[0xcde4c3db]

> I see them often as the conflict between local / global goals where the real problem is that each step in the escalation from peace to war is tragically rational - each decision is a lose-lose choice where one path is a guaranteed small loss but escalation offers a chance to win despite the possible apocalyptic outcome.

This sounds a lot like the dollar auction game [1], which is used to study the disconnect between individual actions being rational and a clearly undesirable outcome. Basically, the game is a variation of an all-pay auction in which only the top 2 bidders pay. A dollar is auctioned off in bids of some fixed increment. At each turn, winning the dollar is a preferable outcome to losing your previous bid. Even after the price goes over $1, winning the dollar represents a smaller loss. In that sense, the rational thing to do is bid indefinitely high. It's supposedly a common outcome with human bidders that the winning bid is over $2.

[1] (PDF) http://www.math.toronto.edu/mpugh/Teaching/Sci199_03/dollar_...