The View from Sunbrick

Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD, bad and dangerous to know?

"Mutually assured destruction, or mutual assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm."

(wikipaedia)

Many people say that this is the reason we have not had a third world war - the threat of annihilation has "kept the peace" since 1945. It has meant spending on arms on a grand scale. 

What are your thoughts? Do you believe in MAD? What might the alternatives have been? Give us your opinion in the Forum opposite.

The Forum

Give us your feedback on topics you read here. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to promote peace from what you see here or can suggest to us?  Please click here to read our Forum Rules.

Note: We wish to encourage a broad range of views and welcome robust discussion. However, we reserve the right to moderate, edit or remove content if deemed appropriate

Forum
Topics
Last post

War No More

Alternatives to war

MAD? Good or Bad?