2 ms·

> Can you imagine if your government tried to use the weapons it bought from America, only to have them refuse to start because America decided they shouldn't?

> Can you imagine if your government tried to use the weapons it bought from America, only to have them refuse to start because America decided they shouldn't? Or if you're within the US, imagine if the nukes refused to launch because Raytheon or whoever included a digital kill switch? Yes, and John Lennon even wrote a song about imagining it. > That would completely defeat MAD. And that's a bad thing? Besides, it wouldn't. The threat of MAD is what makes it work, not actual MAD itself. Unless <Bad Actor> confidently controlled that kill switch, the threat would remain.

aftbit 1y ago
If we could trust the people who held the kill switch implicitly, then I think it would be amazing. We cannot, so I think it would be disastrous. I definitely think MAD led to a strategic stability that was better than the alternative. This is why things like missile shields (pure defense) are seen as dangerously aggressive, and why the submarine leg of the triad is so important. If you could be confident that your opponents couldn't actually hit you, you would feel much more comfortable issuing a first strike. The fact that they might have a nuke boat somewhere off your coast means you can never be confident that a counter-force first strike will be effective, so you never do it and the world lives another day.