3 ms·
The US states that that is an option it make take. It does indeed make no sense, that's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it works. If it didn'
by dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
The US states that that is an option it make take. It does indeed make no sense, that's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it works.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
- scotty79 5y agoMAD doesn't mean what you think it means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked. It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.