The Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine Condemned

  • Thread starter Thread starter undead_rat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sadly, this appears to be the case. It may be the case that some fanatics or other extremists, get a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. Even a low yield weapon or ‘dirty bomb’ would cause great damage.

Diplomacy is the first course of action, but weapons involving legitimate defense have to be at the ready. We cannot dismiss lightly the words of the leaders of two countries who think even a limited nuclear war is an option, much less a MAD scenario.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Sadly, this appears to be the case. It may be the case that some fanatics or other extremists, get a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. Even a low yield weapon or ‘dirty bomb’ would cause great damage.

Diplomacy is the first course of action, but weapons involving legitimate defense have to be at the ready. We cannot dismiss lightly the words of the leaders of two countries who think even a limited nuclear war is an option, much less a MAD scenario.

Ed
Click to expand...
I think it’s actually more like four or five world leaders, at least, who’ve seriously talked about using nukes in recent days. I posted this op-ed once before, but it does strike me as a worthwhile piece:

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/nuclear-war-has-become-thinkable-again-we-need-a-reminder-of-what-it-means?CMP=share_btn_fb

But I think that if we consider the timeline of Earth in comparison to the timeline of nukes and permafrost destruction, it seems clear that those are the issues of the day. Because they’ve only been here for a blink of an eye. But then of course I would guess that in history books this will be dubbed “the age of immigration issues” or whatever. Still, though, if we’re able to pull back our focus far enough, and try to view larger blocks of human time, entire epochs, it’s nukes and the environment which actually matter. And I mean that purely from a species survival standpoint.
 
Regarding the environment, cheap and very expensive solutions are available.

Back to nuclear weapons, I’m only talking about defense. The level of global surveillance has increased tremendously since the 1980s. The number of beam weapons being deployed has also increased. No declassified numbers are available but I hope the combination renders airborne nuclear weapons incapable of reaching their targets, hopefully by being destroyed shortly after launch, which could be problematic to whoever decides to launch one or more. The grainy satellite images I saw in the 1980s and 1990s, gives me every confidence that the US, at least, is more secure. Other new pieces of equipment bear this out. Perfect? Who knows? I would imagine military planners do not want a nuclear weapon going off anywhere in the US. I suspect our Allies are thinking along similar lines for their countries.

Ed
 
(MAD) has not been a strategic doctrine for over 20 years, at least for the US.
 
tafan said:
MAD likely prevented a war between the USA and the USSR for 50 years. Its hard to imagine the cold war staying cold without the presence of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
The coming global nuclear war will make all conventional wars look like child’s play.

See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the world.
Those slaughtered by YHWH day will be scattered across the world from end to end.
No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them;
they will stay lying on the ground like dung.
Jeremiah 25:32-33
 
Eh, Church tried to ban crossbows once. Didn’t really work out.
The number of beam weapons being deployed has also increased.
Click to expand...
There are no beam weapons deployed, and the USAF shut down that modified 747 because it was utterly impractical.

Any current BMD systems (which are only directed at folks like Iran or NK, really, and all SM-6 related) could be easily overwhelmed by a mass launch.
 
undead_rat said:
The coming global nuclear war will make all conventional wars look like child’s play.
Click to expand...
Thankfully a global nuclear war is not likely. I do not see any reason to be overly concerned about the very slight possibility. I’d be more concerned with the lack of security with data possibly causing a worldwide financial crisis.
 
Nuclear weapons have made the world safer and less violent. For hundreds of years, the great powers would routinely fight each other every few generations. They engaged in major wars that were extremely destructive.

Nuclear weapons have ensure that direct confrontation between superpowers is suicidal. This is a good thing. Why condemn it?
 
“Mutually assured destruction,” was not mentioned anywhere in the linked article, including the headline. No conference of bishops ever approved “MAD” as a feasible policy, altho the NCCB, the precursor to the USCCB, at one time accepted a policy of nuclear deterrence as valid. Deterrence has worked for some time now, and lack of an effective deterrent would make war more likely.
 
Mutually Assured Destruction is the foundation of “deterrence.” Russia is “deterred” from launching an ICBM attack against the USA because, if she were to do so, she herself would be destroyed.
That is what “launch on warning” protocol and the “nuclear triad” are all about.

It is a precarious balance, and both countries are aware of this. It may be true that USA and Russia no longer have faith in the MAD protocol.
That is revealed by the fact that both countries are now actively seeking to gain a first strike capability, one that will destroy all of the other country’s nuclear retaliatory force.
 
JimG said:
Deterrence has worked for some time now, and lack of an effective deterrent would make war more likely.
Click to expand...
This statement is not supported by the events of the 20th century. In the first place, the world has had many wars since the invention of nuclear bombs and continues to do so.
In the second place, global nuclear war has come very, very close to occurring several times, and it is only by the grace of our Creator that it hasn’t happened already.
In the third place, as I have previously stated, even a conventional WW III would be trivial in comparison to the coming global nuclear war.
 
Hows that old saying go…WW3 will be the most destructive war, fought with unimaginable technology, but it guarantees WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

Like the bible says though, nothing new under the sun, all this has happened before and will happen again.
 
undead_rat said:
This statement is not supported by the events of the 20th century. In the first place, the world has had many wars since the invention of nuclear bombs and continues to do so.
In the second place, global nuclear war has come very, very close to occurring several times, and it is only by the grace of our Creator that it hasn’t happened already.
In the third place, as I have previously stated, even a conventional WW III would be trivial in comparison to the coming global nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Nuclear deterrence makes nuclear war less likely. A decrease in nuclear deterrent capability makes nuclear war more likely and it also makes nuclear blackmail more likely. The U.S., at the height of the cold war, had 1,000 land based ICBM’s which could be launched quickly in response to a nuclear strike by the USSR. Consequently, no nuclear strike occurred. Now, we have 450 land based ICBM’s, non-MIRV’ed, at a time when Russia is deploying a new generation of ICBMs with multiple warhead capability. That makes both nuclear war more likely because of the lack of equivalent deterrence, and it gives Putin nuclear blackmail capability to assert his will in disputed areas, create his own area of hegemony, and weaken the usefulness of NATO.

Superpowers like having nuclear weapons as a deterrent and as a threat. The only nation that seems to like the idea of using them is North Korea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top