6.4: Implications of the Essence of Decision

Limits of the RAM and MAD

When The Essence of Decision was first published, Allison challenged the dominant rational actor models in political science and international relations. He demonstrated that state behavior during crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis could not be fully explained by assuming rationality. By introducing the Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics models, Allison provided alternative explanations for how decisions are made in practice. The book also showed the fragility of mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a deterrent to nuclear war, emphasizing that organizational inefficiencies and political bargaining could lead to catastrophic outcomes despite rational calculations.

Above all, Allison described using rational actor models as dangerous. By using such models (and modes of thinking), people made unreliable assumptions about reality, which could have disastrous consequences. Part of what allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to be pulled off was the assumption that, since Japan would lose such a war, they would never dare attack. The assumption under MAD is that nobody will ever start a nuclear war because of its consequences. However, humans do not act in a rational manner, which history has proven time and again.