Don't be MAD

Vishal Hemnani

GVPT 200

When it comes to the matter of nuclear weapons, there is great debate as to whether or not the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) holds true. Those who think it does believe that everyone should produce nuclear weapons, and that the capability to attack one another will lead to annihilation of all involved.  This will ultimately result in disarmament. If people choose not to attack, the fear that the other party can will lead to deterrence.  Despite potential positives, the idea of MAD would not be feasible in today’s world.

During the Cold War era, the US and Soviet Union arms race eventually lead to nuclear deterrence.  With modern day war shifting emphasis towards the Middle East, many factors influence whether or not all countries should be armed. Carl Sagan was concerned that irrational actors who possessed nuclear weapons would use them for ideological victories, rather than the tactical ones that MAD would suggest. With a country like Iran, for instance, there is great reason to believe that these weapons would be used to fight western influence. It is also important to consider the potential for growth in terrorism that would undoubtedly occur. In the Cold War, despite the desire for power, there was a tactical purpose to creating more weapons. It was assumed that the power would offset. The regions of war today are simply too volatile to allow nuclear weapons, as radical groups within each nation would lead to the opposite of what MAD aims for. If Iran or Syria gained nuclear power, so would ISIS. Two countries, India and Pakistan, realized that moving towards a nuclear war would result in great casualties. In 1991, they signed a treaty not to target each other’s nuclear facilities and since then, even during times of high tension, both countries have abided by their agreement. Now, say a country that is not bound by such an agreement faces the same tensions and chooses to use their nuclear weapons; we would then be presented with the world’s first nuclear war.

The founding ideal to MAD is that nuclear weapons are so destructive that rational leaders would be forced to think about the consequences before their use. The reality is that not every nation is lead by rational leaders. Irrational leaders only prioritize their own countries’ successes- if nuclear weapons can bring about a win, these leaders may not hesitate to engage these resources. MAD praises the opportunity of second strike attacking, claiming that if all countries are armed, all can retaliate. In reality, the country that strikes first will have the upper hand and the chance to attack will be rendered useless. Assume the Japanese had the ability to counter the US in WWII, and that they chose to bomb the U.S. afterwards. What is the end result? We now have two decimated nations that are disarmed, but at what cost? There is no incentive to second striking because no stability can come from this, only constant turmoil.

The biggest flaw with MAD is that it assumes individual nations will utilize nuclear weapons as a means of defense. In reality, a country’s agenda is unpredictable and ulterior motives will always trump cordial peace if everyone has the power to take actions into their own hands. For those who use their power to instigate, the presence of other weapons is not reason to refrain from attack. The world has never had a nuclear war because nations that have possessed nuclear weapons have been rational. Without rational thinking, the possession of nuclear weapons by all countries will only lead to easier and deadlier methods of war.