That’s just how it is. So can we agree that our leaders and we should stop whining that the other side is
playing unfairly and instead focus on playing the game smartly to deal with what’s going on?
Winning means getting those things that are most important without losing those things that are most
important to us, so wars that cost much more in lives and money than they provide in benefits are stupid.
While there are no rules in international relations other than those who are the most powerful impose on
themselves (e.g., rules about morality in warfare), there are different approaches that are more likely to
lead to better outcomes. For example, there are approaches that are more likely to produce more win-win
outcomes and approaches that are more likely to produce more lose-lose outcomes, and those that are more
likely to lead to win-win outcomes are better. To get more win-win outcomes one needs to negotiate well with
consideration given to what is most important to the other party and to oneself and to know how to trade these
well.11, 12
It is far too easy to slip into stupid wars (i.e., wars that cost much more in lives and money than anyone
sensible would say they’re worth) because of a) the prisoner’s dilemma, b) the tit-for-tat escalation process,
c) the costs of the declining power backing down, and d) misunderstandings existing when decision
making has to be fast. Regarding the prisoner’s dilemma imagine that you are dealing with someone who can
either cooperate with you or kill you and that you can either cooperate with them or kill them, and neither of
you can be certain of what the other will do. What would you do? Even though the best thing for you and
your opponent to do is cooperate, the logical thing for each of you to do is to kill the other before being killed
by the other. That is because self-preservation is of paramount importance and you don’t know if they will kill
you, though you do know that it is in their interest to kill you before you kill them. That is the situation rival
great powers typically find themselves in; they need to have ways of assuring that the other has no ways of
killing them in order not to go down the path of trying to kill them first. Another big reason that stupid wars
happen is because there is a tit-for-tat escalation process that requires each side to escalate or lose what the
enemy captured in the last move and be perceived as weak. For peace to prevail these must be avoided by
both parties. Related to this, declining empires tend to fight rising empires more than is logical for them to do
because the fight/retreat calculation tends to lead one to prefer fighting more than is logical on the basis of the
expected outcome alone because a retreat is a defeat. For example, even though the United States fighting to
defend Taiwan would seem to be illogical (e.g., if there is a 70% chance of the US losing), not fighting a
Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a big loss of stature and power over other countries who won’t support
the US if it doesn’t fight and win for its allies. Additionally such defeats can make leaders look weak to their
own populations, which can cost them the political support they need to remain in power. And, of course,
miscalculations due to misunderstandings when conflicts are transpiring quickly are dangerous. All these
dynamics create strong pulls toward wars accelerating even though such mutually destructive wars are so
much worse than cooperating and competing in more peaceful ways.
Untruthful and emotional appeals that rile people up increase the dangers of stupid wars so it is better
either to a) have the leaders be truthful and thoughtful in explaining the situation and how they are
dealing with it (which is especially essential in a democracy in which the opinions of the population
matter) or b) choose the best leaders possible and blindly trust them. The worst thing is to c) have the
leaders be untruthful and emotional in dealing with their populations. When the populations get riled up
and want to fight that increases the risk of war beyond what is logical. Political leaders often do rile their
populations up to build political support. Because negative sentiment takes time to reverse, it can increase the
danger of war. This is now happening in both the US and China, though more in the US. For example, in a
recent Pew survey a record 73% of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of China, 73% believe the United
States should promote human rights in China, and 50% believed the US should “hold China responsible” for
the role it played in COVID-19.13 Though I don’t have surveys of Chinese public opinion of the United
States, I am told by many people that it has deteriorated. It wouldn’t take much to have these people demand
accelerations of the conflicts.
The smartest way to fight and win a war is to outcompete the opposition in order to have the power to
negotiate with them from a position of strength. Can we agree that a) the US and China are in a competition
of systems and abilities, b) each will inevitably follow the system that they believe works best for them, c)
Americans have a slight lead in power that is shrinking and they’re outnumbered, and d) history has shown
that while numbers of people can matter a lot, other factors (e.g., the 17 I showed in Chapter 1) matter more