3 ms·

Mutually Assured Destruction relies on the assumption of rational actors though, which we arguably do not have in power. It also relies on perfect information.

Mutually Assured Destruction relies on the assumption of rational actors though, which we arguably do not have in power. It also relies on perfect information. If one side is convinced they are being attacked, it's all over. There have been a lot of near-misses when it comes to nuclear launches due to bad information. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

some_random 9y ago
>An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. What does that quote have to do with MAD, the doctrine specifically designed to prevent tit for tat behavior from escalating into a full blown war?
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  MAD is the ultimate form of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind.
opportune 9y ago
Right, I mentioned the rational actor bit, although fortunately people have been rational enough so far and in aggregate. I think some leaders with nukes aren't very stable/bright too but I don't think even they are irrational enough to start a nuclear war. If you're alluding to Trump/Un, Trump knows that a first strike against NK would result in a huge and terrible war with China, and Un knows that a first strike would result in his and his country's destruction. The perfect information point is important too. However, historically we've still been extremely lucky. When false alarms or faulty data have indicated that another country had used nukes against the other, the defender has never fought back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command#False_alarms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov Really I think MAD is the best option for us, given that nuclear technology exists and can't be unlearned from the world. How does one enforce a denuclearized world without military might? The only solution I can think of is something like a mutual carte-blanche to investigate other countries' facilities for evidence of nuclear proliferation. Given that this represents a considerable risk for things like military bases or facilities producing new military technology, I have a hard time believing countries like China, Russia, and the US would be ok with this.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  I think that luck is a fairly poor excuse for the continued survival of civilisation. As you said, historically we've been extremely lucky. What happens if next time there's a false alarm, someone actually retaliates?
candiodari 9y ago
Okay ... and what do you propose ? Presumably the idea is that the US lets go of it's nukes, destroys them, feeds them into nuclear reactors, whatever (assuming that's possible, it'd be "positive"). What happens then ? Well, nothing happens, of course. The main thing that happens is that the US can no longer threaten nuclear strikes, either in retaliation, offensive or to defend itself. This does not affect Russia's nukes. Doesn't affect France's nukes. Doesn't affect NK, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, Israel, ... nukes. But it gives all of these countries a powerful card to play against the US. In fact the pressure behing not using nukes is partially that the US will retaliate if an attack happens on it's allies (a promise that largely benefits European states against Russia, but not exclusively). The inevitable result will be that all these countries will increase the pressure they use against everyone else with nukes. Which of course, only works if they back it with nukes. If at any point someone feels sufficiently pressured to prove their nuke capability ... And remember: the governments of these countries, the people that control the nukes are just as unstable, evil, ... as the US government is. In fact, the consensus is that most are worse. So what is the real alternative to Mutually Assured Destruction ? What would be the consequence of ending it ? Simple: the alternative is oppression, more of it, and a good increase in the chance of war, maybe nuclear war. You can't end MAD by simply demanding it ends, you can only make it worse. You can only end it by proposing something better that is actually backed, something that works economically, something that works militarily, something that works in game theory and negotiation theories.

some_random 9y ago

>An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. What does that quote have to do with MAD, the doctrine specifically designed to prevent tit for tat behavior from escalating into a full blown war?

toomanybeersies 9y ago
MAD is the ultimate form of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind.

opportune 9y ago

Right, I mentioned the rational actor bit, although fortunately people have been rational enough so far and in aggregate. I think some leaders with nukes aren't very stable/bright too but I don't think even they are irrational enough to start a nuclear war. If you're alluding to Trump/Un, Trump knows that a first strike against NK would result in a huge and terrible war with China, and Un knows that a first strike would result in his and his country's destruction. The perfect information point is important too. However, historically we've still been extremely lucky. When false alarms or faulty data have indicated that another country had used nukes against the other, the defender has never fought back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command#False_alarms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov Really I think MAD is the best option for us, given that nuclear technology exists and can't be unlearned from the world. How does one enforce a denuclearized world without military might? The only solution I can think of is something like a mutual carte-blanche to investigate other countries' facilities for evidence of nuclear proliferation. Given that this represents a considerable risk for things like military bases or facilities producing new military technology, I have a hard time believing countries like China, Russia, and the US would be ok with this.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
I think that luck is a fairly poor excuse for the continued survival of civilisation. As you said, historically we've been extremely lucky. What happens if next time there's a false alarm, someone actually retaliates?

candiodari 9y ago

Okay ... and what do you propose ? Presumably the idea is that the US lets go of it's nukes, destroys them, feeds them into nuclear reactors, whatever (assuming that's possible, it'd be "positive"). What happens then ? Well, nothing happens, of course. The main thing that happens is that the US can no longer threaten nuclear strikes, either in retaliation, offensive or to defend itself. This does not affect Russia's nukes. Doesn't affect France's nukes. Doesn't affect NK, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, Israel, ... nukes. But it gives all of these countries a powerful card to play against the US. In fact the pressure behing not using nukes is partially that the US will retaliate if an attack happens on it's allies (a promise that largely benefits European states against Russia, but not exclusively). The inevitable result will be that all these countries will increase the pressure they use against everyone else with nukes. Which of course, only works if they back it with nukes. If at any point someone feels sufficiently pressured to prove their nuke capability ... And remember: the governments of these countries, the people that control the nukes are just as unstable, evil, ... as the US government is. In fact, the consensus is that most are worse. So what is the real alternative to Mutually Assured Destruction ? What would be the consequence of ending it ? Simple: the alternative is oppression, more of it, and a good increase in the chance of war, maybe nuclear war. You can't end MAD by simply demanding it ends, you can only make it worse. You can only end it by proposing something better that is actually backed, something that works economically, something that works militarily, something that works in game theory and negotiation theories.