---
id: wiki-2026-0508-nuclear-deterrence-models
title: Nuclear Deterrence Models
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
status: verified
canonical_id: self
aliases: [Deterrence Theory, MAD, Nuclear Strategy]
duplicate_of: none
source_trust_level: A
confidence_score: 0.9
verification_status: applied
tags: [game-design, game-theory, strategy, geopolitics, simulation]
raw_sources: []
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
github_commit: pending
tech_stack:
  language: game-theory
  framework: strategic-modeling
---

# Nuclear Deterrence Models

## 매 한 줄
> **"매 first strike 의 cost 의 retaliatory 의 unbearable 의 make → 매 attack 의 prevent"**. Nuclear deterrence 매 game-theoretic equilibrium 의 family — Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), credible-threat signaling, escalation ladders. 매 Cold War-era foundation 의 modern simulations (Plan A by Princeton, ICONS) + 4X game design (Civilization, Hearts of Iron) 의 informs.

## 매 핵심

### 매 Foundational Models
- **MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)**: 매 second-strike survivability 매 first strike 의 deters.
- **Massive Retaliation (Dulles, 1954)**: 매 any aggression 매 maximum response.
- **Flexible Response (Kennedy)**: 매 graduated escalation — match 의 force level.
- **Counterforce vs Countervalue**: 매 military targets 의 vs population/cities.

### 매 Game-Theoretic Lens
- **Chicken / Hawk-Dove**: 매 brinkmanship — 매 first 의 swerve 의 lose.
- **Schelling 의 Focal Points**: 매 tacit coordination 매 escalation 의 around.
- **Credible commitment**: 매 burn-the-boats — 매 retreat option 의 remove.
- **Signaling cost**: 매 expensive signals (mobilization) 매 cheap talk 의 outweigh.

### 매 응용
1. 4X game design — diplomacy systems (Civilization VI/VII nuclear units).
2. Wargame simulation — Plan A, Sigma war games (Pentagon, RAND).
3. Geopolitical training — Foreign Service simulations.

## 💻 패턴

### MAD payoff matrix
```typescript
// Row = US strategy, Col = USSR strategy. Values: [US payoff, USSR payoff]
const madMatrix = {
  cooperate_cooperate: [3, 3],
  cooperate_strike: [-100, 1],
  strike_cooperate: [1, -100],
  strike_strike: [-100, -100],
} as const;

function nashCheck(strategy: keyof typeof madMatrix): boolean {
  // 매 strike_strike 의 not 매 deviating cooperate 의 worse
  return false; // mutual cooperation 매 not Nash 의 single-shot, repeated game 매 stable
}
```

### Second-strike survivability
```typescript
interface Arsenal {
  silos: number;
  submarines: number;
  bombers: number;
  silos_survival: number;     // ~0.05
  sub_survival: number;       // ~0.95
  bomber_survival: number;    // ~0.30
}

function expectedRetaliation(a: Arsenal, warheadsPerPlatform: number): number {
  return (
    a.silos * a.silos_survival +
    a.submarines * a.sub_survival +
    a.bombers * a.bomber_survival
  ) * warheadsPerPlatform;
}

function isMADStable(us: Arsenal, ussr: Arsenal, warheads: number, threshold = 200): boolean {
  return (
    expectedRetaliation(us, warheads) > threshold &&
    expectedRetaliation(ussr, warheads) > threshold
  );
}
```

### Escalation ladder (Kahn)
```typescript
const ESCALATION_LADDER = [
  { rung: 1,  name: 'Crisis declaration', kineticForce: false },
  { rung: 5,  name: 'Show of force', kineticForce: false },
  { rung: 10, name: 'Conventional war', kineticForce: true },
  { rung: 15, name: 'Tactical nuclear', kineticForce: true },
  { rung: 20, name: 'Strategic limited strike', kineticForce: true },
  { rung: 44, name: 'Spasm war (full exchange)', kineticForce: true },
];

function escalate(current: number, signal: 'firm' | 'reciprocate' | 'deescalate'): number {
  if (signal === 'firm') return Math.min(44, current + 2);
  if (signal === 'reciprocate') return current;
  return Math.max(1, current - 3);
}
```

### Brinkmanship simulation (Chicken)
```typescript
interface Player { resolve: number; rationality: number; }

function chickenOutcome(a: Player, b: Player): 'a_yields' | 'b_yields' | 'crash' {
  // 매 brinkmanship — both swerve 의 mutual benefit, 매 neither swerve 의 catastrophe
  const aYieldP = 1 - a.resolve;
  const bYieldP = 1 - b.resolve;
  const r = Math.random();
  if (r < aYieldP * (1 - bYieldP)) return 'a_yields';
  if (r < aYieldP * (1 - bYieldP) + bYieldP * (1 - aYieldP)) return 'b_yields';
  if (r < aYieldP * (1 - bYieldP) + bYieldP * (1 - aYieldP) + aYieldP * bYieldP) return 'a_yields';
  return 'crash';
}
```

### Credible threat (Schelling commitment device)
```typescript
class Commitment {
  // 매 retreat 의 cost 의 raise 하여 매 threat 의 credible 의 make
  constructor(
    public publicAnnouncement: boolean,
    public alliancesAtStake: number,
    public sunkInvestment: number,
  ) {}

  credibility(): number {
    return (
      (this.publicAnnouncement ? 0.4 : 0) +
      Math.min(0.4, this.alliancesAtStake * 0.1) +
      Math.min(0.2, this.sunkInvestment / 1e9 * 0.05)
    );
  }
}
```

## 매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Approach |
|---|---|
| Symmetric superpowers | MAD + arms control treaties |
| Asymmetric (one weak) | Flexible response + extended deterrence |
| Multiparty (3+ nuclear states) | Stability erosion — 매 stochastic escalation risk |
| Game design (4X / wargame) | Schelling-flavored mechanics — credible-threat units, escalation tracker |

**기본값**: MAD model 의 baseline + flexible response 의 layered nuance.

## 🔗 Graph
- 변형: [[MAD]]
- Adjacent: [[Algorithmic Rhetoric]] · [[Alliance (동맹)]] · [[4X 시스템 (4X System)]]

## 🤖 LLM 활용
**언제**: Wargame scenario drafting, doctrine summary, simulation NPC rhetoric generation.
**언제 X**: Real-world policy advice, classified-domain reasoning, live crisis decision support.

## ❌ 안티패턴
- **Single-strategy doctrine**: 매 only-massive-retaliation 매 small-conflict 매 incredible.
- **Ignoring second-strike**: 매 silo-only arsenal 매 vulnerable, MAD 의 collapse.
- **Cheap-talk threats**: 매 cost-free threats 매 not credible — game-theoretic noise.
- **Ladder collapse**: 매 step-skipping 매 stability 의 destroy.

## 🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Schelling "Strategy of Conflict", Kahn "On Escalation", Princeton SGS Plan A 2019, RAND deterrence literature 2020-2024).
- 신뢰도 A.

## 🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — MAD, escalation ladder, credible commitment patterns |
