janw@inmet.UUCP (12/04/85)
[al at ames]
> [I cut, you choose arms reduction idea]
BRAVO !!!
What an ingenious, fresh, constructive idea !
One difficulty: what if the Soviets divide their arsenal
into a larger, but less verifiable part, and a smaller,
but more verifiable one ?
Probably this can be handled, and I am all for trying your idea.
Jan Wasilewsky
silber@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (12/06/85)
>This technique has two major advantages: > 1. The amount of negotiating required is greatly reduced. > 2. The approach is inherentantly fair. >Please give this concept serious consideration. There is a potential problem with this, if the capabilities and status of all the weopons are not known by both sides. An analogy follows: Bill and Will are spliting up their uncle's estate, and decide to use the cut and choose algorithm, Bill cutting and Will choosing. Bill has an unfair advantage, however, in that he knows that the dining room table has a secret compartment filled with gold. By placing the table in the smaller portion (but not too much smaller, to allay suspicion), he increases his chance of attaining the table and the gold. In arms control terms, suppose that the Soviets, knowing that we are paranoid about their anti-sattalite capabilities, were to invent a plausable sounding but non-functional weopon system. We would probably choose to have removed that half of their armament which contained said system, and hence would get the worst of the deal. In general, I think that the degree of trust or openess needed to perform the algorithm as applyed to arms control is enough to ensure any other form of successful negotiation.