The rational reasons to go to war are to prevent a future competitor and to gain resources. Scorched Earth removes both of those reasons: if you can destroy your own resources AND inflict some damage on the enemy at the same time, then no-one has rational reasons to go to war. Because even a future competitor won’t be able to profit from fighting you.
If advanced civilisations have automated disagreement resolving processes, I expect them to quickly reach equilibrium solutions with semi-capable opponents.
What happens when the committed scorched-earth-defender meets the committed extortionist? Surely a strong precommitment to extortion by a powerful attacker can defeat a weak commitment to scorched earth by a defender?
It seems to me this bears a resemblence to Chicken or something, and that on a large scale we might reasonably expect to see both sets of outcomes.
No, it doesn’t. Invading you to force you to destroy your own resources is a good way “to prevent a future competitor”. You are not going to do it on your own, so you need to be pushed into this by war.
Not to mention that, historically speaking, reasons to go to war are not often “rational”. WW1 would be a classic example.
That doesn’t look true to me.
If you can pull it off, it works against any opponent no matter how powerful they are.
I don’t know to which extent “I’ll cut my throat and bleed on you” counts as an effective defense...
The rational reasons to go to war are to prevent a future competitor and to gain resources. Scorched Earth removes both of those reasons: if you can destroy your own resources AND inflict some damage on the enemy at the same time, then no-one has rational reasons to go to war. Because even a future competitor won’t be able to profit from fighting you.
If advanced civilisations have automated disagreement resolving processes, I expect them to quickly reach equilibrium solutions with semi-capable opponents.
What happens when the committed scorched-earth-defender meets the committed extortionist? Surely a strong precommitment to extortion by a powerful attacker can defeat a weak commitment to scorched earth by a defender?
It seems to me this bears a resemblence to Chicken or something, and that on a large scale we might reasonably expect to see both sets of outcomes.
No, it doesn’t. Invading you to force you to destroy your own resources is a good way “to prevent a future competitor”. You are not going to do it on your own, so you need to be pushed into this by war.
Not to mention that, historically speaking, reasons to go to war are not often “rational”. WW1 would be a classic example.