4 ms·

I find your statement > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale very hard to believe. Do you have any

by linschn 14y ago

I find your statement > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale very hard to believe. Do you have any source I could read that may change my mind ? For the moment I am a proponent of global nuclear disarmament, I don't have any source in english but the argument that draw me in was can be phrased as : During the one true nuclear crisis, the Cuba missiles, Kennedy did not send the Air Force because the chance of getting nucleary hit, even "a little", was not 0%. Still, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction posits that one enemy must be sure to be completely destroyed. So we have a doctrine that leads to enormous arsenals, yet the only data point we have shows it is probably not true, as a mere chance of getting a small hit was enough for Kennedy to back down. Hence, our arsenal are, at best, far too huge. I furthermore believe that we would be better off with no nuclear weapon at all, but I wanted more info about your precise statement.

excuse-me 14y ago
So you think that what kept Stalin from marching into West Germany in the 1950s was a respect for the principle of freedom and independence in the Federal republic? Or perhaps he feared the awesome military capabilities of a conventional British army of the Rhine? And similarly Washington didn't start a war with the USSR because it believed in "live and let live" with regards to world communism.
- linschn 14y ago
  From my questioning of (emphasis mine) : > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the ONLY reason for protracted peace at the global scale you seem to derive that I think something along the line of "Equilibrium in nuclear abilities played no role in global stability during the cold war." The answers to your rhetorical questions are of course all no. But do you truly think the huge size of our nuclear arsenals are a necessary feature for global stability nowadays ? If yes, could you explain to me why a smaller arsenal could not do the trick ?
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    I think a big enough nuclear fleet on bath sides has led to the first half-century in the history of europe without a major war. I think it's also odd how politicians 'claim' that Iran/Korea/Belgium mustn't be allowed to get nuclear weapons because then they would be unstoppable. So MAD works against the USSR but not against Iran?

by linschn 14y ago

excuse-me 14y ago

So you think that what kept Stalin from marching into West Germany in the 1950s was a respect for the principle of freedom and independence in the Federal republic? Or perhaps he feared the awesome military capabilities of a conventional British army of the Rhine? And similarly Washington didn't start a war with the USSR because it believed in "live and let live" with regards to world communism.

linschn 14y ago
From my questioning of (emphasis mine) : > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the ONLY reason for protracted peace at the global scale you seem to derive that I think something along the line of "Equilibrium in nuclear abilities played no role in global stability during the cold war." The answers to your rhetorical questions are of course all no. But do you truly think the huge size of our nuclear arsenals are a necessary feature for global stability nowadays ? If yes, could you explain to me why a smaller arsenal could not do the trick ?
- excuse-me 14y ago
  I think a big enough nuclear fleet on bath sides has led to the first half-century in the history of europe without a major war. I think it's also odd how politicians 'claim' that Iran/Korea/Belgium mustn't be allowed to get nuclear weapons because then they would be unstoppable. So MAD works against the USSR but not against Iran?