Connor
Handzo
GVPT
200
Professor
Shirk
Blog Post 3
There is much debate over the theory
of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. Many scholars argue that the theory is
not convincing and therefore does not hold true. Then there are those who
believe strongly in the effectiveness of MAD. MAD is a very valid theory and it
has much support to back it up, yet this post will focus on one reason why MAD
is such an effective theory.
Mutually assured destruction is
valid for quite a few reasons, but there is one piece of evidence that especially
supports the theory. This such reason is that in the entire time that nuclear
weapons have existed, there has never been a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are
so massively destructive and have such severe consequences that any rational
leader would be forced to think about such consequences. After deliberation, it
is because of these dire costs that no leader has resorted to nuclear war. Even
leaders considered to be crazed and mad such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong
have never resorted to nuclear war. Joseph Stalin was extreme enough to kill
millions of his own people without as much as a second thought. So one would
think that a leader as maniacal as him would especially give no second thought
to starting a nuclear war; however, even the consequences of nuclear war were
enough to deter Stalin and to make him not start one.
One of these such consequences that
would have deterred Stalin from starting a nuclear war is second strike
capability. This is the ability to launch a nuclear attack after being attacked
yourself, or in retaliation. Also, along these same lines the retaliation would
most likely be aimed at cities, which sadly might not deter someone like Stalin
as he killed millions of his own people, or the retaliation could be directed
at nuclear facilities. The threat of a launch at Stalin’s nuclear facilities would
indeed deter him from launching a nuclear weapon in the first place. This is
because destroying a nuclear facility would threaten Stalin’s ability to launch
any more weapons, yet the other side would be able to continue launching
weapons. This is one reason why Stalin, who many consider to be a mad man, did
not launch any nuclear weapons and start a nuclear war.
MAD is a very effective and valid
theory. Many mad men in the past have had the ability to start a nuclear war
against their enemies, yet they did not. This is due to MAD and the dire
consequences that would ensue after starting a nuclear war. These leaders have
understood these consequences and that is why, even though they had done many
atrocious acts during their leadership, did not start a devastating nuclear war.
MAD has an explanation for any man as to why he has not or will not start a
nuclear war.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteWhile Stalin and Zedong may not have resorted to nuclear attack, I believe it should be noted that the climate of war has changed. War was more formal during their reign. In the modern war, terrorism and political uprising is the cause for war. I believe if a country like Iran got a nuclear weapon, terrorists would then have easier access. When irrational actors gain control of nuclear weapons, the likelihood for attack will be much higher.
I do not know if I agree with your claim that war was more formal during their reign. When someone says formal in regards to warfare, I think of the American Revolution era where honor dictated how people fought, which is much different from say WWII. Also, while terrorists are indeed irrational, I do not think they are so to the point where they would destroy their own culture. Terrorists' goals are to destroy a certain group of people, and while they do not care for themselves, I do still think that they want their culture to live on.
DeleteConnor-
ReplyDeleteI think you provide great evidence for the success of MAD. If it doesn't work, why hasn't there been a nuclear war? I would like to also point out that the only time nuclear weapons have been used was during WWII against Japan, who did not have 2nd strike capabilities at the time. More evidence that nuclear attacks only occur in the absence of MAD.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument you’ve stated. But I want to play Devil’s advocate. What if someone asserted that the reason there has not yet been a nuclear war is because states are building up their nuclear weapon supply, so that when they decide to nuke others, they will feel confident in their ability/ likelihood to win the conflict. If they built up a solid enough stash, they could attack another state without worry that that state would react –especially if they destroy the other state’s nukes. (Now, I'll respond to Devil's advocate.) Perhaps if a state were bold enough to completely destroy another state, other states would respond (similar to a world war). Then, fear of reaction from other states would support the MAD theory.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteI think you definitely back up your argument well with real life examples. I wonder though about the motivation for why people like Stalin did not use nuclear weapons. If he is crazed enough to kill millions of his own people then it would not make sense, at a very basic level, for him to care if they were attacked with a nuclear bomb. Instead his fear and motivation is merely for his own safety rather than ensuring that his people survive.