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.

Forum >> War No More

Alternatives to war

War No More. Posted Feb 20 2015 at 8:12 AM

The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side; and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force. The expected result is both combatants' mutual, total and assured destruction.

Some have argued that this policy has kept the peace since the Second World War.

Discuss

TopicReplysAuthor Last Post
von Neumann's role 0
Posted: Feb 22 2015 kl. 7:45 AM
Feb 22 2015, 7:45 AM
Ukendt

New Topic