5 ms·

The doctrine was M.A.D. .. or mutually assured distruction[1]. I believe the (arguably crazy) idea was that the weapons wouldn't ever be used. The fact that ea

by lwhi 6y ago

The doctrine was M.A.D. .. or mutually assured distruction[1]. I believe the (arguably crazy) idea was that the weapons wouldn't ever be used. The fact that each nuclear superpower has a similar amount of weapons assured that the equalibrium would stop the worst from happening. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

yesenadam 6y ago
That page says "Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied." I get the feeling that's not generally known. Isn't that kind of extremely weird? I've never seen discussion of it on HN, for example, or maybe what to do about the prospect of living indefinitely under the threat of MAD. With more countries with nuclear weapons all the time. Well, you read here about people not wanting to have kids because of global warming, but not because of that. Is it just too big a problem to even think about?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It's not generally known, particularly by the generation that was born at the tail end of the Cold War (like myself), and by people born later. We grew up without the fear of that particular flavor of Armageddon. But MAD is still what keeps the world relatively peaceful. It also gives rise to certain paradoxes - like any attempt to create a better defense against nuclear weapons is also the biggest threat to mankind, because it risks breaking the MAD doctrine and thus inviting a nuclear first strike. For MAD to work, countries in their equivalence class (e.g. US, Russia and China are one class) need to be in lock step with their capabilities, so that no one can be struck without the attacker risking annihilation.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    > But MAD is still what keeps the world relatively peaceful. There seems a kind of anthropic principle here - it seems successful, but we wouldn't be here talking about it if it had gone terribly wrong, which has come very close to happening more than a few times, apparently. The risk of that is >0, but the cost is...infinite. That doesn't seem obviously worth the gamble, to say the least.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      I think it's less of an anthropic principle, and more the realization that it's the only stable equilibrium available once nuclear weapons become available.
      - yesenadam 6y ago
        Sorry, by "here" I didn't mean in the sentence I quoted, just in this field. I just don't buy the apparent absolute certainty it won't kill everyone. Then anything else would have been preferable to the "stable equilibrium" we were assured was necessary. But we won't be around to talk about it. That eternally living under MAD is 'the only way' seems to me more like a religious belief than a realization of a fact. A uniquely insane/evil one, however you want to describe killing everyone on Earth. Perhaps it's not considered so evil or insane to do that if you meant well?
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >That eternally living under MAD is 'the only way' seems to me more like a religious belief than a realization of a fact. It is the presumptive fact in the absence of viable alternatives. IF one is discovered, we can revisit the question.
- XorNot 6y ago
  I'd say it's generally known - everyone is aware of nukes and what nukes can do. The difference is they're considered much more of a known quantity these days: you can't use them, you don't use them, and you also can't fight a direct war with any country which has them. The idea of the "mad Russians" launching against the US has worn out, but watch what happens when you talk about Iran or North Korea having them. What's more worrying is that most nuclear policy in the US was centered around condensing launch authority solely with the President of the United States - there's a heck of a lot of assumption that that person is a sane, rational elder statesmen type.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    That MAD continues didn't seem that known on HN earlier today. (I didn't know it either.) When I wrote the GP comment, it had half a dozen sibling comments from different people, now all deleted, talking about MAD in the past tense, as a crazy thing that was believed in long ago.
  - chasd00 6y ago
    the problem with MAD is it falls apart when you cross religious extremism with nuclear weapons. It's not rational to douse school girls in acid on their way to school but religious extremism turns it into reality.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      The AD - Assured Destruction - part works just fine. Irrational actors don't assemble world ending arsenals (after all if you think you should rush to your death, why not launch when you have 1, given that you're most likely in a "use it or lose it" situation). Even in your cited example - the people who do this sort of thing attack those who can't fight back. They are never in any danger of being immediately shot dead after. While yes suicide bombers exist, this is more a question of arms proliferation and control then an indictment of the ineffectiveness of MAD or the general strategic reality of nuclear weapons. And the situations under which non-state actors have them are still a policing rather then political concern - North Korea or Iran leaking a bomb to another entity that then detonates it is the surest possible way that both those states will be dismantled by NATO, since MAD does apply there: proof that you represent an uncontrolled risk of nuclear attack invites conventional or nuclear annihilation, regardless of the mechanism. Civilian casualties go out the window when you have already suffered some.
- celticninja 6y ago
  The problem with MAD is that it only works with logical people. Once you include religious fanatics then they don't fear the destruction, in their warped sense of reality their death just takes them to the next spiritual level (or whatever claptrap they preach). So they dont care if they are destroyed as long as their enemy is destroyed also. Because their enemy is some sort of heretic/unbeliever they will not be saved, whilst their people will all live happily in heaven because their god excuses genocide if you do it in HIS name.
- jl6 6y ago
  The obvious - but incredibly difficult to implement - solution is to achieve world peace, through mutual respect, tolerance and trust amongst nations. A lot of people seem to have abandoned that as a goal, in favor of being contented with a perpetual uneasy standoff. It's a tough goal - perhaps the hardest there has ever been - but it's not impossible.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    I would consider world peace "through mutual respect, tolerance and trust amongst nations" as inherently impossible for homo sapiens as we are. A world peace might be plausible through a single world government that can enforce a world peace and resolution of diverging interests and conflicts without war, i.e. with some "policing" mechanism instead of relying on people not escalating through sheer goodwill. That is possible - world peace based on the expectation that any potential violators of that world peace would face retaliation and lose in that conflict. Si vis pacem, para bellum - that can work, if it can be established. Or, alternatively, a world peace through mutual respect and tolerance may happen if at some time in future our civilization consists of substantially altered individuals - genetic alteration, chemical brainwashing, computerized circuits in brains, something that changes the way our motivation works on a fundamental level - but not for people as we are. Otherwise, as long as any people and groups of people have unmet desires (not merely needs) and diverging interests, conflicts will happen, and as long as violence is a practical option for achieving goals (i.e. there's not a threat/expectation of successful powerful resistance to that violence) it will be considered and used if mere threat of that violence isn't sufficient.
fakedang 6y ago
MAD keeps India from eliminating Pakistan, or China from eliminating India, or any of the Arab states vs Israel, or NK vs USA. MAD is a core doctrine of most countries' defences even today. It's the reason Iran wants to obtain them ASAP.

by lwhi 6y ago

yesenadam 6y ago

That page says "Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied." I get the feeling that's not generally known. Isn't that kind of extremely weird? I've never seen discussion of it on HN, for example, or maybe what to do about the prospect of living indefinitely under the threat of MAD. With more countries with nuclear weapons all the time. Well, you read here about people not wanting to have kids because of global warming, but not because of that. Is it just too big a problem to even think about?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
It's not generally known, particularly by the generation that was born at the tail end of the Cold War (like myself), and by people born later. We grew up without the fear of that particular flavor of Armageddon. But MAD is still what keeps the world relatively peaceful. It also gives rise to certain paradoxes - like any attempt to create a better defense against nuclear weapons is also the biggest threat to mankind, because it risks breaking the MAD doctrine and thus inviting a nuclear first strike. For MAD to work, countries in their equivalence class (e.g. US, Russia and China are one class) need to be in lock step with their capabilities, so that no one can be struck without the attacker risking annihilation.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > But MAD is still what keeps the world relatively peaceful. There seems a kind of anthropic principle here - it seems successful, but we wouldn't be here talking about it if it had gone terribly wrong, which has come very close to happening more than a few times, apparently. The risk of that is >0, but the cost is...infinite. That doesn't seem obviously worth the gamble, to say the least.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I think it's less of an anthropic principle, and more the realization that it's the only stable equilibrium available once nuclear weapons become available.
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      Sorry, by "here" I didn't mean in the sentence I quoted, just in this field. I just don't buy the apparent absolute certainty it won't kill everyone. Then anything else would have been preferable to the "stable equilibrium" we were assured was necessary. But we won't be around to talk about it. That eternally living under MAD is 'the only way' seems to me more like a religious belief than a realization of a fact. A uniquely insane/evil one, however you want to describe killing everyone on Earth. Perhaps it's not considered so evil or insane to do that if you meant well?
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >That eternally living under MAD is 'the only way' seems to me more like a religious belief than a realization of a fact. It is the presumptive fact in the absence of viable alternatives. IF one is discovered, we can revisit the question.
XorNot 6y ago
I'd say it's generally known - everyone is aware of nukes and what nukes can do. The difference is they're considered much more of a known quantity these days: you can't use them, you don't use them, and you also can't fight a direct war with any country which has them. The idea of the "mad Russians" launching against the US has worn out, but watch what happens when you talk about Iran or North Korea having them. What's more worrying is that most nuclear policy in the US was centered around condensing launch authority solely with the President of the United States - there's a heck of a lot of assumption that that person is a sane, rational elder statesmen type.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  That MAD continues didn't seem that known on HN earlier today. (I didn't know it either.) When I wrote the GP comment, it had half a dozen sibling comments from different people, now all deleted, talking about MAD in the past tense, as a crazy thing that was believed in long ago.
- chasd00 6y ago
  the problem with MAD is it falls apart when you cross religious extremism with nuclear weapons. It's not rational to douse school girls in acid on their way to school but religious extremism turns it into reality.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    The AD - Assured Destruction - part works just fine. Irrational actors don't assemble world ending arsenals (after all if you think you should rush to your death, why not launch when you have 1, given that you're most likely in a "use it or lose it" situation). Even in your cited example - the people who do this sort of thing attack those who can't fight back. They are never in any danger of being immediately shot dead after. While yes suicide bombers exist, this is more a question of arms proliferation and control then an indictment of the ineffectiveness of MAD or the general strategic reality of nuclear weapons. And the situations under which non-state actors have them are still a policing rather then political concern - North Korea or Iran leaking a bomb to another entity that then detonates it is the surest possible way that both those states will be dismantled by NATO, since MAD does apply there: proof that you represent an uncontrolled risk of nuclear attack invites conventional or nuclear annihilation, regardless of the mechanism. Civilian casualties go out the window when you have already suffered some.
celticninja 6y ago
The problem with MAD is that it only works with logical people. Once you include religious fanatics then they don't fear the destruction, in their warped sense of reality their death just takes them to the next spiritual level (or whatever claptrap they preach). So they dont care if they are destroyed as long as their enemy is destroyed also. Because their enemy is some sort of heretic/unbeliever they will not be saved, whilst their people will all live happily in heaven because their god excuses genocide if you do it in HIS name.
jl6 6y ago
The obvious - but incredibly difficult to implement - solution is to achieve world peace, through mutual respect, tolerance and trust amongst nations. A lot of people seem to have abandoned that as a goal, in favor of being contented with a perpetual uneasy standoff. It's a tough goal - perhaps the hardest there has ever been - but it's not impossible.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I would consider world peace "through mutual respect, tolerance and trust amongst nations" as inherently impossible for homo sapiens as we are. A world peace might be plausible through a single world government that can enforce a world peace and resolution of diverging interests and conflicts without war, i.e. with some "policing" mechanism instead of relying on people not escalating through sheer goodwill. That is possible - world peace based on the expectation that any potential violators of that world peace would face retaliation and lose in that conflict. Si vis pacem, para bellum - that can work, if it can be established. Or, alternatively, a world peace through mutual respect and tolerance may happen if at some time in future our civilization consists of substantially altered individuals - genetic alteration, chemical brainwashing, computerized circuits in brains, something that changes the way our motivation works on a fundamental level - but not for people as we are. Otherwise, as long as any people and groups of people have unmet desires (not merely needs) and diverging interests, conflicts will happen, and as long as violence is a practical option for achieving goals (i.e. there's not a threat/expectation of successful powerful resistance to that violence) it will be considered and used if mere threat of that violence isn't sufficient.

fakedang 6y ago

MAD keeps India from eliminating Pakistan, or China from eliminating India, or any of the Arab states vs Israel, or NK vs USA. MAD is a core doctrine of most countries' defences even today. It's the reason Iran wants to obtain them ASAP.