Is (International) power a zero-sum game?

[TheDarkHorse]

The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game. Progress must be shared.

This is actually something that I've pondered for quite some time. I've always viewed power internationally as a zero-sum game. Are power relationships this simplistic, or is there a more complex relation that can provide for a mutual gain?

More specifically, can Russia and the U.S. come together in a relationship without requiring any major concessions on the part of one nation's interests?

I say no to the second.

[Smokey D]

Strictly speaking, power might be zero sum, although I haven't done anything like the research necessary to back that up. But I would think that states can make concessions (give up a small interest) in order to make a larger gain (gain a large interest). Interests are not necessarily commensurable let alone zero sum.

[TheDarkHorse]

Yeah I agree with your points. But in the area of giving up a small interest, doesn't that usually require the other state to be oblivious to a large gain from a small concession?

I'm not thinking of anything too specific, but In terms of Russia-U.S. relations, I can't see "progress" in the sense of a joint agreement without one side getting the brunt end of the stick.

[jaredong]

Here's some stuff i remembered from class.

i think if we define power as in "military power" then it might be a zero sum game. For example, the "Security Dilema"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

Basically, a nation's attempt to defend itself by increasing its military would lead to really making itself more threatening to other nations. And thus make them increase their defense (and so on and so on). Take for example, missile shields. A strong defense allows a strong offense. Hence, if power = military strength, then its quite zero sum: My gain is your lost.

However, that is not to say that national interests cannot be compatible for mutual interest. If one party defects, then the other party suffers greatly and hence its kinda zero sum. However, if both parties cooperate then the mutual benefits would be the greatest outcome. Such as the "Stag Hunt" game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt

[Smokey D]

But in the area of giving up a small interest, doesn't that usually require the other state to be oblivious to a large gain from a small concession?

Only if states are always in competition, which is a dubious premise.

[die of starvation]

well modern south korea for example is more powerful than the entire world circa 1000 AD so i would say no

[TheDarkHorse]

Only if states are always in competition, which is a dubious premise.
hmm...you wouldn't argue these two countries are always at competition, which is why its hard for either to make concessions?

[Iskandar]

No it's because they want to safeguard their own interests.

[griftadan]

Yeah I agree with your points. But in the area of giving up a small interest, doesn't that usually require the other state to be oblivious to a large gain from a small concession?

not necessarily, trade agreements come to mind

all though "gain" might not be ubiquitous with the concept of power. if i were to look at this, i would say that the "sum" of all power would be able to control every aspect of human interaction at once. people share it with each other, governments share it with their citizenry, governments share it with each other internationally. in this sense, one entity can't really gain power without another losing out.

[TheDarkHorse]

hm cool, great response.

The two things I had in mind were Nuclear Power and Energy.

The U.S. wants Russia to downsize gradually, but Putin said something along the lines that they will eliminate their nuke arsenal as soon as everyone else does.

As far as energy, the Bush Administration failed to realize how close the Russian Ruble is tied to gas prices. The rising gas prices meant more profit for U.S. corporations, but more power to the Putin regime (which is why I say one party must be oblivious to the other side's gain).

[Iskandar]

The U.S. wants Russia to downsize gradually, but Putin said something along the lines that they will eliminate their nuke arsenal as soon as everyone else does.Linkage. Obama wants to reduce stockpiles too.
As far as energy, the Bush Administration failed to realize how close the Russian Ruble is tied to gas prices. The rising gas prices meant more profit for U.S. corporations, but more power to the Putin regime (which is why I say one party must be oblivious to the other side's gain).Whose gas, Gazprom's?

Wait why am I writing this. You never respond to my posts anyway.

[Chu]

We still get into a difference whether the "game" is strictly determined or not (and if we not, we start playing probabilities).

To follow on from jaredong's post, I'd say military power would be strictly determined, exactly as he said "My gain is your loss". That is, in a single game it would be visible what the long term affects will be.

When we start approaching a non-strictly determined game, finding the value becomes a little more difficult, in fact I don't think we could find any pattern to long term affects from a single game - we have to be able to have multiple "turns", now I hope the problem with this and military is fairly obvious. (In a non-strictly determined zero-sum game, it is still "My gain is your loss", but it's averaged out over a sequence of turns).

I've heard that during the Cold War, a lot of great mathematicians spent a lot of time playing around with Game Theory trying to work out what to do - [fortunately?] nothing came of it.