Category: 

What is Mutually Assured Destruction?

Article Details
  • Written By: Mary McMahon
  • Edited By: O. Wallace
  • Images By: The Official Ctbto Photostream, Pei Lin, Oleksiy Mark, Iruhsa, Axellwolf
  • Last Modified Date: 29 November 2016
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2016
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
Snake charmers get snakes to “dance” because of the movement of their flute-like instruments, not their music.  more...

December 4 ,  1945 :  The United States Senate approved of US participation in the United Nations.  more...

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a military doctrine which relies on the principle that if a country with nuclear capabilities attacks another nation with nuclear weapons, the end result will be nuclear annihilation for both nations. Since this outcome is not desirable, the theory goes that by stockpiling nuclear weapons, a nation will protect itself from nuclear attacks, since no nation would want to risk annihilation. This doctrine was never officially adopted, but it led to an arms race between many major nations.

This concept relies on a principle of game theory known as the Nash Equilibrium. The idea is that because all parties involved know what everyone else is capable of, there's no reason to change strategy or to make sudden policy decisions. In fact, in a Nash Equilibrium, stepping outside the equilibrium can totally upset the balance, leading to a negative outcome in which no one wins. In other words, Mutually Assured Destruction is a zero sum game.

There are several problems with the concept of MAD. The first, from a foreign policy perspective, is that it tends to discourage summits, meetings, and treaties. The parties involved have no reason to meet to discuss and resolve issues, and in fact they tend to prefer remaining aloof. This is not very productive for resolving long-term conflict.

Ad

Another issue is that Mutually Assured Destruction encourages infinite increases to a nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Think about it this way. If you have a war with your neighbor and your neighbor has a stick, you are going to acquire a stick too. But you might wonder if your neighbor has an ax, in which case you buy an ax, your neighbor sees the ax and buys a gun, you see the gun and buy a cannon, and so forth. Nations which subscribed to this doctrine were constantly forced to upgrade weapons systems, test weapons, and accrue ever-growing stocks of weapons to indicate that they were prepared for a nuclear war.

As the Cold War wound down in the 1980s, many nations realized that MAD was a foolish and potentially very dangerous doctrine. In response, nations like the United States and the Soviet Union started meeting to discuss the arms race and to reach a resolution which would allow both nations to destroy excess nuclear weapons stockpiles and focus on cooperation instead of an endless standoff.

By the time Mutually Assured Destruction had been largely abandoned, it had entered the popular consciousness. The idea of a nuclear winter created through nuclear aggression is a theme in many apocalyptic novels, films, and television shows, and the specter of Mutually Assured Destruction hovers in the minds of some foreign policy students as well, especially with more and more countries developing nuclear capability.

Ad

You might also Like

Recommended

Discuss this Article

anon943082
Post 5

The move "Dr Strangelove" addresses this in a very funny way.

anon348480
Post 4

MAD isn't the only nuclear weapons doctrine out there, but it seems to be the one that keeps us from launching World War III. The thing about these little rogue countries like North Korea or Iran is that they have some very big friends. If North Korea ever managed to land a nuclear bomb on American soil, the president would probably have to keep himself in check, even if everyone started screaming for immediate retaliation. This is *nuclear* war we're talking about, which is much more devastating than dropping conventional bombs on a place like Afghanistan.

Under MAD, the first nuclear strike may not do a lot of harm. The country would go into rescue and repair mode. Even the

retaliatory strike may only hit a military target or two, not a large civilian population. But it wouldn't stop there, and eventually everyone with a nuclear bomb would feel like launching it somewhere, either in retaliation or defense or as part of an alliance. Again, mutually assured destruction.
anon83875
Post 3

If another nation like Iran or North Korea landed a nuclear weapon in the US, I would turn either or both countries into a thermal mist.

anon39804
Post 2

I would like to say this: I wonder whether this scenario will ever occur. It's like the going faster than light argument. You might say, 'Hey what if we could go faster than light', but you just can't, so as far as i see it, unless a complete mad man gets hold of a nuclear warhead...

Russ622
Post 1

There are still enough nuclear weapons around to wipe out any country. Assume you are the president of the United States. What would you do if a country like Iran or North Korea actually launched a nuclear weapon that landed in the United States??

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email