3 ms·

MAD is needed if two sides have an offensive first strike doctrine. USSR did not have one. China has an unclear one. NATO has an offensive one. After reading

by a3w 2y ago

MAD is needed if two sides have an offensive first strike doctrine. USSR did not have one. China has an unclear one. NATO has an offensive one. After reading the official statements of nuclear use, with the US having "sink an airship carrier and find out", I thought: Are we the baddies? Rules as written, NATO is not interested in the survival of the human race, but in winning every war.

wat10000 2y ago
MAD helps make sure they keep that doctrine, and make sure they're not lying about it.
bluGill 2y ago
Is survival of the human race worth it if some of the "baddies" get into power? USSR was not a great place to live. There is a lot about China I don't like. (there is also a lot about the US I don't like, but in theory at least I have some voice in changing it unlike the other two)
- mmustapic 2y ago
  That’s not a choice to be made by superpower heads of state, but by individual people.
- nemomarx 2y ago
  I think nuclear winter is probably worse than the soviets, yes?? the USSR eventually fell. you can't really recover from enough nukes.
  - t0mas88 2y ago
    From a game theory perspective for Europe the best policy is to agree to destroy all of humanity before accepting Russian control of Europe. Then the Russians can decide whether they still want to try and the US can decide between being collateral damage or helping Europe. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, Europe is too divided and too civilised to make that threat and probably at this point not strong enough from a military perspective to execute on it.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      > Then the Russians can decide whether they still want to try and the US can decide between being collateral damage or helping Europe. You left out one option in the the US's decision space: a surprise attack against Europe. I don't think the UK & France combined have enough nuclear warheads to cause an Extinction Level Event without US assistance. But still, if they think the destruction of human civilization is the correct position to take, might be best if we help extirpate them while they aren't sufficiently armed.
- tiagod 2y ago
  Are you being sarcastic or do you seriously believe nuking the entire earth would be better than living in China??
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I think that is a question that everyone needs to ask themselves.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Yes, 100%. In a nuclear world you need to believe this (and your rivals need to know you 100% believe) or you won't survive to the next round of the game.
  - t0mas88 2y ago
    Yes. That's the future of what MAD between the West and USSR used to be. Promise to destroy the earth if one of the others decides to occupy your continent.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - computerfriend 2y ago
    “The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”
- exe34 2y ago
  The US may well be in the end stage of democracy, and sliding into fascism. I'm starting to have second thoughts on cheering for them.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
Just because some nuclear armed countries pinky swear they won't strike first doesn't mean MAD is suddenly not needed... Even if every known nuclear weapon in the world was decommissioned it'd likely still be needed, in today's dollars the Manhattan project was $30 billion. And you gotta assume modern technology and knowledge would make it quite a bit cheaper.
JohnBooty 2y ago
I'm not sure any public statements on nuclear doctrine should be taken literally. After reading the official statements of nuclear use, Like the latest one from Russia (Dec. 2024) which pretty much amounts to "whenever the fuck we feel like it?" https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-12/news/russia-revises-nuclear-use-doctrine https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-12/news/russia-revises-... It says that Russia may use nuclear weapons in the event of “aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus…with the use of conventional weapons, creating a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.” Of course, they don't define what "critical threat" means. Ukraine has occupied Kursk for half a year now. Is that... a threat? A critical one?
bpfrh 2y ago
Depends on the nato country, but most only use if attacked, which makes perfect sense as these where times where the most dangerous country was the udssr for them. If you where a nato country you had the problem that by the time reinforcment from the usa could arrive, the udssr could potentially be in control of most if not all of europe. While the udssr didn't really had that concern, as they had more than enough room to retreat, reform and defend. In such a scenario it's very easy for the udssr to have a no first strike policy when there was simply no way for any european country to invade them, while smaller countries would have had a real concern that they either use their weapons to the full effect or have no chance to do so. IMHO there is also the substantial benefit that the udssr now knew that any attack meant that they would trigger a war without winners, e.g. they couldn't fight and then retreat to safe bases deep in their territory
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
NATO's policy makes sense, the winners of the last war are always the good guys, so even if you have to be bad to win it, history will absolve you.
lenerdenator 2y ago
> Are we the baddies? Rules as written, NATO is not interested in the survival of the human race, but in winning every war. Russia seems to have an unclear one as well. They've certainly implied the use of tactical warheads as an option with the Russo-Ukraine war should it reach a certain point. As for if we're the baddies... don't touch the boats. shrugs
aa-jv 2y ago
>NATO has an offensive one. Israel, also.

by a3w 2y ago

wat10000 2y ago

MAD helps make sure they keep that doctrine, and make sure they're not lying about it.

bluGill 2y ago

Is survival of the human race worth it if some of the "baddies" get into power? USSR was not a great place to live. There is a lot about China I don't like. (there is also a lot about the US I don't like, but in theory at least I have some voice in changing it unlike the other two)

mmustapic 2y ago
That’s not a choice to be made by superpower heads of state, but by individual people.
nemomarx 2y ago
I think nuclear winter is probably worse than the soviets, yes?? the USSR eventually fell. you can't really recover from enough nukes.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  From a game theory perspective for Europe the best policy is to agree to destroy all of humanity before accepting Russian control of Europe. Then the Russians can decide whether they still want to try and the US can decide between being collateral damage or helping Europe. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, Europe is too divided and too civilised to make that threat and probably at this point not strong enough from a military perspective to execute on it.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > Then the Russians can decide whether they still want to try and the US can decide between being collateral damage or helping Europe. You left out one option in the the US's decision space: a surprise attack against Europe. I don't think the UK & France combined have enough nuclear warheads to cause an Extinction Level Event without US assistance. But still, if they think the destruction of human civilization is the correct position to take, might be best if we help extirpate them while they aren't sufficiently armed.
tiagod 2y ago
Are you being sarcastic or do you seriously believe nuking the entire earth would be better than living in China??
- bluGill 2y ago
  I think that is a question that everyone needs to ask themselves.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Yes, 100%. In a nuclear world you need to believe this (and your rivals need to know you 100% believe) or you won't survive to the next round of the game.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  Yes. That's the future of what MAD between the West and USSR used to be. Promise to destroy the earth if one of the others decides to occupy your continent.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- computerfriend 2y ago
  “The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”
exe34 2y ago
The US may well be in the end stage of democracy, and sliding into fascism. I'm starting to have second thoughts on cheering for them.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

Just because some nuclear armed countries pinky swear they won't strike first doesn't mean MAD is suddenly not needed... Even if every known nuclear weapon in the world was decommissioned it'd likely still be needed, in today's dollars the Manhattan project was $30 billion. And you gotta assume modern technology and knowledge would make it quite a bit cheaper.

JohnBooty 2y ago

I'm not sure any public statements on nuclear doctrine should be taken literally. After reading the official statements of nuclear use, Like the latest one from Russia (Dec. 2024) which pretty much amounts to "whenever the fuck we feel like it?" https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-12/news/russia-revises-nuclear-use-doctrine https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-12/news/russia-revises-... It says that Russia may use nuclear weapons in the event of “aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus…with the use of conventional weapons, creating a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.” Of course, they don't define what "critical threat" means. Ukraine has occupied Kursk for half a year now. Is that... a threat? A critical one?

bpfrh 2y ago

Depends on the nato country, but most only use if attacked, which makes perfect sense as these where times where the most dangerous country was the udssr for them. If you where a nato country you had the problem that by the time reinforcment from the usa could arrive, the udssr could potentially be in control of most if not all of europe. While the udssr didn't really had that concern, as they had more than enough room to retreat, reform and defend. In such a scenario it's very easy for the udssr to have a no first strike policy when there was simply no way for any european country to invade them, while smaller countries would have had a real concern that they either use their weapons to the full effect or have no chance to do so. IMHO there is also the substantial benefit that the udssr now knew that any attack meant that they would trigger a war without winners, e.g. they couldn't fight and then retreat to safe bases deep in their territory

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

NATO's policy makes sense, the winners of the last war are always the good guys, so even if you have to be bad to win it, history will absolve you.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Are we the baddies? Rules as written, NATO is not interested in the survival of the human race, but in winning every war. Russia seems to have an unclear one as well. They've certainly implied the use of tactical warheads as an option with the Russo-Ukraine war should it reach a certain point. As for if we're the baddies... don't touch the boats. shrugs

aa-jv 2y ago

>NATO has an offensive one. Israel, also.