4 ms·
Why do you think MAD doesn’t work now?
by ethanbond 6y ago
Why do you think MAD doesn’t work now?
- rwmj 6y ago> Why do you think MAD doesn’t work now? I don't understand your question.
- kyriakos 6y agoPoint is that they wouldn't use nuclear because of mutually assured destruction
- rwmj 6y agoA decade long war between China and the US (as the article describes) would soon be a total war, which means using every weapon at your disposal.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoBoth sides had chemical weapons in World War II; neither side used them. Yet WWII was a total war. That is, MAD or something MAD-like can restrain use of particular weapons, even in a total war.
- Rebles 6y agoMost conventional strategists believe a nuclear war wouldn't need to last a decade, as both parties would destroy themselves. Given the heavy civilian casualties and the decimation on the economies and infrastructure, the cost of a nuclear war and mutually assured destruction (MAD) outweigh the potential benefits.
- loopz 6y agoThe same go for modern conventional warfare.
- senectus1 6y agoMAD isn't a tactic. Its a result of the belief that your opponent wont do "X" because if the MAD concept. The problem is that we're likely to get a MAD result because everyone knows of the MAD meme and thinks that their opponent is thinking.
- ethanbond 6y agoYes it’s just an emergent state of two or more actors doing the somewhat sensible thing (not wanting their own people to be annihilated). The question is still why this wouldn’t work, since it did work (albeit very riskily) through the entire Cold War. AFAICT no relevant variable has changed.