“Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive."
If both sides were rational they wouldn’t need them in the first place.
A rational actor, in the context of international diplomacy and defense, is an actor that can be reasoned with, an entity capable of making realistic assessments, which the Soviets were.
An irrational actor is and entity blinded by ambition or religiosity or psychopathy such that they cannot be reasoned with at all, such as fundamentalist Islamic organizations for whom death in battle is an incentive to fight. For the irrational actor the threat of death is not a deterrent and may well be an incentive.
“I miss the good old days of nuclear standoff."
There never were ‘good old days of nuclear standoff’, there were terrible, tense years of fear and paranoia that we were lucky to have survived.
Ok, that was just a bit of sardonic humor. Of course the cold war was not "good", but it was at least manageable because the Soviets had at least enough rationality to realize we could and would destroy them if they attacked us. That defensive strategy, of perpetual standoff, is no longer available to us because our emerging enemy, Islamic fundamentalism, is not deterred and in fact is incentivized by death in battle. That severely limits our strategic and tactical options, forces our hand, and leaves us little choice but to pursue military victory, a very ugly prospect Obama is in fact implementing presently.
@ Stardusty Psyche,
MAD may have been an effective deterrent for rational people, but ask yourself, if people were rational, why was it necessary to install MAD in the first place? That seems to contain a contradiction in terms.
A rational actor, in the context of international diplomacy and defense, is an actor that can be reasoned with, an entity capable of making realistic assessments, which the Soviets were.
An irrational actor is and entity blinded by ambition or religiosity or psychopathy such that they cannot be reasoned with at all, such as fundamentalist Islamic organizations for whom death in battle is an incentive to fight. For the irrational actor the threat of death is not a deterrent and may well be an incentive.
You are missing the assessment of the US side as rational. They/We used the bomb as soon as we had it. I'm not convinced we saved any lives by doing so. At best we saved some military lives and sacrificed many civilians in doing so. We are the only ones to ever actually use one. Then, when the Soviets were having parades with empty rockets, we irrationally built up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. Luckily Eisenhower knew the Soviets were lying. The Congress did too, but they lied and frightened people into military spending. Eisenhower diverted some of it into the highway system, saying it was for the transportation of missiles.
Does this sound rational? I'd say the Soviets were banking on us acting irrationally and destroying ourselves. Funny thing is, they brought themselves down by investing in an unwise war in Afghanistan.
...We used the bomb as soon as we had it. I'm not convinced we saved any lives by doing so. At best we saved some military lives and sacrificed many civilians in doing so...
I am not challenging your other assertions, but the suggestion that more civilians were killed than would have been through continued conventional warfare, could be overstated. We had already been killing lots of civilians thru carpet fire-bombing. Many Japanese "civilians" had small weapons production capacities in their individual homes. A massive ground invasion would have likely resulted in, perhaps as many civilian deaths as did the A-bombs. And the ultimate military occupation of Japan, would probably not have gone as well as it did, had there been direct fighting between our soldiers and Japanese civilians, in a ground invasion.
The first nuclear experience was inevitable. We should learn as much as possible not how to do it with more devistation but how to avoid the experience of nuclear warfare. it should never happen again at all.
True, and it need not happen again. The one asset (our mind) that makes us masters of our environment, is also the one thing we have not been able to masterl, i.e. controlling our greed, the unrestricted movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction.
IMO, *greed* leads to competition and predation. whereas *sharing* leads to symbiosis, beneficial to both species.
You created an account to defend nuclear war and repeat anti-Muslim rhetoric?
Welcome to the forum, I guess.
Well, that certainly is the most tepid welcome I have ever received :-)
Actually, I joined when I found out the Dawkins foundation had merged with CFI. I had never heard of CFI before that. Then I found an article on line by Lindsay and found his logic very poor:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/a_modest_proposal_for_achieving_secular_objectives/
But I thought I would give it a go anyhow, only to find the bit about the peacekeeper, so here I am doing the public service of dispelling various common misconceptions, Don't you suddenly feel very lucky ?-)
But to your point, how do you go from the observation of the efficacy of MAD to "defend nuclear war"? That is a non sequitur.
I also suggest you sharpen your distinctions between "anti-Muslim rhetoric" and "fundamentalist Muslims". You do know that being against the texts of Islam and those who seek to implement them is not being anti-muslim, don't you? Well, apparently not. I suggest you study up on that distinction since it has risen to a mortal threat of late.
"Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive."
If both sides were rational they wouldn't need them in the first place. You can replace nuclear warheads with chocolate cake, and you get the same outcome, but you can eat the cake.
Excellent 3Point. :-)
The idea that MAD has efficacy is ridiculous. It's supported by faulty logic.
That being, it worked so far so it will continue to do so in the future.
Plus we must analyze what is meant by "it's worked so far" And that's exactly where your "chocolate cake" analogy is as good as any other.
The logical point being that, what worked? We have no way of knowing, nor is there any evidence that shows that MAD was the reason why nuclear weapons have not been used so far(since WWII). In fact there are numerous other variables that could also be pointed to.
The concept of MAD is inherently awful to humanity. It gives justification for continuing to stockpile nukes. In the process it does nothing to stem the tide of multinational proliferation.
Another one I heard on here before is that Nukes have been beneficial to mankind because they have prevented large wars-like WWII.
Kind of a MAD derivative.
If you take into account that the World has been STEADILY at war since WWII, with combined casualty rates that are just as bad as any could be, now what?
Nothing, again the MAD theory falls away. And were still left with the possibility of Nuclear War. Like we always have been.
"Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive."
If both sides were rational they wouldn't need them in the first place. You can replace nuclear warheads with chocolate cake, and you get the same outcome, but you can eat the cake.
Excellent 3Point. :-)
The idea that MAD has efficacy is ridiculous. It's supported by faulty logic.
That being, it worked so far so it will continue to do so in the future.
Plus we must analyze what is meant by "it's worked so far" And that's exactly where your "chocolate cake" analogy is as good as any other.
The logical point being that, what worked? We have no way of knowing, nor is there any evidence that shows that MAD was the reason why nuclear weapons have not been used so far(since WWII). In fact there are numerous other variables that could also be pointed to.
The concept of MAD is inherently awful to humanity. It gives justification for continuing to stockpile nukes. In the process it does nothing to stem the tide of multinational proliferation.Thanks.
Like you, I also don't mean that MAD is a completely useless solution to the problem. It's a horrible solution in most ways, but it is a solution of sorts. It you know the other side is not rational and will only bow to force or fear, you almost have to use MAD. It only takes one side to be irrational to make MAD a possible solution. By all means work towards other solutions in the mean time and try to get out of the MAD mentality as soon as possible, but don't dismiss it outright.
And yes, since we only have one history to learn from, we only have one data point to work with regarding methods like MAD. Had the superpowers used other means of facing off, we might all be dead or we might be living in a way way better world, who knows?
Like you, I also don't mean that MAD is a completely useless solution to the problem.
And yes, since we only have one history to learn from, we only have one data point to work with regarding methods like MAD. Had the superpowers used other means of facing off, we might all be dead or we might be living in a way way better world, who knows?
Small point here, hairsplitting if you will....
I do mean MAD is a completely useless "solution"...
But the thing is that MAD is not a "solution". It's not a Method.
The US and the USSR didn't sit down and work this "method" out.
So what I mean really is that MAD is a completely useless(and insulting)rationale.
WIKI-
The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible.[24][25][26] The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning,
Alternately there was no "official" doctrine of MAD in the US.
All MAD is and was is a way to justify Nuclear weapons arsenals on the idea that they keep us safe.
Where as you pointed out the only way to keep us safe would be to get rid of them.
All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario.
When in fact there were thousands of scenarios plotted and trained for that involved tactical usage of nukes.
And Military planners on both sides realized this.
Are you saying that a radical religious fundamentalist, doesn't matter which religion, who was the head of state of a nuclear power and had the delivery system or forget the delivery system if the intention is to end the world as a self fulfilling religious prophesy? Is that scenario viable in the future? Kinda sounds like a James Bond movie.
I don't really get what you are asking. Can you re-ask in a different way or explain what you mean?
What I'm saying is that MAD sucks as a way of preventing war, but if at least one of the combatants has a mind-set that makes the MAD defense an option, then it's an option. I'm not advocating or promoting it, I'm simply stating that there might be situations where it works. Other options might be better, but it's a case by case situation, so I can't say more than that.
Small point here, hairsplitting if you will....
I do mean MAD is a completely useless "solution"...
But the thing is that MAD is not a "solution". It's not a Method.
The US and the USSR didn't sit down and work this "method" out.
So what I mean really is that MAD is a completely useless(and insulting)rationale.
{...}
Alternately there was no "official" doctrine of MAD in the US.
All MAD is and was is a way to justify Nuclear weapons arsenals on the idea that they keep us safe.
Where as you pointed out the only way to keep us safe would be to get rid of them.
All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario.
When in fact there were thousands of scenarios plotted and trained for that involved tactical usage of nukes.
And Military planners on both sides realized this.
I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that's just minor definitional stuff and not that important. To me a solution can also be a rationale. The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution. I think it's possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.
I don't think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they'd state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine. But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it's explicitly stated or not. That's not to say that there aren't other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.
I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that's just minor definitional stuff and not that important. To me a solution can also be a rationale. The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution. I think it's possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.
I don't think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they'd state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine. But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it's explicitly stated or not. That's not to say that there aren't other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.
Yes I see your points.
If I'm understanding you than you think MAD is/was a deterrent to nuclear war?
Right, what got me thinking is your "All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario. ". That is what I was responding to, thought it was an alarming thought.
That was my quote AMH. The Doomsday scenario is one that allows the MAD "construct" to play out in the civic/military mindset. Propaganda. National Security memes etc..
Generally when people think of nuclear war they think of Doomsday...utter annihilation. That's what MAD is all about to begin with...
Mutually Assured Destruction!
When in fact there are numerous scenarios that could have in the past, or will in the future play out, in which nukes are used in tactical, localized events.
Conventionally or unconventionally.
Thus rendering MAD completely unfounded in it's doctrine.
I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that's just minor definitional stuff and not that important. To me a solution can also be a rationale. The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution. I think it's possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.
I don't think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they'd state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine. But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it's explicitly stated or not. That's not to say that there aren't other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.
Yes I see your points.
If I'm understanding you than you think MAD is/was a deterrent to nuclear war?
Unless you're a jihadist or completely deluded (Kim Jong-un style), then MAD is definitely a deterrent.
Look at animals that can scare off predators by looking bigger and meaner than they are. Having a giant pile of weapons is the human equivalent of a cat's fur standing on end or a frilled lizard spreading his neck frill.
Don't forget,we are animals, so big brain or not, we have similar survival instincts. And even if we didn't have that instinct, it's the logical conclusion to not attack a more or equally powerful opponent.
Unless you're a jihadist or completely deluded (Kim Jong-un style), then MAD is definitely a deterrent.
Look at animals that can scare off predators by looking bigger and meaner than they are. Having a giant pile of weapons is the human equivalent of a cat's fur standing on end or a frilled lizard spreading his neck frill.
Don't forget,we are animals, so big brain or not, we have similar survival instincts. And even if we didn't have that instinct, it's the logical conclusion to not attack a more or equally powerful opponent.
Yeah good points. We could substitute "nukes" for the term MAD above.
Obviously weapons are a deterrent.
There's still more complicated logic equations involved with the concept of MAD, but I suppose you're right about the basic premise.
I think another separate discussion could be had on this topic about the logic behind MAD...but obviously it's basic fundamentals
are somewhat sound, though unproven.
That's one of the logical conundrums of MAD, that it will always be unproven..until it's proved that it doesn't work.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
At that point in time when the nuclear trigger had been pulled once and during MAD era each side represented an attitude of don't test me. Yes sir I absolutely do.
We can look back and say that MAD was a deterrent I guess. It certainly wasn't the only factor though.
There's diplomacy...which was actually used in the Cold War. Many times.
Escalation of weapons reaches a point of diminishing returns when real science is shared that improves the chances of members of our species leading a satisfying life.
AMH I'm having trouble following the syntax of your words. I wouldn't bother, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
I'm just not fully understanding you at the moment.