5 ms·

Let's put aside the likelihood of a exterminating strike (where the enemy achieves near-total destruction before you can even think about launching). Now suppo

Let's put aside the likelihood of a exterminating strike (where the enemy achieves near-total destruction before you can even think about launching). Now suppose you do also decide to retaliate to ensure 99% destruction to your foe. Would your foe's knowledge of that change whether your foe even tries an eliminating strike in the first place?

PakG1 11y ago
Well, this is basically the question upon which the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine hinged itself.
js8 11y ago
That's the problem with the MAD doctrine, see. It assumes your opponent is rational. But if he is rational, then perhaps you can agree on not having nuclear weapons in the first place.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Rationality is bounded by reality. It might be better if no one had nukes. But, if no one had nukes, what prevents a conventional war from breaking out on the scale of WWII or even larger? Nothing. Nuclear weapons are the greatest creator of peace in history.
  - js8 11y ago
    > what prevents a conventional war from breaking out on the scale of WWII or even larger? The same MAD principle? The knowledge that after 6 years, everybody will be exhausted by fighting, and what for exactly? Hitler wasn't rational, and maybe he would use nuclear weapons. Actors in the WWI thought it would last couple months, again, weren't exactly rational about what they are getting into. It's not nuclear weapons what creates peace. It's the rational ability of humans to (eventually) see the hopelessness of destruction, that creates peace. Whether the destruction comes from nuclear or normal weapons is irrelevant, however conventional weapons at least give us chance to have that rationalization later. In other words, stronger weapons require more responsible humans, not cause them to be more responsible. The MAD doctrine is just a false rationalization of irrational fear. It is not a rational principle, it is principle adopted so that humans can feel better having nuclear weapons, although having them objectively makes the world a more dangerous place. If people indeed followed MAD doctrine as rigorously as MAD doctrine itself assumes, WWI and WWII would never have happened either.
dogma1138 11y ago
You have 2 first strike options. 1) that will target your opponents nuclear capabilities (ensuring that no 2nd strike is possible) 2) that will target everything including population centers to achieve maximum destruction. In both of these scenarios if you are attacked first (early warning) your only option is to attack their centers of population to either prevent an all out invasion or to retaliate. This is exactly why MAD sort of works, because it actually ensures mutual destruction of not only the nuclear and military capabilities but also of all national and human infrastructure as the only possible answer to even a limited nuclear first strike is "fire zee missiles!". Or to put it in a more structured manner there is virtually no room for proportionate response when it comes to a nuclear attack. When there was it was the biggest threat to "MAD" since it more or less would ensure that any side that gains sufficient advantage would be prone to launching a first strike. Because of this very fact the nuclear arms treaties between the USA and then the USSR limited fixed launch site while promoting mobile launcher and nuclear missile subs as much as possible as the guaranteed 2nd strike capability of both nations was what MAD was actually built upon. But MAD is not without it's faults, heck so far i think Norway out all countries was the one that brought us closest to total nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
- hga 11y ago
  The biggest defect of MAD was that the Soviets correctly thought it was profoundly immoral and never accepted it, and, well, once Robert Strange McNamara, he of the oh so wise initial prosecution of the Vietnam War, pushed it through, the Soviet leaders didn't have much trouble painting us as immoral because we were.
  - varjag 11y ago
    They did accept it and played along, even if doing the usual lip service on militarist capitalist imperialists.
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    MAD is not immoral. There's nothing immoral about preventing nuclear war. I also find it hard to believe that the Soviets, of all people would dare claim the moral high ground.

PakG1 11y ago

Well, this is basically the question upon which the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine hinged itself.

js8 11y ago

That's the problem with the MAD doctrine, see. It assumes your opponent is rational. But if he is rational, then perhaps you can agree on not having nuclear weapons in the first place.

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
Rationality is bounded by reality. It might be better if no one had nukes. But, if no one had nukes, what prevents a conventional war from breaking out on the scale of WWII or even larger? Nothing. Nuclear weapons are the greatest creator of peace in history.
- js8 11y ago
  > what prevents a conventional war from breaking out on the scale of WWII or even larger? The same MAD principle? The knowledge that after 6 years, everybody will be exhausted by fighting, and what for exactly? Hitler wasn't rational, and maybe he would use nuclear weapons. Actors in the WWI thought it would last couple months, again, weren't exactly rational about what they are getting into. It's not nuclear weapons what creates peace. It's the rational ability of humans to (eventually) see the hopelessness of destruction, that creates peace. Whether the destruction comes from nuclear or normal weapons is irrelevant, however conventional weapons at least give us chance to have that rationalization later. In other words, stronger weapons require more responsible humans, not cause them to be more responsible. The MAD doctrine is just a false rationalization of irrational fear. It is not a rational principle, it is principle adopted so that humans can feel better having nuclear weapons, although having them objectively makes the world a more dangerous place. If people indeed followed MAD doctrine as rigorously as MAD doctrine itself assumes, WWI and WWII would never have happened either.

dogma1138 11y ago

You have 2 first strike options. 1) that will target your opponents nuclear capabilities (ensuring that no 2nd strike is possible) 2) that will target everything including population centers to achieve maximum destruction. In both of these scenarios if you are attacked first (early warning) your only option is to attack their centers of population to either prevent an all out invasion or to retaliate. This is exactly why MAD sort of works, because it actually ensures mutual destruction of not only the nuclear and military capabilities but also of all national and human infrastructure as the only possible answer to even a limited nuclear first strike is "fire zee missiles!". Or to put it in a more structured manner there is virtually no room for proportionate response when it comes to a nuclear attack. When there was it was the biggest threat to "MAD" since it more or less would ensure that any side that gains sufficient advantage would be prone to launching a first strike. Because of this very fact the nuclear arms treaties between the USA and then the USSR limited fixed launch site while promoting mobile launcher and nuclear missile subs as much as possible as the guaranteed 2nd strike capability of both nations was what MAD was actually built upon. But MAD is not without it's faults, heck so far i think Norway out all countries was the one that brought us closest to total nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

hga 11y ago
The biggest defect of MAD was that the Soviets correctly thought it was profoundly immoral and never accepted it, and, well, once Robert Strange McNamara, he of the oh so wise initial prosecution of the Vietnam War, pushed it through, the Soviet leaders didn't have much trouble painting us as immoral because we were.
- varjag 11y ago
  They did accept it and played along, even if doing the usual lip service on militarist capitalist imperialists.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  MAD is not immoral. There's nothing immoral about preventing nuclear war. I also find it hard to believe that the Soviets, of all people would dare claim the moral high ground.