4 ms·

MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. They type of imbalance that is being talked about removed the "Mutual". So total destruction of your opponent and

MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. They type of imbalance that is being talked about removed the "Mutual". So total destruction of your opponent and minimal to no damage to your side. This is why things like "decapitation strikes" where you destroy the leadership and prevent enemy launches were considered. This is also why the U.S. has a nuclear trident: Land ICBM, Sub SLBM and Strategic bombers that are ready to take off the moment a launch is detected. To ensure that for any strike against the U.S. there would be retaliation. What the imbalance or lack of mutual would lead to is either: A. Stronger force strikes first in order to win the conflict. B. Weaker force strikes first because they know that stronger force will strike to try and win.

dylan604 2y ago
> Strategic bombers that are ready to take off the moment a launch is detected At the height of the cold war, something like 1/3 of all SAC bombers were airborne at any time. They rotated a la shift changes to ensure there was no delay and minimized risk of not getting some off the ground. The fact there were not more Broken Arrow incidents is pretty amazing
lupusreal 2y ago
> "They type of imbalance that is being talked about removed the "Mutual"." The type of imbalance I responded to was characterized as a "tilt". Overly simplistic models of MAD have a tendency to become completely divorced from reality. There was imbalance, real and perceived, in one direction or another, throughout the Cold War and right up to today, but so far nuclear war hasn't started despite what those simplistic models say. For one, those models overestimated the willingness of politicians on either side to commit mass murder simply because they have an opportunity. Secondly, they overestimate the tolerance for even the risk of just a single counter-value retaliatory strike managing to get through. The retaliation does not have to be total, the destruction not mutually balanced, for the threat of retaliation to still serve as effective deterrence.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
  Yeah, the other side will lose 100 million but we will lose 25 million is not an “advantage” sane people will pursue.
scarecrowbob 2y ago
I think your assertion here relies heavily on the unstated assumption that the folks running states are psychotics who would happily see the world burn. If you assume that folks don't want to murder millions of other humans just on general principle (without giving evidence, I think this is true), then there is the position C: "regardless of the balance of destructive power, people try to avoid mass murder and maintain relationships through politics". I have two suspicions: First, the folks running the US (given thier history of slavery and genocide) often do not see other groups of humans as "human", and thus would make the calculation you're making. SO I can totally see why you'd assume US leaders think that way. I also suspect that a core tenant of US propaganda is to assert that every country on earth would enslave every human. And thus the US is just following its manifest destiny in attempting to do so, via economic, political, or military means. Those are just suspicions. However, I think looking at things such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, US incursions into Korea in the 50s, the actual treatment by the USSR/Stalin of Vietnam and other national movements, and the split between the USSR and China-- looking at those things, I've had a hard time buying the "international communist conspiracy", especially when put up against what the US actually did to destabilize places like Guatamala, Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, etc. That is to say, I think the folks running the USSR and China during the so-called cold war were actually focused on trying to unfuckup the dumb things that they did in transitioning their agriculture- I just don't buy (looking at how these countries dealt with each other) that they had the same willingness to murder half the planet by burning them to a crisp.
- jschveibinz 2y ago
  What?
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  >I think your assertion here relies heavily on the unstated assumption that the folks running states are psychotics who would happily see the world burn. I disagree.... My understanding of the MAD philosophy is not that it was born out of psychotics but rather a rather cold, rational war gaming process. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction >It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. You have to put yourself in time and place of those who developed the theory: Coming out of the Second World War where both the United States and the Soviet Union were convinced that each other were planning on taking the other over, this is what drove the USSR to develop the atomic bomb and the US to start NATO. Fear, not psychopathy drove their actions. >folks running the US (given thier history of slavery and genocide) often do not see other groups of humans as "human", and thus would make the calculation you're making. The same argument can be made for any group of people around the world, almost every society has done the same thing.(There a a few, small groups that may not have i.e. small tribes in the Amazon)

dylan604 2y ago

> Strategic bombers that are ready to take off the moment a launch is detected At the height of the cold war, something like 1/3 of all SAC bombers were airborne at any time. They rotated a la shift changes to ensure there was no delay and minimized risk of not getting some off the ground. The fact there were not more Broken Arrow incidents is pretty amazing

lupusreal 2y ago

> "They type of imbalance that is being talked about removed the "Mutual"." The type of imbalance I responded to was characterized as a "tilt". Overly simplistic models of MAD have a tendency to become completely divorced from reality. There was imbalance, real and perceived, in one direction or another, throughout the Cold War and right up to today, but so far nuclear war hasn't started despite what those simplistic models say. For one, those models overestimated the willingness of politicians on either side to commit mass murder simply because they have an opportunity. Secondly, they overestimate the tolerance for even the risk of just a single counter-value retaliatory strike managing to get through. The retaliation does not have to be total, the destruction not mutually balanced, for the threat of retaliation to still serve as effective deterrence.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
Yeah, the other side will lose 100 million but we will lose 25 million is not an “advantage” sane people will pursue.

scarecrowbob 2y ago

I think your assertion here relies heavily on the unstated assumption that the folks running states are psychotics who would happily see the world burn. If you assume that folks don't want to murder millions of other humans just on general principle (without giving evidence, I think this is true), then there is the position C: "regardless of the balance of destructive power, people try to avoid mass murder and maintain relationships through politics". I have two suspicions: First, the folks running the US (given thier history of slavery and genocide) often do not see other groups of humans as "human", and thus would make the calculation you're making. SO I can totally see why you'd assume US leaders think that way. I also suspect that a core tenant of US propaganda is to assert that every country on earth would enslave every human. And thus the US is just following its manifest destiny in attempting to do so, via economic, political, or military means. Those are just suspicions. However, I think looking at things such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, US incursions into Korea in the 50s, the actual treatment by the USSR/Stalin of Vietnam and other national movements, and the split between the USSR and China-- looking at those things, I've had a hard time buying the "international communist conspiracy", especially when put up against what the US actually did to destabilize places like Guatamala, Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, etc. That is to say, I think the folks running the USSR and China during the so-called cold war were actually focused on trying to unfuckup the dumb things that they did in transitioning their agriculture- I just don't buy (looking at how these countries dealt with each other) that they had the same willingness to murder half the planet by burning them to a crisp.

jschveibinz 2y ago
What?
themaninthedark 2y ago
>I think your assertion here relies heavily on the unstated assumption that the folks running states are psychotics who would happily see the world burn. I disagree.... My understanding of the MAD philosophy is not that it was born out of psychotics but rather a rather cold, rational war gaming process. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction >It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. You have to put yourself in time and place of those who developed the theory: Coming out of the Second World War where both the United States and the Soviet Union were convinced that each other were planning on taking the other over, this is what drove the USSR to develop the atomic bomb and the US to start NATO. Fear, not psychopathy drove their actions. >folks running the US (given thier history of slavery and genocide) often do not see other groups of humans as "human", and thus would make the calculation you're making. The same argument can be made for any group of people around the world, almost every society has done the same thing.(There a a few, small groups that may not have i.e. small tribes in the Amazon)