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This guy was talking about how the doctrine of MAD was becoming outdated.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But saying MAD is becoming outdated is like saying flip phones aren't the go-to mobile device anymore.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)
You have a lot of good points, but the part that still remains the same is that three or more hydrogen bombs over large cities would cause Nuclear Winter which would kill us all.