simulation

I was honestly disturbed by the simulation of the Cold War that we did in class. David discusses his take on the simulation here and here, and I think me missed the point entirely. I agree that maybe it wasn't completely realistic in the way in which spying was allowed, but I don't think that is what is to be taken out of what happened. In regard to the spying though, I think it is realistic that if one side invests more into spying like we (the Americans) did than they will gain better intelligence, which is what happened. Even if that wasn't what happened in real life, it doesn't mean that it wasn't possible. A simulation isn't supposed to go exactly as the real life situation, it is only supposed to set up a set of rules similar to how the real thing started and see what happens from there. From period 4's experience, I think it is clear that this simulation did not follow what happened in real life.

That aside, I think that the Soviets completely destroyed what could have been a good game and the world. I'm not sure whether it was because they wanted to sabotage Cas' game or prove another point, but I think that their decision in our class was one of cowardice and made too rashly to have ever successfully shown what would have happened. By that I mean to say that I think that the Soviets saw that the Americans were going to win. When they saw that we had out manoeuvered (sp?) them, the Soviets decided that they would bomb us while telling us that they wouldn't if we complied to some of their conditions. In real life, decisions aren't made like that and people are expected to live up to their words. I realize that there are tons of examples when people didn't live up to their words, but those things aren't taken lightly. Wars are caused because of it. In real life, agreements aren't taken that lightly. I think what happened was immature and unrealistic, ruined the game, and cheated me out of a free breakfast.