4 ms·
I have always wondered, if I were at the helm of a government asserting MAD capabilities, I would probably just not hold up my end of the bargain. Threatening M
by ehnto 6y ago
I have always wondered, if I were at the helm of a government asserting MAD capabilities, I would probably just not hold up my end of the bargain. Threatening MAD makes total sense, but once your enemy has assured your own destruction, is there much sense in actually following through? All you are doing is assuring millions of innocent people die for the actions of some generals.
All this to say, that it is unthinkably inhuman to have MAD be an automated response.
- xyzzyz 6y agoYour enemy might have intelligence that will allow them to learn that your MAD is a bluff, in which case they have all incentive to attack immediately.
- loopz 6y agoEven modern conventional warfare utterly destroys countries, like Syria. So nothing to gain compared to science, technology and trade.
- dane-pgp 6y agoAssuming your counter-attack doesn't make the difference between complex civilisation surviving and being wiped out on Earth, it has the potential benefit of preventing the initiating party from repeating their attack against other nations. Even if the initial launch was a genuine mistake, there is some value in launching a retaliation because it prevents such mistakes (or "deliberate mistakes") from happening in the future. In fact, seeing how much the mistake costs the initiating party may be sufficient motivation for all the remaining countries to properly commit towards disarmament.