has a stronger economy. That causes the "national interest" to cross the benefit of the union.  

What is the state? The fact is that the King of France Louis XIV crystallized that thing by saying "I am the state". So the state is the same thing as its leaders. That is the official policy in many countries. 

So when the national interest requires alliances that will be very popular. That means when the nation gets the money that makes alliances accepted. And when the nation is giving money. That highlights the negative things in the alliance. 

What makes money so important. The incoming and outgoing money is offering clear and simple examples about the things for and against the alliances. But then somebody asked me "where do we need game theory"? The benefits and counter benefits of alliances between nations are more complicated than just economical benefits. 

Things like strategic political and military benefits and other things are also meaningful things. The union of lands might protect the country against the attack. But it can also tie the hands of the political leaders. And nuclear weapons can also offer other nations leave from the line. One purpose of nuclear weapons is to offer other nations an honorable way to make nothing.