Thomas White
Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is typically taught as law and inherent to global politics. Often, the theory is misconstrued, something that I myself never fully understood. It is not just that the world will be destroyed if there is another nuclear war; a nuclear war cannot happen due to the resulting chaos. This is typically not emphasized when discussing this theory, as the view gives the impression that the destruction is more key, not the actual peace that results from it. In some ways, this is dangerous, as it misconstrues how people view this idea, and it clouds what should be asked; does the atomic weapon protects us all?
MAD is typically seen in many global theories and politics as an inherent truth, but some believe it should not be considered a fact. There has only been one true international affair that the concept of MAD has acted in, which was the Cold War. There was peace in their states, created by both the USSR and the USA having nuclear weapons. However, this has only been one time. People may believe this to be a fact thanks to the scope and the fear that the Cold War instilled, and potentially the hope that people have in their hearts that the world will not ever reach nuclear fallout. Yet, if one was to produce a scientific experiment to prove a theory, a study with only one trial (should) get laughed at. In this case, the world doesn’t know what the actual law is regarding nuclear weapons. Is it that no state will ever drop a gun because it will ensure doom, or is there a rational way a state could drop an atomic bomb (which may or may not result in nuclear fallout)? As was previously discussed, the problem is that this question becomes diluted into being if nuclear fallout is unavoidable after the dropping of a bomb, and not can an atomic bomb ever be used again.
I have always believed that an atomic weapon can’t ever be used again. However, I looked at this in the sense that the world will be doomed; we cannot do this. Now, understanding what the actual theory promotes, I am also currently looking at its flaws. It relies on rationality, and secondarily it relies on data that genuinely is not thorough. The Cold War was one scenario, between two specific states, during a particular time frame. It does not have to hold indefinitely.
Therefore, the bomb is both what guarantees destruction and creates peace when trusting the theory of MAD. However, as was discussed previously, this theory really should not be taken entirely at face value. And while some may take the conclusion that the bomb makes everyone safer, this is based on a theory with insufficient evidence. In the decision, while MAD does not need to be discounted necessarily, it must be taken less as fact.
Thomas, one could argue that today, we are in a similar situation as the Cold War. I do not think as sever, but some might say that the cyber attacks, pandemic outbreak, economy battle with China is a struggle between two powers that do not like each other and want to see the other fall or fail. We have seen no dropped WMDs in battle since WWII, and I think with the theory of MAD, we are seeing it progress today, yet as a conversation begins to drop a bomb, when tensions rise too much, the bomb will not be dropped because of MAD. Tensions will rise, there have been humans for thousands of years, and always violence, so when that tension does rise, will the bomb be dropped, I say no. But you have to consider the battle between the US and China at the present moment and notice that it is not going to die down for awhile, so is this another Cold War scenario?
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point Eli, and one I did not consider too heavily. I think there is definitely a chance for it to become similar in nature, but I also think the chances are lower than some may think. For starters, I think economically China and the US are much too linked for a true battle to every really take place, and the world is so global now that it would have to be a scenario where one nation is "cutting off its nose to spite its face", if that makes sense. So of course, states may have leaders who make rash decisions that would be illogical to myself and I would assume others, but barring that I don't truly envision a WW3 scenario between the US and China (at least not in their current states). knock on wood.
Delete