The article “The Macroeconomics of Dr. Strangelove” by Andrew John, Rowena Pecchenino, and Stacy Schreft considers weapons accumulation through an economic model and works to find an equilibrium between countries’ strategies. The authors construct a situation in which individual of two nations can choose to amass weapons by allocating resources. By monitoring the moves of the other, a country can calculate its probability of winning and decide appropriately whether or not to attack. One can then calculate the benefits and disadvantages of accumulating and using weapons.

The model presented mathematically analyzes the issue of nuclear proliferation. In its calculated approach, however, the model fails to capture the element of humanity; the model only measures success and failure not innate human worth. In this way the article doesn’t drive the same message as Dr. Strangelove. Instead of emphasizing the danger of nuclear armament like the film, the article examines whether or not nuclear accrual is beneficial or detrimental to a country. Interestingly, the article finds that equilibrium can exist where neither country amasses weapons and where both countries “accumulate weapons to the point where conflict initiation is so dangerous that it never occurs” (p. 44). This finding supports the ideology held by Cold War hardliners, the same ideology Kubrick satirizes with Dr. Strangelove. Through a purely analytic model it may seem possible for a country to protect itself with weaponry, though, as the Kubrick’s film indicates, the dangers incurred through such defense are too immense to tolerate.