What do you think of the idea of mutually assured destruction?

Question

I am writing an Ethics paper on the subject of mutually assured destruction. The idea is that when two countries have a critical mass of nuclear weapons aimed at each other, neither will attack because the threat of retaliation is too menacing. If peace can be attained through these means, is it worth it? I have my own opinions but I'd love to hear some more.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Well, given your premise, "If peace can be attained through these means", of course it's worth it. What's the ethical problem with nuclear weapons that will never be used?

On the other hand, as others here have pointed out, nowadays MAD doesn't seem like such a simple concept anymore. All it takes is one guy to pull the trigger, and your world peace blows up in your face, quite literally.

I picture it like a pair of heavy weights balancing each other over a razor edge. As long as the balance is maintained, the heavier the weights are, the more stable the configuration will be (think of those toy birds that can balance on anything). But if the balance is disturbed somehow, the heavier the weights are, the harder they will crash.

Answer 2

MAD doesn't work anymore and here is why: The US is surrounded by oceans on both sides, Russia has submarines that are stationed very close to our shores. It takes only 3 minutes for Russian nuclear missiles launched from subs to reach US cities. In contrast, our missiles can reach Russia only in about 20 minutes, even if launched from subs (Russia is land-locked mostly). So, there is an advantage of 15 minutes, during which Russia can destroy the US and all its nuclear capacities before we are able to retaliate.

In the past, when the Russian subs were not armed with nuclear missiles, it took about the same time for both sides to reach each other. So, MAD is no longer a protection. Disarmament is.

Answer 3

already has. russia and the USA. a rough means to an end but it has worked. the issue in the new world regarding mass destruction is not the political fanatics, like iran and n. korea, it is the religious fanatics, wherever they may come from.imagine if the suicide/murderer bomber had access to a large scale weapon. that is the wild card. no country would start a nuclear war but an indiviual or small group acting "on their own", that is another thing.nuclear bombs can kill way too much and all parties know it.

Answer 4

I would have to disagree with B.Kav... today is nothing like the Cold War, at least not in the US. MAD, has been proven to dissuade countries from complete and total annihilation. This however, creates distrust and animosity not only between the government officials but also the people who live under constant fear. I feel the end resort is usually a war of some sort without the use of WMD's.

Answer 5

If it worked, it would be worth it. But human nature always wins out. We are stupid, barbaric, and violent at our core. Even if you show restraint, there will be others in the world who will not.

Example: a psychotic madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wishes to usher in the end of the world in order to bring the coming of the "last Prophet" . You can't enter into logical dealings with people like him. Good thing Israel will bomb their facilities all to hell like they did Iraq's in the 80's before they can be used to make nukes...

Answer 6

I lived with MAD my whole life. It wasn't fun in the Cold War years when that looming threat was in your face every day.

But then again, the world is still here, isn't it? Can't argue with success.