poor reasoning. Game theory assumes each actor is free to choose all actions at each step. But this is clearly wrong in national conflicts. Nations with strong self images (like Russia and the United States) must respond to any violence against ones self with proportionate or escalating violence.

So any direct conflict (which the super powers have studiously avoid since WWII) would trigger this chain reaction. Do you think Russia will allow soldiers killed at American hands, not be avenged with American blood? Or the reverse?

Now you might propose we simply bluff. With ZERO intention of ever acting. This is terrible too, as it will be suspected, and perhaps proven. Thus eviscerating any future value our threats might be (even when they are legitimate threats)

As often happens with Math, you conclusions are flawed since your assumptions are flawed. In this case, it is the assumption that conducting limited aggression would be within our power to control. Quite possible it would not be.

--dan