Thanks for the comment!

The idea that states are rational is as wrong as the idea that market participants are rational.

Some states are usually rational. Some states are not. Was Hitler’s Germany rational when it attacked Russia? Was US behavior through the period of the Vietnam War rational? Was Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran rational?

Rational refers to have a coherent preference schedule, and being able to act on it.

You are speaking of wise, smart, etc., which are different concepts.

Game theory tells us that states should conceal their degree of rationality to some extent – uncertainty is a useful tactic. To do so, they must be willing to act irrationally.

You seem to confuse rational with trivially predictable.

Nuclear deterrence is based on the enforcement of irrational behavior: that if an enemy does you grievous damage, you will launch an all out attack that will result in mutual annihilation, which leaves both sides worse off than after the first attack.

For this reason, much of the early work at MAD was at enforcing the response in spite of human unpredictability.

Stanley Kubrick’s film, ‘Dr Stangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,’ satires this approach.

[1]

Some states are usually rational. Some states are not. Was Hitler’s Germany rational when it attacked Russia? Was US behavior through the period of the Vietnam War rational? Was Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran rational?

Game theory tells us that states should conceal their degree of rationality to some extent – uncertainty is a useful tactic. To do so, they must be willing to act irrationally.

Nuclear deterrence is based on the enforcement of irrational behavior: that if an enemy does you grievous damage, you will launch an all out attack that will result in mutual annihilation, which leaves both sides worse off than after the first attack.