3 ms·

> In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect.

> In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD. The problem with MAD is that it is human nature not to assume that your own destruction will occur. Which ends up meaning that these gentlemen's agreements like open skies and free inspections are more necessary than you'd intuitively assume. MAD only works if the human on the other side truly believes that he will be destroyed.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Right. There's plenty of such non-obvious aspects of MAD. Counterintuitively to any other matter in the military, it's beneficial to you to let your enemy know the extent of your arsenal (or at least the lower bound), and the technologies used - like you explained above. And the corollary to that is, any defense or recon technology that makes it easier for you to defend against enemy nuclear attack, risks causing a war[0]. Same with offense upgrades that make first-strike weapons significantly better. For the balance to work, destruction must be mutually assured, and all sides must believe that. -- [0] - Which is why I'm worried about recent developments in detecting underwater objects by gravity or whatnot. A critical part of MAD is nuclear SLBM-carrying submarines. Those subs, lurking in the darkness, are what guarantees that no matter how fast and effective your first strike is, you'll still get glassed in retaliation. Being able to detect those subs breaks MAD.