View Full Version : Mutually Assured Destruction reduex

07-18-2005, 07:33 AM
I prolly did the french bit wrong trying to be flarely, but that's me.

Anyway I was googling my name and came across a thread where I had a debate with WCM about the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction). My argument was it has kept the world safe, that is nucelar weapons have kept the world safe. And that's the reason why there's been no WW3. I thought everyone accepeted this viewpoint. WCM came back with the fact of worldwide intergreation, European Union, WTO, UN etc.

To quote him

1. You must know how weak a foundation that theory lies on. There is no real practical evidence, it is merely subjective thought that says this. One could also as easily argue that it was the UN which prevented another WW3.1 (http://www.offspring.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1047.html)

But lets go back to that. I can't possibly understand how people can't accept how the prospect of nuclear war has kept the world a safe place from truly global disasters, not some small terrorist incident. And by small I even mean 9/11 cause that pales in comparason to what we're talking about here.

So yeah when hippies and idoits go "E=MC^2" (where the mind blowing power of nucelar fusion was first understood) is evil and bad. And how superpowers with nuclear bombs are evil/bad. I mean c'mon it's kept the world safe otherwise superpowers would be having wars again.

It's simly self evident to me that leaders would think twice about starting global conflicts if the result was a lobbing nuclear weapons at each other. I mean the reason they kept submaraine collisions (alot happened int eh cold war) secret was that neither side wanted the world media/public opinion to see the other was weak. If a submarine is caught taping phone lines under the ocean it's a blatent taking the piss and in an age of nucelar weapons which neither leader wanted to use they both just kept it quiet. Becuase then neither would be forced to esculate.

So what's your opinon? I think nukes are a good thing for world calm. Sure we *don't* have actual peace but what we have now isn't as bad as a world war.

07-18-2005, 07:43 AM
I agree that so far, the idea of MAD has kept us safe to a point. However, it's such a flimsy and unreliable concept to keep the world balanced in a state of semi-safeness based on fear. It won't last forever and when it gets to the point where someone finally does make the first move, we're all fucked.

07-18-2005, 07:50 AM
But we're at a point in the west where no body is gonna make the 'first move'. It's just too stable the world now. China might change that. But still, it's the same thing they have to decide MAD will ensure no one launches. Even if N.Korea get some missles they can't destory the earth, they don't have an aresenal big enough and before that happens the west would eliminate it.

And because China and the US rely on each other economically (cf. the WTO) then yes that's where international organisations help out, but that's ancillary to the core deterent.

07-18-2005, 08:12 AM
An individual country doesn't need enough to destroy the Earth to start something. N. Korea could have 5-10 nukes and that would be enough to decimate any country, even America. If they launch one, people will launch some right back because if they just launched one, who knows what they're gonna do with the other ones.

07-18-2005, 10:22 AM
Yah of course, but it's still not enough to destory the Earth

07-18-2005, 11:10 AM