3 ms·

I can understand each logical step of MAD, but if you look at the whole picture it really does seem kind of silly. Like, why not both agree to allow the other t

I can understand each logical step of MAD, but if you look at the whole picture it really does seem kind of silly. Like, why not both agree to allow the other to place a stationary gigantic nuke in each major metro area under the control of the other, and call it a day? Of course that seems absurd, but it's not more absurd than not developing anti-ICBM weapons. And think of the savings it could have produced? I haven't looked at actual numbers but there has to be a phenomenal amount of resources that have fueled MAD over the last ~60 years. Now that I think about it, an even more cost effective measure would be the ancient practice of exchanging hostages. Each top political or military official has a loved one live in the other country while they're in office. Also sounds absurd at first, but probably would have been just as effective at avoiding war which is all MAD is good for anyways.

madrox 5y ago
May as well ask why make weapons at all. The absurdity of it has been well documented in the art of the Cold War in the twentieth century.
mort96 5y ago
Yeah, it's obviously not great. But it seems to be a kind of stable local optimum, where any step any single party could independently take to get rid of MAD would be against that party's interest. Honestly, barring widespread global nuclear disarmament, it feels like the nuclear weapons hat is out of the bag -- and at that point, it's a choice between MAD and nuclear armageddon.
jandrese 5y ago
> Like, why not both agree to allow the other to place a stationary gigantic nuke in each major metro area under the control of the other, and call it a day? Because then the solution would be to disable all of the other country's nukes simultaneously and then trigger your own.