■"American and Israeli Share Nobel Prize in Economics," by Louis Uchitelle, New York Times, 11 October 2005, p. C2.

Thomas Schelling, the perceived father of American game theory, wins the quasi-Nobel (it wasn't part of Alfred's will, but a special "memorial prize" tacked on later).

Dr. Strangelove finally triumphs in the dismay science!

Okay, so that character was based on Herman Kahn, but Schelling consulted with Kubrick on the film, so that's pretty cool. His big insight: the doomsday weapon can't deter if your enemy ain't aware of it.

So game theory's big breakthrough notion is that actors in any situation are affected by what others do, or what they perceive other players are doing, like the "ratting out your accomplice" decision in Prisoners' Dilemma (the cops are interrogating you and your accomplice on your crime, and if you both keep your mouths shut you walk, but since you don't trust your partner and he doesn't trust you, you both squeal and thus lose-lose).

Fine and dandy to acknowledge the giant Schelling and whoever the Israeli guy is, but frankly, how this ties into economics in a big way is beyond me. Monte Carlo simulations, yeah. John Nash's stuff, yeah. But the Schelling insights leave me with a big, "huh?" I mean, the big real-world example of the theory cited in the article is the Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine. Hell, those didn't even work!

And if anyone believes that strategic arms control, allegedly deeply influenced by game theory, "ended" or "won" or even mattered in the Cold War, you're kidding yourself. Mutual-assured destruction did that.

I mean, between the IAEA winning the peace prize and this choice, it's like they're really low on serious candidates this year. Me, I was totally impressed with the ulcer guys and the medicine award. Now that made a difference!