Mutually assured destruction: I found this on the internet. This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated. What are some thoughts about this? The whole idea...

Steven smith

I found this on the internet.
This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.
What are some thoughts about this?

The whole idea of MAD, which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, has this kind of retro, Cold War vibe to it, doesn't it? It's like a throwback to those tense times when the big players, especially the USA and the USSR, basically had this unspoken agreement: "If you launch your nukes at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll all go down together." It worked, in a grim way, because it was based on the logic that no rational actor would want to initiate a conflict that ends in their own annihilation.

But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore. The world has changed—a lot. First off, the number of players on the nuclear field has increased. It's not just a two-party standoff anymore. With countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan in the nukes club, the dynamics have shifted. The more players you have, the harder it becomes to predict everyone's moves, increasing the risk that someone might miscalculate.

Technology has also changed the game. Advances in missile defense systems might tilt the scale, giving some nations the false confidence that they could intercept incoming nukes, potentially making them bolder. But, let's be real, missile defense isn't a foolproof umbrella, especially against a full-scale launch.

Then there's the whole shift towards cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics. Countries might engage in cyberattacks on nuclear facilities or use misinformation to destabilize regions without ever having to resort to launching a nuke. It's like warfare has become more about poking the opponent in various ways to see where they're most vulnerable, instead of just threatening them with the big, nuclear stick.

Lastly, there's a generational shift in thinking. The Cold War generation, which directly felt the terror of the nuclear shadow, is gradually stepping back. Younger generations might not view nuclear war with the same level of existential dread, possibly diluting the psychological deterrence of MAD. Or, paradoxically, their detachment might lead to a reevaluation of nuclear weapons’ role in international relations, pushing towards disarmament or novel forms of deterrence.

In essence, MAD is kind of like a vintage car. It's a classic, it had its time when it was the pinnacle of deterrence theory, but in today's complex, technologically advanced, and multipolar world, it just doesn't fit the streets anymore. The global strategic environment is calling for new thinking, more suited to the diverse, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

Steven smith wrote:

I found this on the internet.
This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.
What are some thoughts about this?

The whole idea of MAD, which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, has this kind of retro, Cold War vibe to it, doesn't it? It's like a throwback to those tense times when the big players, especially the USA and the USSR, basically had this unspoken agreement: "If you launch your nukes at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll all go down together." It worked, in a grim way, because it was based on the logic that no rational actor would want to initiate a conflict that ends in their own annihilation.

But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore. The world has changed—a lot. First off, the number of players on the nuclear field has increased. It's not just a two-party standoff anymore. With countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan in the nukes club, the dynamics have shifted. The more players you have, the harder it becomes to predict everyone's moves, increasing the risk that someone might miscalculate.

Technology has also changed the game. Advances in missile defense systems might tilt the scale, giving some nations the false confidence that they could intercept incoming nukes, potentially making them bolder. But, let's be real, missile defense isn't a foolproof umbrella, especially against a full-scale launch.

Then there's the whole shift towards cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics. Countries might engage in cyberattacks on nuclear facilities or use misinformation to destabilize regions without ever having to resort to launching a nuke. It's like warfare has become more about poking the opponent in various ways to see where they're most vulnerable, instead of just threatening them with the big, nuclear stick.

Lastly, there's a generational shift in thinking. The Cold War generation, which directly felt the terror of the nuclear shadow, is gradually stepping back. Younger generations might not view nuclear war with the same level of existential dread, possibly diluting the psychological deterrence of MAD. Or, paradoxically, their detachment might lead to a reevaluation of nuclear weapons’ role in international relations, pushing towards disarmament or novel forms of deterrence.

In essence, MAD is kind of like a vintage car. It's a classic, it had its time when it was the pinnacle of deterrence theory, but in today's complex, technologically advanced, and multipolar world, it just doesn't fit the streets anymore. The global strategic environment is calling for new thinking, more suited to the diverse, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

I found this on the internet. br This guy was tal... (show quote)

======================
Mad-ness! As of yesterday, we have Russian president Putin threatening nuclear war over our support to the Ukraine. MAD is very much alive and kicking right now. Putin is using nuclear blackmail to get his way in the Ukraine. Please try not to sugarcoat this situation, it is right out of the Cold War book. The key question is, is Putin bluffing or not? What is your opinion? The US, with NATO, is on the spit to decide what to do. Is Putin a rational actor?

Steven smith

manning5me wrote:

======================
Mad-ness! As of yesterday, we have Russian president Putin threatening nuclear war over our support to the Ukraine. MAD is very much alive and kicking right now. Putin is using nuclear blackmail to get his way in the Ukraine. Please try not to sugarcoat this situation, it is right out of the Cold War book. The key question is, is Putin bluffing or not? What is your opinion?

I would hope that he is bluffing.
The Soviet people have suffered much more the past hundred years than American has.
I believe they could more likely survive a nuclear strike than we could.
They are used to a lot of hardships.
They are a country that has promoted a godless ideologies for decades so they cannot be relied on for anything other than a very bad outcome.
The United States is now on the road to boot God out of every facet of what made America great. I see America facing a bleak future also if we cannot restore some semblance of a representative government back to the founders intentions.

keepuphope Loc: Idaho

Steven smith wrote:

I found this on the internet.
This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.
What are some thoughts about this?

The whole idea of MAD, which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, has this kind of retro, Cold War vibe to it, doesn't it? It's like a throwback to those tense times when the big players, especially the USA and the USSR, basically had this unspoken agreement: "If you launch your nukes at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll all go down together." It worked, in a grim way, because it was based on the logic that no rational actor would want to initiate a conflict that ends in their own annihilation.

But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore. The world has changed—a lot. First off, the number of players on the nuclear field has increased. It's not just a two-party standoff anymore. With countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan in the nukes club, the dynamics have shifted. The more players you have, the harder it becomes to predict everyone's moves, increasing the risk that someone might miscalculate.

Technology has also changed the game. Advances in missile defense systems might tilt the scale, giving some nations the false confidence that they could intercept incoming nukes, potentially making them bolder. But, let's be real, missile defense isn't a foolproof umbrella, especially against a full-scale launch.

Then there's the whole shift towards cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics. Countries might engage in cyberattacks on nuclear facilities or use misinformation to destabilize regions without ever having to resort to launching a nuke. It's like warfare has become more about poking the opponent in various ways to see where they're most vulnerable, instead of just threatening them with the big, nuclear stick.

Lastly, there's a generational shift in thinking. The Cold War generation, which directly felt the terror of the nuclear shadow, is gradually stepping back. Younger generations might not view nuclear war with the same level of existential dread, possibly diluting the psychological deterrence of MAD. Or, paradoxically, their detachment might lead to a reevaluation of nuclear weapons’ role in international relations, pushing towards disarmament or novel forms of deterrence.

In essence, MAD is kind of like a vintage car. It's a classic, it had its time when it was the pinnacle of deterrence theory, but in today's complex, technologically advanced, and multipolar world, it just doesn't fit the streets anymore. The global strategic environment is calling for new thinking, more suited to the diverse, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

I found this on the internet. br This guy was tal... (show quote)

Excellent post.

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

Steven smith wrote:

I would hope that he is bluffing. br The Soviet pe... (show quote)

==================
I agree with the need to return America to its foundations.

However, I do not believe Russia could stand an all-out nuclear attack. Most would die from radiation, the rest from blast and heat.

Steven smith

manning5me wrote:

==================
I agree with the need to return America to its foundations.

However, I do not believe Russia could stand an all-out nuclear attack. Most would die from radiation, the rest from blast and heat.

Probably so but there would be a remnant. The Same goes for us.

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

Steven smith wrote:

Probably so but there would be a remnant. The Sam goes for us.

=====================
Of course. But it would herald the most miserable existence possible for both. All foodstuff would possibly be contaminated by radiation, and if you do not have a rad meter, you could be dead real soon.

Steven smith

manning5me wrote:

=====================
Of course. But it would herald the most miserable existence possible for both. All foodstuff would possibly be contaminated by radiation, and if you do not have a rad meter, you could be dead real soon.

I have one .

MidnightRider

Steven smith wrote:

I found this on the internet.
This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.
What are some thoughts about this?

The whole idea of MAD, which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, has this kind of retro, Cold War vibe to it, doesn't it? It's like a throwback to those tense times when the big players, especially the USA and the USSR, basically had this unspoken agreement: "If you launch your nukes at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll all go down together." It worked, in a grim way, because it was based on the logic that no rational actor would want to initiate a conflict that ends in their own annihilation.

But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore. The world has changed—a lot. First off, the number of players on the nuclear field has increased. It's not just a two-party standoff anymore. With countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan in the nukes club, the dynamics have shifted. The more players you have, the harder it becomes to predict everyone's moves, increasing the risk that someone might miscalculate.

Technology has also changed the game. Advances in missile defense systems might tilt the scale, giving some nations the false confidence that they could intercept incoming nukes, potentially making them bolder. But, let's be real, missile defense isn't a foolproof umbrella, especially against a full-scale launch.

Then there's the whole shift towards cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics. Countries might engage in cyberattacks on nuclear facilities or use misinformation to destabilize regions without ever having to resort to launching a nuke. It's like warfare has become more about poking the opponent in various ways to see where they're most vulnerable, instead of just threatening them with the big, nuclear stick.

Lastly, there's a generational shift in thinking. The Cold War generation, which directly felt the terror of the nuclear shadow, is gradually stepping back. Younger generations might not view nuclear war with the same level of existential dread, possibly diluting the psychological deterrence of MAD. Or, paradoxically, their detachment might lead to a reevaluation of nuclear weapons’ role in international relations, pushing towards disarmament or novel forms of deterrence.

In essence, MAD is kind of like a vintage car. It's a classic, it had its time when it was the pinnacle of deterrence theory, but in today's complex, technologically advanced, and multipolar world, it just doesn't fit the streets anymore. The global strategic environment is calling for new thinking, more suited to the diverse, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

I found this on the internet. br This guy was tal... (show quote)

I'd hold off on any judgment. Sure it's fun to speculate. Here is why I say hold off. The next se******n is in November. Then you will have a much better idea of who is who and even what to believe.

Steven smith

MidnightRider wrote:

I'd hold off on any judgment. Sure it's fun to speculate. Here is why I say hold off. The next se******n is in November. Then you will have a much better idea of who is who and even what to believe.

Good advice thanks.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Steven smith wrote:

Good advice thanks.

What If China Launched a Nuclear Bomb (Minute by Minute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7r7TlWQz0Y

Why the US Military is Preparing for War With China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plHRRFHZ_f0

What If China Invades Taiwan (Day by Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILB3L5xv7NM

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

America 1 wrote:

What If China Launched a Nuclear Bomb (Minute by Minute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7r7TlWQz0Y

Why the US Military is Preparing for War With China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plHRRFHZ_f0

What If China Invades Taiwan (Day by Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILB3L5xv7NM

It is my duty to inform you presenting anything related to China and its behaviors is verboten.

Let me explain. Because Xi smiles and appears friendly, we must discount his true aims. Putin has a stern face; therefore must be perceived as a bad guy.

Making it simple:
China = good
Russia= bad bad bad

They have lived with their hysterically screaming of Russia for so many years, it cannot be given up.

My work here is done.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

Steven smith wrote:

I would hope that he is bluffing. br The Soviet pe... (show quote)

Smedley_buzkill

Steven smith wrote:

I found this on the internet.
This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.
What are some thoughts about this?

The whole idea of MAD, which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, has this kind of retro, Cold War vibe to it, doesn't it? It's like a throwback to those tense times when the big players, especially the USA and the USSR, basically had this unspoken agreement: "If you launch your nukes at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll all go down together." It worked, in a grim way, because it was based on the logic that no rational actor would want to initiate a conflict that ends in their own annihilation.

But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore. The world has changed—a lot. First off, the number of players on the nuclear field has increased. It's not just a two-party standoff anymore. With countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan in the nukes club, the dynamics have shifted. The more players you have, the harder it becomes to predict everyone's moves, increasing the risk that someone might miscalculate.

Technology has also changed the game. Advances in missile defense systems might tilt the scale, giving some nations the false confidence that they could intercept incoming nukes, potentially making them bolder. But, let's be real, missile defense isn't a foolproof umbrella, especially against a full-scale launch.

Then there's the whole shift towards cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics. Countries might engage in cyberattacks on nuclear facilities or use misinformation to destabilize regions without ever having to resort to launching a nuke. It's like warfare has become more about poking the opponent in various ways to see where they're most vulnerable, instead of just threatening them with the big, nuclear stick.

Lastly, there's a generational shift in thinking. The Cold War generation, which directly felt the terror of the nuclear shadow, is gradually stepping back. Younger generations might not view nuclear war with the same level of existential dread, possibly diluting the psychological deterrence of MAD. Or, paradoxically, their detachment might lead to a reevaluation of nuclear weapons’ role in international relations, pushing towards disarmament or novel forms of deterrence.

In essence, MAD is kind of like a vintage car. It's a classic, it had its time when it was the pinnacle of deterrence theory, but in today's complex, technologically advanced, and multipolar world, it just doesn't fit the streets anymore. The global strategic environment is calling for new thinking, more suited to the diverse, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

I found this on the internet. br This guy was tal... (show quote)

Now you just need to nuke the internet, not the cities. Cripple a country with no fallout. Can you imagine if our computers all went to lunch at the same time? Can't buy gas, groceries, hospitals paralyzed, even traffic uncontrolled. Military helpless. Sitting ducks for a third world low tech army.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

AuntiE wrote:

It is my duty to inform you presenting anything re... (show quote)

Got it, thanks for your advice.
I'll attempt to be more careful in the future.