Mutually assured destruction
Hydesland
13-07-2007, 23:53
Do you think this has prevented more wars then it has caused?
Yes. Not coincidentally, the same period has also been undoubtedly the most stable, prosperous, and progressive period in our entire history.
Do you think this has prevented more wars then it has caused?
I don't seem to recall any wars that mutually assured destruction has caused. If it had, they would have been destroyed most assuredly.
Hydesland
14-07-2007, 00:00
Yes. Not coincidentally, the same period has also been undoubtedly the most stable, prosperous, and progressive period in our entire history.
I'm not sure if I am seeing any link between that and MAD. It may have contributed though.
Marrakech II
14-07-2007, 00:21
Yes. Not coincidentally, the same period has also been undoubtedly the most stable, prosperous, and progressive period in our entire history.
QFT... Yes I have to agree with this one. We fought some ugly proxy wars. But WWIII has been adverted because of MAD. Even the Soviets backed down off the Cuban missile crisis and their plans to nuke China in the early seventies because they knew there was no winning in the end.
Dontgonearthere
14-07-2007, 00:29
*pats self down*
I dont seem to be a cloud of radioactive dust, so I'd say it works pretty well.
The only problem with MAD is that it only takes one crazy guy with a nuke to screw the planet.
Layarteb
14-07-2007, 00:30
I would give the atomic bomb a Nobel Prize. Granted it's one of the most devestating instruments of war and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives (250,000 in Japan) through tests, usage, and exposure, it kept the superpowers from going to war with each other. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for the third tier wars. The UN was supposed to pick but that burden but they really succeeded there.
The only problem with MAD is that it only takes one crazy guy with a nuke to screw the planet.
I'd disagree. Kim Jong-Il has one and should he use one I don't think it would illict MAD. It might have a tactical nuclear strike against him *maybe* and I doubt I could see China or Russia going ballistic and launching everything they have at the US for it, even if they support him under the table. The same would go for Iran when they get one (sooner than later that will be at this rate).
yeah it stopped the Us-USSR war of 1963.
Kim Jong-Il has [a nuke] and should he use one I don't think it would illict MAD. It might have a tactical nuclear strike against him *maybe* and I doubt I could see China or Russia going ballistic and launching everything they have at the US for it, even if they support him under the table. The same would go for Iran when they get one (sooner than later that will be at this rate).
Most likely he'd just get cruise missile'd into the dirt. Kim may be a looney-toon-esque totalitarian prick, but he knows that when you call down the thunder, you better be ready to reap the whirlwind...en masse...
Do you think this has prevented more wars then it has caused?
MAD's purpose is to only to prevent ONE war.
Do you think this has prevented more wars then it has caused?
Yep. A war with Russia over Cuba for one.
Undoubtedly.
Is it worth the continued risk of nuclear annihilation? That's another question entirely.
Mutually assured destruction is the only thing holding my marriage together.
But WWIII has been adverted because of MAD.
Some people believe we are now in WW III. It has not been averted and so far, it hasn't been nuclear. :rolleyes:
Castro likes to claim he'd have dropped the bomb - though it's easy to say that *now* :p
Castro never had a bomb to drop. :rolleyes:
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
14-07-2007, 02:07
*pats self down*
I dont seem to be a cloud of radioactive dust, so I'd say it works pretty well.
The only problem with MAD is that it only takes one crazy guy with a nuke to screw the planet.
Castro likes to claim he'd have dropped the bomb - though it's easy to say that *now* :p
Layarteb
14-07-2007, 03:25
Most likely he'd just get cruise missile'd into the dirt. Kim may be a looney-toon-esque totalitarian prick, but he knows that when you call down the thunder, you better be ready to reap the whirlwind...en masse...
He is a loony but the point being that the "crazy nut" with the nuke wouldn't bring on MAD as Dontgonearthere suggests.
Northern Borders
14-07-2007, 03:32
Mutually assured destruction is the only thing holding my marriage together.
Too bad lawyers usually behave poorly in war. Real war.
New Granada
14-07-2007, 05:32
Yes.
The atomic bomb is the most potent instrument of peace in human history.
Without atomic weapons to secure peace, a third world war would have caused suffering and destruction on a new scale.
New Malachite Square
14-07-2007, 05:58
Yes.
The atomic bomb is the most potent instrument of peace in human history.
Without atomic weapons to secure peace, a third world war would have caused suffering and destruction on a new scale.
Of course, atomic weapons can cause destruction on a scale even greater than that. I think the only way to find out if the threat of MAD is a good thing is to wait until it breaks out. Hopefully, we'll be waiting forever.
New Granada
14-07-2007, 06:11
Of course, atomic weapons can cause destruction on a scale even greater than that. I think the only way to find out if the threat of MAD is a good thing is to wait until it breaks out. Hopefully, we'll be waiting forever.
More likely than not, we will be waiting forever, which is the whole idea.
The tiny and insane minority that is willing to do mass suicide for the sake of attacking someone does not and probably will not ever have the capability to "assure destruction" against their enemies.
New Malachite Square
14-07-2007, 06:14
More likely than not, we will be waiting forever, which is the whole idea.
Yep. But we can't know for sure until it happens. Which it won't. Hopefully.
Most definitely. In fact, weapons in general have started to. Before WWI, it was possible to fight a war without involving civilians, as many European wars of the 18th and 19th centuries did. Now, war can't be fought on a large scale without unimanginable consequences, ones no one wants to think about. This worked particularly well during the Cold War. Only the threat of a nuclear exchange prevented the US and the USSR from warring at several key junctures.
*pats self down*
I dont seem to be a cloud of radioactive dust, so I'd say it works pretty well.
The only problem with MAD is that it only takes one crazy guy with a nuke to screw the planet.
If he's crazy and has a nuke, he can take out a city, but he probably can't make enough nukes to destroy the planet. The beauty of a nuke is that, while it can and has been mass-produced, it can be only with a great economy of scale, one only the US and USSR had, and only the US has the capability of producing again. Even other nuclear powers, like the UK and France, could only produce a few hundred at a time, though I daresay that China could probably produce more if she really wanted to.
Castro never had a bomb to drop. :rolleyes:
unlike... say... Hollywood?
So what would the equivalent of 'Gigli' be?
OuroborosCobra
15-07-2007, 04:50
Do you think this has prevented more wars then it has caused?
Since it has not caused any wars (by the sheer fact that the world still exists, and in an exercise where it actually caused wars, the world would be destroyed), I'd say yes.