M.A.D. Theory

How effective do you think it is?

Granted, it did stop an all out Nuclear War, but it has not stopped war at all.

The idea behind the theory is, "If I can kill you, and you can kill me just as easy, then we are probably better off not fighting, because then we will both be killed." Countries attibute this for stopping a nuclear war.

Dr. Nobel was the first major advocate of the M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction theory. He greatly advanced the use of weapon technology, in the name of peace, because he advocated the thoery so much.

He was even quoted as saying, something along the lines of "When humans can eradicate a city in one instant, then war would cease to exist." Or something like that, its not an exact quote.

Ironically, nuclear weapons can wipe out cities within an instant, and the world in a matter of minutes. But, wars still rage on, is the M.A.D. theory flawed? Discuss and debate...

 

In theory, it should work. In practice, it is a very different thing, because different countries advance at different speeds, so one country (America) then can attack other countries (Iraq) to prevent them advancing, so America ends up having the weapons, while everyone else is scared to even try to make them, because they will just be stopped by the country on top.

In a perfect world, it could work, but on earth, where some countries are so poor they need charity from other countries, it is impossible to successfully work.

 

q?

hmmmmmmm. Interesting ICSP. It seems that it would make sense, but it actually is completly stupid. By creating something as powerful as nukes and stuff, this DR. guy becomes a hypocrit. The stronger the weapons, the more tempting it is to use them. This theory is just down right wrong, especially because the only way for this to really work, is if the 2 rulers are actually evil friends, that are using the "peace" type of treaty you might say is really being used for them to gain more power. Anyways, thats all i gotta say on this.........

 

It makes sense. But it all depends on who has the bigger bombs and who can travel the fastest. Aka, technology. And not every country has the same level of technology, unfortunately.

 

cool beans

I don't like this theory. Its not true, Radicals would use nukes, especially those who aren't afraid of death. They'd strike anyone, even if the other country has nukes to. Its flawed.

 

The MAD Theory, as much as people don't like to admit it, does work to some degree. Until human despots and tyrants can learn that their territory is just that and stop trying to cease other people's places and enslave people etc, it's been the only thing to stop worse tragedy. If the MAD Theory was not used during the Cold War, it would have been a very hot war instead. Today it is still employed in some nations and it does hold people's fingers off buttons. It sucks that it has to be this way, but the theory for the most part does work as long as the leaders of places still care about themselves and power over people. If nukes are launched, there goes the people and probably that person. We will of course be boned the day some wacko fanatic decides it's Judgment Day and doesn't care about living or anyone else living so the leader launches nukes or whatever, but the way it stands now, no one is so suicidal as an actual -leader- even if he sends followers out to do that. So MAD Theory works for now.

Of course, we can all hope someday the need for this will end. In the end, it works as far as people not pulling out the "Big Guns" that can obliterate cities etc in a fell swoop. It won't, as ICSP mentioned, stop wars all the way.