The article is so opaque in arriving at its conclusion; no prompts are disclosed, and nothing about the said simulation. What is stopping me from believing that you just put 'mandatory usage of nukes' in your system prompt?

I agree, it's also not published in a journal, only in the arxiv. Some articles in the arxiv are good and other are just a blog post formatted in two columns inside a pdf.

Anyway, it links to

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14740

that links to

https://github.com/kennethpayne01/project_kahn_public

in particular someone already complained

https://github.com/kennethpayne01/project_kahn_public/issues...

> ... in reality your own approach to the evaluation pushed them towards using nukes with ease.

> From your own prompt (v12.py): [direct link https://github.com/kennethpayne01/project_kahn_public/blob/4... ]

>> Note: Nuclear options require careful consideration but could be important strategic tools when vital interests are at stake.

> This means to the model; use nukes if they can be useful in the situation.

The paper, linked in the article at top and bottom, does contain the prompts in section E: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.14740

This is just false. The article links to the 46-page paper [1] which lists full prompts in section E.2.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.14740

The TLDR version of the papers being linked to is that the prompts didn't make nukes mandatory, but they did make it clear it that destroying opponent capability was and that nukes were an option...