The idea of Iran, Pakistan, Israel, India or North Korea or for that matter any county with nuclear weapons handing over nukes to terrorist groups is just as ridicolous as them giving the keys to their entire Air Force to them. Never going to happen.
The idea of a terrorist organization developing a nuclear weapon on their own is so astronomically ridicolous of a prospect that I am not going to even go into the specifics. If Al-Qaida develops the GDP and industrial capabilities of a mid-sized country then something has gone wrong a long time ago.
The idea of a country starting a nuclear war without being bombed themselves is insane as well. We had plenty of practice in the Cold War due you can say "But they came close!" as many times as you like but the fact is that every time there is even a possibility of something like that the situation is gone through with such attention to detail and a fine comb that has never been seen in conventional warfare. And those close times happened without the modern recon and monitoring equipment that we have now, and they still didn't do it, even if a shitty radar somewhere screamed that Moscow was going to be obliterated any second now. Because they fucking knew that nobody is crazy enough to do it.
Yet somehow, people are ready to bomb a country and kill completely innocent people to avoid these completely non-existent possibilities and to stop the development of technology that their own nations possess and whose positive aspects they enjoy every living moment of their lives.
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
This is an incredibly... simplistic... view. Nuclear sub captains are highly educated and have gone through numerous psychological and security checks to make sure they're pretty much the opposite of a "bloodthirsty asshole." But, they also take very seriously the notion of civilian control over the military and will not substitute their judgment for that of the President, except in extreme cases.
Way to miss the point. My point was that MAD doesn't work, the way it's currently structured. It requires a sort of lapse in logic to make it work.
But MAD does work....
I mean you'd have to be pretty much blind to the last 50 years of human history to claim otherwise.
I've driven without a seatbelt at least 50 times. I guess driving without a seatbelt is also a good idea?
edit: A better example is housing market derivatives. For several years, they were a completetely safe investment with no risk. There's never any problems until the first problem happens.
So you are really going to go with the "Well just because it works now and has worked perfectly, doesn't mean that it won't stop working for some reason I can't say right now in the future!"
You realize that can be applied to literally anything, right?
And I'm pretty sure many, many people who drove without seatbelt died as a consequence, you know, that's why they were invented in the first place...
Snark Snark Snark Snark Snark. This is why I hate this forum sometimes.
If you think my analogy is bad, EXPLAIN WHY. Don't just call me Detharin, because that's really offensive to me. If you have a counter argument, give me that. What am I supposed to do when people criticize me and call me stupid, but offer nothing substantive? Should I just assume that I'm right, and ignore the criticism?
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
It has not been temporily successful, it has been successful since it's inception and has contributed into a world that is safer then ever before. It stopped any sort of military conflict between the Soviet Union and U.S. and stayed their hand in many of the proxy wars. It resulted into greatest dialogue between two ideologically and culturally opposed superpowers in the history of the world.
Again, not seeing a reason to doubt it here. And
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
is not a logical explanation because that is not how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction is perhaps the most pragmatic and cerebral portion of foreign relations ever. Simply cold calculation. Nothing bloodthirsty about it.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
The worst part of this is that people in general doesn't realize how many times and how close we were to total annihilation during the cold war. When they interviewed McNamara at old age he stated that the only reason we still walk this earth was "Pure luck....luck, luck, luck"
Lots of people in the middle east thread seemed to think nuclear weapons are actually a good thing.
Not enough face palm.
But they are. If you nobody has nuclear weapons, and you acquire them, you become safer. If some have nuclear weapons, and you can acquire them, you become safer. If everybody has nuclear, and you can acquire them, you become safer. Even if the world as a whole becomes less safe, the best bet is to be someone with nuclear weapons.
I disagree. If we can agree that at the very least MAD is analogous to a global-scale Mexican stand-off then having not acquired nuclear weapons will mean that you are not a threat to the other nuclear nations which would make you a low or no value launch target. To keep with the Mexican Stand-off analogy, I think the best way to avoid getting shot is to not have a gun in the first place.
Also, is anyone else a little disappointed by the thread title? I came in here thinking we would talk about nuclear technology and not just the technology of nuclear warfare. Being a Nuclear Energy Worker I figured I'd have a whole lot of cool stuff to say
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
It has not been temporily successful, it has been successful since it's inception and has contributed into a world that is safer then ever before.
It's been successful for roughly 30 years, from the time at which we had enough nuclear firepower for it to work, until the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is what I call a temporary success. It is a logical fallacy to say that because a strategy has worked for 30 years, it will then work forever.
It stopped any sort of military conflict between the Soviet Union and U.S. and stayed their hand in many of the proxy wars. It resulted into greatest dialogue between two ideologically and culturally opposed superpowers in the history of the world.
Well, ignoring Vietnam and Afghanistan and numerous other crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis... Part of the problem with this strategy is that it reduces the chance of a conventional war by increasing the risk of nuclear armageddon. Once again I'll go back to my Housing Derivitive analogy, which was a strategy that decreased the chance of a short term loss while also increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss.
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
is not a logical explanation because that is not how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction is perhaps the most pragmatic and cerebral portion of foreign relations ever. Simply cold calculation. Nothing bloodthirsty about it.
I know how it works. I don't think you understood my argument. Let's get back to my original argument then- Let's say that you're a sub captain who's just been told that the your country was destroyed by a surprise nuclear First Strike. What do you do? Do you obey orders to counterattack the country that attacked you?
It's been successful for roughly 30 years, from the time at which we had enough nuclear firepower for it to work, until the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is what I call a temporary success. It is a logical fallacy to say that because a strategy has worked for 30 years, it will then work forever.
Nah, it's a logical fallacy to say that "it will suddenly not work in the future because..."
And it honestly started from the moment Soviet Union detonated it's first nuke, it just took some time to realize it's meaning. Macnamara coined the term in 1960's so it is at the very least fifty years. And MAD is still working, there is just not as much hostility between the sides, which there are more then two right now.
Well, ignoring Vietnam and Afghanistan and numerous other crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis... Part of the problem with this strategy is that it reduces the chance of a conventional war by increasing the risk of nuclear armageddon. Once again I'll go back to my Housing Derivitive analogy, which was a strategy that decreased the chance of a short term loss while also increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss.
Vietnam? U.S. never entered North Vietnam in Vietnam War because they were afraid of a reprisal from the Communist bloc.
Afghanistan? U.S. never did anything else but clandestinely train and equip the Mujahideen, it never was fully involved in it. Soviets withdrew in the end.
Cuban Missile Crisis is the primary reason why MAD works, and the first realization what was at stake. It resulted into the first open phone connection between the two opposing sides.
And again, there was not a single time U.S. and Soviet troops had a direct conflict.
I know how it works. I don't think you understood my argument. Let's get back to my original argument then- Let's say that you're a sub captain who's just been told that the your country was destroyed by a surprise nuclear First Strike. What do you do? Do you obey orders to counterattack the country that attacked you?
Yes? Because by that point MAD has already started and the other country is in flames as well?
You're missing the point behind the theory of MAD though Pri.
What the captain does after the missles are in the air is irrelevant. Once either side takes action MAD is done.
The point is that both sides know they'd both be wiped out in a conflict. All you have to have is the capacity.
Here's the problem. In order to know that you'll be wiped out, you also have to know that the other side is willing to counterattack. However, it makes no logical sense to counterattack, unless you really want to destroy the other side. That's what I was talking about before. That's why I was saying that MAD only works when both sides assume that the other side is quite bloodthirsty. If they're not willing to use their capacity to counterattack, it might as well not exist.
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
It has not been temporily successful, it has been successful since it's inception and has contributed into a world that is safer then ever before. It stopped any sort of military conflict between the Soviet Union and U.S. and stayed their hand in many of the proxy wars. It resulted into greatest dialogue between two ideologically and culturally opposed superpowers in the history of the world.
Again, not seeing a reason to doubt it here. And
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
is not a logical explanation because that is not how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction is perhaps the most pragmatic and cerebral portion of foreign relations ever. Simply cold calculation. Nothing bloodthirsty about it.
Thousands of intercontinental missiles are proagating through the thin outer atmosphere of the planet faster than a exploding front of TNT. Millions are about to die, and everything you know and love is about to be destroyed.
The thing is, your ability to fire back doesn't actually change this situation. You're still dead. Everyone you know is still dead. All you can do at this point is kill a few million people who you've never met, most of which is just trying to get on with their lives, same as the people you knew.
There is nothing rational about that kind of nihilism. It is bloodthirst on a level that surpasses anything we've ever thought of before - hell, it almost makes the Holocaust look good, because at least then, someone would be alive.
Now, the non-credible threat of MAD, that's a whole different story. But that rational threat essentially boils down to threatening to be really, really fucking irrational if the other side is. How you act against rational threats of irrationality (where your expectation of the opponents willingness to obey the former goes against the idea that he'll use the later) is ultimately a matter of beliefs, and as Pi-r8 said, one of the ways of influencing this belief is putting people who would genuinely pull that trigger in a position where they could.
I'm not saying it doesn't work - in fact, the main reason the threat does work is that we aren't completely rational players, and there's plenty of people perfectly willing to engage in the required act of nihilism - but... As Pi-r8 notes it's pretty sketchy and based on essentially assuming your opponents aren't rational.
You're missing the point behind the theory of MAD though Pri.
What the captain does after the missles are in the air is irrelevant. Once either side takes action MAD is done.
The point is that both sides know they'd both be wiped out in a conflict. All you have to have is the capacity.
Here's the problem. In order to know that you'll be wiped out, you also have to know that the other side is willing to counterattack. However, it makes no logical sense to counterattack, unless you really want to destroy the other side. That's what I was talking about before. That's why I was saying that MAD only works when both sides assume that the other side is quite bloodthirsty. If they're not willing to use their capacity to counterattack, it might as well not exist.
Again, its not logical to label that bloodthirsty.
You do what you have to do to defend your nation.
If you don't retaliate you can be sure you're just going to keep getting hit even harder.
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
It has not been temporily successful, it has been successful since it's inception and has contributed into a world that is safer then ever before.
It's been successful for roughly 30 years, from the time at which we had enough nuclear firepower for it to work, until the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is what I call a temporary success. It is a logical fallacy to say that because a strategy has worked for 30 years, it will then work forever.
It stopped any sort of military conflict between the Soviet Union and U.S. and stayed their hand in many of the proxy wars. It resulted into greatest dialogue between two ideologically and culturally opposed superpowers in the history of the world.
Well, ignoring Vietnam and Afghanistan and numerous other crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis... Part of the problem with this strategy is that it reduces the chance of a conventional war by increasing the risk of nuclear armageddon. Once again I'll go back to my Housing Derivitive analogy, which was a strategy that decreased the chance of a short term loss while also increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss.
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
is not a logical explanation because that is not how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction is perhaps the most pragmatic and cerebral portion of foreign relations ever. Simply cold calculation. Nothing bloodthirsty about it.
I know how it works. I don't think you understood my argument. Let's get back to my original argument then- Let's say that you're a sub captain who's just been told that the your country was destroyed by a surprise nuclear First Strike. What do you do? Do you obey orders to counterattack the country that attacked you?
The thing you are missing is that, even if it is very likely that sub commanders might not fire off a retaliatory strike, there's simply no way to predict the responses of individuals, and the deterrence value of a possible retaliatory strike is as high or almost as high as a guaranteed retaliatory strike. It's the Dirty Harry scenario.
You're missing the point behind the theory of MAD though Pri.
What the captain does after the missles are in the air is irrelevant. Once either side takes action MAD is done.
The point is that both sides know they'd both be wiped out in a conflict. All you have to have is the capacity.
Here's the problem. In order to know that you'll be wiped out, you also have to know that the other side is willing to counterattack. However, it makes no logical sense to counterattack, unless you really want to destroy the other side. That's what I was talking about before. That's why I was saying that MAD only works when both sides assume that the other side is quite bloodthirsty. If they're not willing to use their capacity to counterattack, it might as well not exist.
So wait, your problem with MAD is that both sides assume that the other side are not emotionless robots and would be pissed if their country was wiped out? And even if they are emotionless robots, they would still follow the set military doctrine and their orders?
Yeah, uh...I'm seeing the holes right there. :?
It's a valid strategy from both emotional and strategic viewpoint. Emotional because they just killed everyone you know and your whole training screams at yout to respond, strategic because you are not going to let your enemy rule the world if your country is gone.
Not maybe up to either anyway if the dead man's switch systems are operating. So it's perfectly logical to assume that your enemy will strike back no matter what, even if the only person left is Robot Jesus.
It's been successful for roughly 30 years, from the time at which we had enough nuclear firepower for it to work, until the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is what I call a temporary success. It is a logical fallacy to say that because a strategy has worked for 30 years, it will then work forever.
Nah, it's a logical fallacy to say that "it will suddenly not work in the future because..."
And it honestly started from the moment Soviet Union detonated it's first nuke, it just took some time to realize it's meaning. Macnamara coined the term in 1960's so it is at the very least fifty years. And MAD is still working, there is just not as much hostility between the sides, which there are more then two right now.
Meh. It seems strange to me to say that we're still using MAD against Russia these days, since we're supposed to be allies with them. But we can call it 50 years if you want. The point is the same- just because we haven't had nuclear warfare while using MAD doesn't mean that MAD will prevent nuclear warfare forever.
Vietnam? U.S. never entered North Vietnam in Vietnam War because they were afraid of a reprisal from the Communist bloc.
Afghanistan? U.S. never did anything else but clandestinely train and equip the Mujahideen, it never was fully involved in it. Soviets withdrew in the end.
Cuban Missile Crisis is the primary reason why MAD works, and the first realization what was at stake. It resulted into the first open phone connection between the two opposing sides.
And again, there was not a single time U.S. and Soviet troops had a direct conflict.
We came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war on several occasions, and that's what really worries me. The strategies involved meant that any direct conflict would have resulted in a massive nuclear war- no other option was possible.
I know how it works. I don't think you understood my argument. Let's get back to my original argument then- Let's say that you're a sub captain who's just been told that the your country was destroyed by a surprise nuclear First Strike. What do you do? Do you obey orders to counterattack the country that attacked you?
Yes? Because by that point MAD has already started and the other country is in flames as well?
Why? I'd like a response from you on this. If you decide not to launch your nuclear missiles, several millions of Russians could be saved. Why would you choose to kill them, if you have the choice?
The thing you are missing is that, even if it is very likely that sub commanders might not fire off a retaliatory strike, there's simply no way to predict the responses of individuals, and the deterrence value of a possible retaliatory strike is as high or almost as high as a guaranteed retaliatory strike. It's the Dirty Harry scenario.
Maybe. We could probably assume that only a small fraction of the military commanders would actually launch their nukes when ordered. That works if you assume that your country being attacked by nukes at all is an unacceptable outcome. Most people would agree, anything that results in millions of lives lost is not acceptable. However, the really hardcore cold warriors would be willing to accept that, if it meant wiping out the enemy (and preventing a first strike from the enemy). To deter people like that, you need the credible threat of wiping out your enemy completely with a second strike.
You're missing the point behind the theory of MAD though Pri.
What the captain does after the missles are in the air is irrelevant. Once either side takes action MAD is done.
The point is that both sides know they'd both be wiped out in a conflict. All you have to have is the capacity.
Here's the problem. In order to know that you'll be wiped out, you also have to know that the other side is willing to counterattack. However, it makes no logical sense to counterattack, unless you really want to destroy the other side. That's what I was talking about before. That's why I was saying that MAD only works when both sides assume that the other side is quite bloodthirsty. If they're not willing to use their capacity to counterattack, it might as well not exist.
So wait, your problem with MAD is that both sides assume that the other side are not emotionless robots and would be pissed if their country was wiped out? And even if they are emotionless robots, they would still follow the set military doctrine and their orders?
Yeah, uh...I'm seeing the holes right there. :?
It's a valid strategy from both emotional and strategic viewpoint. Emotional because they just killed everyone you know and your whole training screams at yout to respond, strategic because you are not going to let your enemy rule the world if your country is gone.
Not maybe up to either anyway if the dead man's switch systems are operating. So it's perfectly logical to assume that your enemy will strike back no matter what, even if the only person left is Robot Jesus.
I would say that my problem is that it only works when you assume that the other side is kind of irrational, and really hates you. If you assume that the other side is perfectly rational, it no longer works.
Meh. It seems strange to me to say that we're still using MAD against Russia these days, since we're supposed to be allies with them. But we can call it 50 years if you want. The point is the same- just because we haven't had nuclear warfare while using MAD doesn't mean that MAD will prevent nuclear warfare forever.
But there isn't a single reason to believe that it doesn't. The point remains the same. It's up to you to prove otherwise which is kind of hard since last I checked there aren't smoking craters on the place of all the cities in the world.
We came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war on several occasions, and that's what really worries me. The strategies involved meant that any direct conflict would have resulted in a massive nuclear war- no other option was possible.
Not a single proxy war came anywhere close to nuclear war.
Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a proxy war and the imminent risk was an invasion of Cuba, and nuclear war afterwards. Not exactly depending on a single button. Closest ever, and only Strategic Air Command went past DEFCON 3.
If that's the worst example, still not much leg to stand on.
And you realize that your last sentence is pretty much the description of MAD?
Why? I'd like a response from you on this. If you decide not to launch your nuclear missiles, several millions of Russians could be saved. Why would you choose to kill them, if you have the choice?
Well, hard to say because I am not a sub captain and after the training I wouldn't think the same way I do right now, especially if I was staring armageddon in the face.
But if I would have to guess, I would say because those were my orders. After that I would probably put a bullet into my head, I'd imagine. Or if I were a more ruthless man go hunting enemy subs.
Hard to even imagine something like that to happen - one of the reasons why MAD is so successful.
I would say that my problem is that it only works when you assume that the other side is kind of irrational, and really hates you.
What else would you assume they would feel about you after you turned their country into a parking lot? I mean look what happened with 9/11. Two invaded countries, millions dead, and Americans only lost 3000 people.
If you assume that the other side is perfectly rational, it no longer works.
There are several perfectly rational strategic reasons to do the same to the other country.
You realize that counting the cost of humanity and valuing lives in a warfare situation is not really rational in the military sense? If wars were fought rationally, every one of them would be genocide. Thank god we have emotions.
Either way, rational or irrational, MAD ensures that if you nuke someone they will nuke you. Because the robotic systems at the very least will just follow zeroes and ones, which tell them that Moscow has to go bye bye.
We could probably assume that only a small fraction of the military commanders would actually launch their nukes when ordered.
No.
You can be pretty damn sure they're all letting fly.
This is America, the military brass fetishizes civilian control and chain of command. And you know we pack our nuclear weapons programs with people who take chain of command even more seriously.
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
This is an incredibly... simplistic... view. Nuclear sub captains are highly educated and have gone through numerous psychological and security checks to make sure they're pretty much the opposite of a "bloodthirsty asshole." But, they also take very seriously the notion of civilian control over the military and will not substitute their judgment for that of the President, except in extreme cases.
Way to miss the point. My point was that MAD doesn't work, the way it's currently structured. It requires a sort of lapse in logic to make it work.
But MAD does work....
I mean you'd have to be pretty much blind to the last 50 years of human history to claim otherwise.
I've driven without a seatbelt at least 50 times. I guess driving without a seatbelt is also a good idea?
edit: A better example is housing market derivatives. For several years, they were a completetely safe investment with no risk. There's never any problems until the first problem happens.
Your point seemed to be that you'd kind of have to be a bloodthirsty asshole to fire nukes back in response to a first strike by your enemies. Even if that's true, your enemies simply can't be sure that you won't shoot back.
And it's almost impossible for one side to take out the other's nuclear capabilities. Even if the Russkies got the drop on us and blew up all our land- and bomber-based nukes they have no way of finding our Ohio-Class subs, which can each deliver 192 100 kiloton warheads. And we have 14 of those boats.
MAD works because you're dealing with rational actors who can look at the risks involved and realize that there's no way to fight a nuclear war without both sides getting wiped out.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I thought part of MAD was having the capacity to deliver a counterstrike even if the majority of the population and leadership was already wiped out.
The Nash Equilibrium stable form of MAD requires second strike capability, yeah. If one side acquires first strike capability - that is instant wipeout with no chance of retaliation, it makes the other side more likely to start something rather than less because they'll be fucked if they aren't the ones starting it. The latter is one of the main reasons why the whole missile defense shield is such a touchy subject, because by getting one party closer to something resembling first-strike capability, it represents a deviation from the stable situation.
(Nash Equilibrium strategy being a strategy in which neither player is served by unilaterally deviating from that strategy, either by launching first or by disarming or by "over-arming" and gaining first strike capability)
Meh. It seems strange to me to say that we're still using MAD against Russia these days, since we're supposed to be allies with them. But we can call it 50 years if you want. The point is the same- just because we haven't had nuclear warfare while using MAD doesn't mean that MAD will prevent nuclear warfare forever.
But there isn't a single reason to believe that it doesn't. The point remains the same. It's up to you to prove otherwise which is kind of hard since last I checked there aren't smoking craters on the place of all the cities in the world.
Yes I've been attempting to prove otherwise through this whole thread. Do you at least agree with the general idea that a strategy might work temporarily, but fail in the long term? If you don't, I can give you a LOT of examples of strategies like that. Like getting lucky at gambling.
We came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war on several occasions, and that's what really worries me. The strategies involved meant that any direct conflict would have resulted in a massive nuclear war- no other option was possible.
Not a single proxy war came anywhere close to nuclear war.
Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a proxy war and the imminent risk was an invasion of Cuba, and nuclear war afterwards. Not exactly depending on a single button. Closest ever, and only Strategic Air Command went past DEFCON 3.
If that's the worst example, still not much leg to stand on.
[/QUOTE]
In the paper that I linked to earlier, a nuclear expert was commisioned by the government to study the risk of nuclear warfare. His conclusion was the the Cuban Missile Crisis had a 1/3 chance of turning into a nuclear war.
Before that was the Korean War. Douglas McArthur, the top US commander, wanted permission to use nukes against China, even though he knew it would make the Soviets really angry.
Why? I'd like a response from you on this. If you decide not to launch your nuclear missiles, several millions of Russians could be saved. Why would you choose to kill them, if you have the choice?
Well, hard to say because I am not a sub captain and after the training I wouldn't think the same way I do right now, especially if I was staring armageddon in the face.
But if I would have to guess, I would say because those were my orders. After that I would probably put a bullet into my head, I'd imagine. Or if I were a more ruthless man go hunting enemy subs.
Hard to even imagine something like that to happen - one of the reasons why MAD is so successful.
It seems like you're giving me a copout here by saying that you can't possibly imagine that that's like, or that military commanders have been brainwashed so that they can't think normally.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed.
Again, thats not the point.
Lets say I'm Russia and I want to nuke the US. Am I willing to risk the end of the world to do so? Of course not.
It doesn't matter whether the US ends up retaliating or not, if theres any chance they will I won't attack.
MAD has nothing to do with what happens after the missles go off and everything to do with the other sides capacity to retaliate and the greater than 0 chance they will do so.
You're seriously underestimating how mad you would be if you just found out that your wife, parents, children, favorite high school teacher, and dog were just incinerated.
It's an irrationality, but it's a guaranteed irrationality.
There's also the chance that launching your missles now will minimize the second size of the second strike and at least save your cat, mother-in-law, and ex-girlfriend.
So , for MAD to work, you need to have military led by bloodthirsty assholes who really want to nuke the enemy, and are just looking for an excuse to do so. That's why I don't trust MAD as a solution for long-term safety.
This is an incredibly... simplistic... view. Nuclear sub captains are highly educated and have gone through numerous psychological and security checks to make sure they're pretty much the opposite of a "bloodthirsty asshole." But, they also take very seriously the notion of civilian control over the military and will not substitute their judgment for that of the President, except in extreme cases.
Way to miss the point. My point was that MAD doesn't work, the way it's currently structured. It requires a sort of lapse in logic to make it work.
But MAD does work....
I mean you'd have to be pretty much blind to the last 50 years of human history to claim otherwise.
I've driven without a seatbelt at least 50 times. I guess driving without a seatbelt is also a good idea?
edit: A better example is housing market derivatives. For several years, they were a completetely safe investment with no risk. There's never any problems until the first problem happens.
Your point seemed to be that you'd kind of have to be a bloodthirsty asshole to fire nukes back in response to a first strike by your enemies. Even if that's true, your enemies simply can't be sure that you won't shoot back.
And it's almost impossible for one side to take out the other's nuclear capabilities. Even if the Russkies got the drop on us and blew up all our land- and bomber-based nukes they have no way of finding our Ohio-Class subs, which can each deliver 192 100 kiloton warheads. And we have 14 of those boats.
MAD works because you're dealing with rational actors who can look at the risks involved and realize that there's no way to fight a nuclear war without both sides getting wiped out.
But the submarines only work if the captains are willing to fire the missiles. There's no automated system for launching submarine-based nukes, right? And it's the choice of those sub captains that I'm talking about here. For them, the choice to counterattack is an irrational choice. So to scare the Soviets away from making a first strike against us, we have to convince them that our military commanders are somewhat irrational actors. That's why I used the phrase "bloodthirsty assholes".
It seems like you're giving me a copout here by saying that you can't possibly imagine that that's like, or that military commanders have been brainwashed so that they can't think normally.
Nuclear sub commanders have spent their whole careers training to be the USA's untouchable second-strike capacity. They know what their role is in our nuclear detterence arsenal. They've gone through intensive training, an exhaustive security background check and numerous psychological exams to make sure that they will launch their nukes when ordered to do so (and only then). I assure you, that if that horrible day rolls around, they'll turn the key and fire off more destructive power than has been released in all of human history.
Seriously, do you think that you've stumbled onto some brilliant epiphany here? The Soviets were pretty sure that American nuke-handlers would do their job when push came to shove. Why do you think they didn't just nuke us, if that wasn't the case?
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
I'm not really sure if you have an understanding of how human beings work, if you think military commanders with the means to retaliate will just throw up their hands and do nothing in that situation.
More importantly, if you're the Soviets, or China, are you going to roll the dice on the assumption that every American nuke-handler will just say "fuck it?"
But the submarines only work if the captains are willing to fire the missiles. There's no automated system for launching submarine-based nukes, right? And it's the choice of those sub captains that I'm talking about here. For them, the choice to counterattack is an irrational choice. So to scare the Soviets away from making a first strike against us, we have to convince them that our military commanders are somewhat irrational actors. That's why I used the phrase "bloodthirsty assholes".
If another country had just launched an attack that was going to wipe out everyone you know and love, why wouldn't you turn the key? Especially if, you know, you'd spent your entire career training for that moment.
Seriously, you think guys who have doubts about the job end up as skipper on an Ohio-class sub?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Yes I've been attempting to prove otherwise through this whole thread. Do you at least agree with the general idea that a strategy might work temporarily, but fail in the long term? If you don't, I can give you a LOT of examples of strategies like that. Like getting lucky at gambling.
Yes, but until you can actually demonstrate why it would fail (gambling is demonstratable), you are simply wildly guessing. Some strategies can and have worked for thousands of years.
In the paper that I linked to earlier, a nuclear expert was commisioned by the government to study the risk of nuclear warfare. His conclusion was the the Cuban Missile Crisis had a 1/3 chance of turning into a nuclear war.
Before that was the Korean War. Douglas McArthur, the top US commander, wanted permission to use nukes against China, even though he knew it would make the Soviets really angry.
If that's not coming close, I don't know what is.
Yes, CMC was the closest one. And he says that the 1/3 chance is to lead into a major crisis (in this case invasion of Cuba, which never happened), and THEN there would be ten to 50 percent possibility of a nuclear war.
I'm not really sure what a 1/3 chance here even means though, or how you could even measure something like that. Looking at the article they simply seem to be random calculations. His reasons for calculating those seem to be haphazard as well, like the ridicolous idea that Iran or North Korea would hand nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.
And McArthur was a crazy person and Truman fired him for that crazy idea.
It seems like you're giving me a copout here by saying that you can't possibly imagine that that's like, or that military commanders have been brainwashed so that they can't think normally.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
Not a copout. I can't imagine it and neither can you.
And plenty of logical reasons
- Because those are your orders and you are a member of a military
- Because all the countermeasures mean that the opposing country will get nuked anyway
- Because that country is your enemy and you want to curtail their future strategic prospects
From military standpoint there is nothing more logical then to press the button. And we are talking about military men who have trained for this their entire life. Their emotions and orders tell them to do that.
You want a real world, actual honest-to-god nuclear examples? Enola Gay. Bockscar.
Sombody mention McArthur and the Korean war. Yes, he wanted nukes released so he could drop them on the Chinese in NK. BUT he ended up getting fired because of his demands. A unpopular president fired his most popular commander because he wanted to use nukes. If thats not MAD in action....
Besides you don't need bloodthirsty people at the launch controls for MAD to work. MAD would work with perfectly reasonable people too. A subcaptain getting launch orders would only get his launch orders. He wouldn't know if it was a preemtive strike, retalitory strike or part of a general nuclear war. There are multiple scenarios where him launching his nukes could be the best way to prevent a greater catastrophe.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It seems like you're giving me a copout here by saying that you can't possibly imagine that that's like, or that military commanders have been brainwashed so that they can't think normally.
Nuclear sub commanders have spent their whole careers training to be the USA's untouchable second-strike capacity. They know what their role is in our nuclear detterence arsenal. They've gone through intensive training, an exhaustive security background check and numerous psychological exams to make sure that they will launch their nukes when ordered to do so (and only then). I assure you, that if that horrible day rolls around, they'll turn the key and fire off more destructive power than has been released in all of human history.
You're probably right about this part- I'm sure the military goes to a great deal of effort to make sure that the sub commanders are the kind of men who would not hesitate at all to launch the nukes when ordered. It still doesn't change my opinion that our national strategy is to count on those people to do an illogical action, which makes the whole MAD strategy somewhat illogical.
Seriously, do you think that you've stumbled onto some brilliant epiphany here? The Soviets were pretty sure that American nuke-handlers would do their job when push came to shove. Why do you think they didn't just nuke us, if that wasn't the case?
I'm sure other people have thought of this before. However I don't have a great deal of faith in the cold warriors to make perfect decisions all the time. They were the same people who led us into the clusterfuck of Vietnam, after all. I think the main reason we avoided a nuclear war with the Soviets was that they didn't want a nuclear war any more than we did. And what MacNamara said about luck.
For what it's worth, I can't think of a better alternative strategy. Maybe MAD is just the best we can do for now, even if it's flawed.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
I'm not really sure if you have an understanding of how human beings work, if you think military commanders with the means to retaliate will just throw up their hands and do nothing in that situation.
More importantly, if you're the Soviets, or China, are you going to roll the dice on the assumption that every American nuke-handler will just say "fuck it?"
What if they were convinced that the Americans were about to launch a first-strike, and their only chance of survival was hit us first? They might feel it's better to gamble on a chance of survival than to await a certain death.
Not a copout. I can't imagine it and neither can you.
And plenty of logical reasons
- Because those are your orders and you are a member of a military
- Because all the countermeasures mean that the opposing country will get nuked anyway
- Because that country is your enemy and you want to curtail their future strategic prospects
From military standpoint there is nothing more logical then to press the button. And we are talking about military men who have trained for this their entire life. Their emotions and orders tell them to do that.
You want a real world, actual honest-to-god nuclear examples? Enola Gay. Bockscar.
And that was when victory was inevitable.
You really think those are logical reasons? They basically boil down to:
- Do what your told, no matter what
- Most people are going to die anyway, a few million more won't matter
- I hate them and I want them to die
Enola Gay and Bockscar aren't comparable because they were not counterattacks after being completely destroyed.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
I'm not really sure if you have an understanding of how human beings work, if you think military commanders with the means to retaliate will just throw up their hands and do nothing in that situation.
More importantly, if you're the Soviets, or China, are you going to roll the dice on the assumption that every American nuke-handler will just say "fuck it?"
What if they were convinced that the Americans were about to launch a first-strike, and their only chance of survival was hit us first? They might feel it's better to gamble on a chance of survival than to await a certain death.
I think that's a different discussion from the one we're having. If you're convinced the other side was going to launch first, you might as well go ahead and pull the trigger.
But, keep in mind that the Soviets knew we had a better 2nd strike capability than they did. We were able to track their nuclear missile subs (they were not as quiet as ours, and had less ports to sail from, so our attack subs could track them) while ours went undetected. Even if they completely got the drop on our non-sub nukes, our boomers would still wipe them out. Near the end of the Cold War, there was a decent chance that we could have launched from our boomers in a suprise attack and "won" a nuclear war. But, "win" in that context would have meant losing millions of Americans, since a few Soviet nukes would have almost certainly have been launched.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
The idea of a terrorist organization developing a nuclear weapon on their own is so astronomically ridicolous of a prospect that I am not going to even go into the specifics. If Al-Qaida develops the GDP and industrial capabilities of a mid-sized country then something has gone wrong a long time ago.
The idea of a country starting a nuclear war without being bombed themselves is insane as well. We had plenty of practice in the Cold War due you can say "But they came close!" as many times as you like but the fact is that every time there is even a possibility of something like that the situation is gone through with such attention to detail and a fine comb that has never been seen in conventional warfare. And those close times happened without the modern recon and monitoring equipment that we have now, and they still didn't do it, even if a shitty radar somewhere screamed that Moscow was going to be obliterated any second now. Because they fucking knew that nobody is crazy enough to do it.
Yet somehow, people are ready to bomb a country and kill completely innocent people to avoid these completely non-existent possibilities and to stop the development of technology that their own nations possess and whose positive aspects they enjoy every living moment of their lives.
That really, really baffles me.
I've driven without a seatbelt at least 50 times. I guess driving without a seatbelt is also a good idea?
edit: A better example is housing market derivatives. For several years, they were a completetely safe investment with no risk. There's never any problems until the first problem happens.
You realize that can be applied to literally anything, right?
And I'm pretty sure many, many people who drove without seatbelt died as a consequence, you know, that's why they were invented in the first place...
Please don't make analogies with things that have nothing to do with each other.
If you think my analogy is bad, EXPLAIN WHY. Don't just call me Detharin, because that's really offensive to me. If you have a counter argument, give me that. What am I supposed to do when people criticize me and call me stupid, but offer nothing substantive? Should I just assume that I'm right, and ignore the criticism?
And DarkCrawler, the idea that because a strategy has been temporily succesful must make it a good strategy is a really common fallacy, especially for investment strategies. I didn't try to apply it to everything, I gave a logical explanation of why I believe MAD is flawed.
Not to mention you flat out claim MAD doesn't work which is stupid since, you know, its worked.
It has not been temporily successful, it has been successful since it's inception and has contributed into a world that is safer then ever before. It stopped any sort of military conflict between the Soviet Union and U.S. and stayed their hand in many of the proxy wars. It resulted into greatest dialogue between two ideologically and culturally opposed superpowers in the history of the world.
Again, not seeing a reason to doubt it here. And
is not a logical explanation because that is not how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction is perhaps the most pragmatic and cerebral portion of foreign relations ever. Simply cold calculation. Nothing bloodthirsty about it.
I disagree. If we can agree that at the very least MAD is analogous to a global-scale Mexican stand-off then having not acquired nuclear weapons will mean that you are not a threat to the other nuclear nations which would make you a low or no value launch target. To keep with the Mexican Stand-off analogy, I think the best way to avoid getting shot is to not have a gun in the first place.
Also, is anyone else a little disappointed by the thread title? I came in here thinking we would talk about nuclear technology and not just the technology of nuclear warfare. Being a Nuclear Energy Worker I figured I'd have a whole lot of cool stuff to say
Well, ignoring Vietnam and Afghanistan and numerous other crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis... Part of the problem with this strategy is that it reduces the chance of a conventional war by increasing the risk of nuclear armageddon. Once again I'll go back to my Housing Derivitive analogy, which was a strategy that decreased the chance of a short term loss while also increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss.
I know how it works. I don't think you understood my argument. Let's get back to my original argument then- Let's say that you're a sub captain who's just been told that the your country was destroyed by a surprise nuclear First Strike. What do you do? Do you obey orders to counterattack the country that attacked you?
What the captain does after the missles are in the air is irrelevant. Once either side takes action MAD is done.
The point is that both sides know they'd both be wiped out in a conflict. All you have to have is the capacity.
Nah, it's a logical fallacy to say that "it will suddenly not work in the future because..."
And it honestly started from the moment Soviet Union detonated it's first nuke, it just took some time to realize it's meaning. Macnamara coined the term in 1960's so it is at the very least fifty years. And MAD is still working, there is just not as much hostility between the sides, which there are more then two right now.
Vietnam? U.S. never entered North Vietnam in Vietnam War because they were afraid of a reprisal from the Communist bloc.
Afghanistan? U.S. never did anything else but clandestinely train and equip the Mujahideen, it never was fully involved in it. Soviets withdrew in the end.
Cuban Missile Crisis is the primary reason why MAD works, and the first realization what was at stake. It resulted into the first open phone connection between the two opposing sides.
And again, there was not a single time U.S. and Soviet troops had a direct conflict.
Yes? Because by that point MAD has already started and the other country is in flames as well?
Here's the problem. In order to know that you'll be wiped out, you also have to know that the other side is willing to counterattack. However, it makes no logical sense to counterattack, unless you really want to destroy the other side. That's what I was talking about before. That's why I was saying that MAD only works when both sides assume that the other side is quite bloodthirsty. If they're not willing to use their capacity to counterattack, it might as well not exist.
The thing is, your ability to fire back doesn't actually change this situation. You're still dead. Everyone you know is still dead. All you can do at this point is kill a few million people who you've never met, most of which is just trying to get on with their lives, same as the people you knew.
There is nothing rational about that kind of nihilism. It is bloodthirst on a level that surpasses anything we've ever thought of before - hell, it almost makes the Holocaust look good, because at least then, someone would be alive.
Now, the non-credible threat of MAD, that's a whole different story. But that rational threat essentially boils down to threatening to be really, really fucking irrational if the other side is. How you act against rational threats of irrationality (where your expectation of the opponents willingness to obey the former goes against the idea that he'll use the later) is ultimately a matter of beliefs, and as Pi-r8 said, one of the ways of influencing this belief is putting people who would genuinely pull that trigger in a position where they could.
I'm not saying it doesn't work - in fact, the main reason the threat does work is that we aren't completely rational players, and there's plenty of people perfectly willing to engage in the required act of nihilism - but... As Pi-r8 notes it's pretty sketchy and based on essentially assuming your opponents aren't rational.
Again, its not logical to label that bloodthirsty.
You do what you have to do to defend your nation.
If you don't retaliate you can be sure you're just going to keep getting hit even harder.
The thing you are missing is that, even if it is very likely that sub commanders might not fire off a retaliatory strike, there's simply no way to predict the responses of individuals, and the deterrence value of a possible retaliatory strike is as high or almost as high as a guaranteed retaliatory strike. It's the Dirty Harry scenario.
So wait, your problem with MAD is that both sides assume that the other side are not emotionless robots and would be pissed if their country was wiped out? And even if they are emotionless robots, they would still follow the set military doctrine and their orders?
Yeah, uh...I'm seeing the holes right there. :?
It's a valid strategy from both emotional and strategic viewpoint. Emotional because they just killed everyone you know and your whole training screams at yout to respond, strategic because you are not going to let your enemy rule the world if your country is gone.
Not maybe up to either anyway if the dead man's switch systems are operating. So it's perfectly logical to assume that your enemy will strike back no matter what, even if the only person left is Robot Jesus.
We came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war on several occasions, and that's what really worries me. The strategies involved meant that any direct conflict would have resulted in a massive nuclear war- no other option was possible.
Why? I'd like a response from you on this. If you decide not to launch your nuclear missiles, several millions of Russians could be saved. Why would you choose to kill them, if you have the choice?
Maybe. We could probably assume that only a small fraction of the military commanders would actually launch their nukes when ordered. That works if you assume that your country being attacked by nukes at all is an unacceptable outcome. Most people would agree, anything that results in millions of lives lost is not acceptable. However, the really hardcore cold warriors would be willing to accept that, if it meant wiping out the enemy (and preventing a first strike from the enemy). To deter people like that, you need the credible threat of wiping out your enemy completely with a second strike.
But there isn't a single reason to believe that it doesn't. The point remains the same. It's up to you to prove otherwise which is kind of hard since last I checked there aren't smoking craters on the place of all the cities in the world.
Not a single proxy war came anywhere close to nuclear war.
Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a proxy war and the imminent risk was an invasion of Cuba, and nuclear war afterwards. Not exactly depending on a single button. Closest ever, and only Strategic Air Command went past DEFCON 3.
If that's the worst example, still not much leg to stand on.
And you realize that your last sentence is pretty much the description of MAD?
Well, hard to say because I am not a sub captain and after the training I wouldn't think the same way I do right now, especially if I was staring armageddon in the face.
But if I would have to guess, I would say because those were my orders. After that I would probably put a bullet into my head, I'd imagine. Or if I were a more ruthless man go hunting enemy subs.
Hard to even imagine something like that to happen - one of the reasons why MAD is so successful.
Can't one or two modern day Submarines deliver an almost 100% devastating blow to any other country?
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
What else would you assume they would feel about you after you turned their country into a parking lot? I mean look what happened with 9/11. Two invaded countries, millions dead, and Americans only lost 3000 people.
There are several perfectly rational strategic reasons to do the same to the other country.
You realize that counting the cost of humanity and valuing lives in a warfare situation is not really rational in the military sense? If wars were fought rationally, every one of them would be genocide. Thank god we have emotions.
Either way, rational or irrational, MAD ensures that if you nuke someone they will nuke you. Because the robotic systems at the very least will just follow zeroes and ones, which tell them that Moscow has to go bye bye.
No.
You can be pretty damn sure they're all letting fly.
This is America, the military brass fetishizes civilian control and chain of command. And you know we pack our nuclear weapons programs with people who take chain of command even more seriously.
And it's almost impossible for one side to take out the other's nuclear capabilities. Even if the Russkies got the drop on us and blew up all our land- and bomber-based nukes they have no way of finding our Ohio-Class subs, which can each deliver 192 100 kiloton warheads. And we have 14 of those boats.
MAD works because you're dealing with rational actors who can look at the risks involved and realize that there's no way to fight a nuclear war without both sides getting wiped out.
Rigorous Scholarship
You'd have a good half hour after ICBMs were launched before they hit
Plenty of time to launch your own arsenal in response.
(Nash Equilibrium strategy being a strategy in which neither player is served by unilaterally deviating from that strategy, either by launching first or by disarming or by "over-arming" and gaining first strike capability)
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Not a single proxy war came anywhere close to nuclear war.
Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a proxy war and the imminent risk was an invasion of Cuba, and nuclear war afterwards. Not exactly depending on a single button. Closest ever, and only Strategic Air Command went past DEFCON 3.
If that's the worst example, still not much leg to stand on.
[/QUOTE]
In the paper that I linked to earlier, a nuclear expert was commisioned by the government to study the risk of nuclear warfare. His conclusion was the the Cuban Missile Crisis had a 1/3 chance of turning into a nuclear war.
Before that was the Korean War. Douglas McArthur, the top US commander, wanted permission to use nukes against China, even though he knew it would make the Soviets really angry.
If that's not coming close, I don't know what is.
It seems like you're giving me a copout here by saying that you can't possibly imagine that that's like, or that military commanders have been brainwashed so that they can't think normally.
There's really no logical reason why anyone should order a nuclear counterstrike after your whole country is destroyed. Of course people do illogical things all the time- maybe they'd be angry, or scared, or blindly following orders, or they just don't understand the situation. But in relying on MAD to work, you have to really on people to do that illogical action.
Again, thats not the point.
Lets say I'm Russia and I want to nuke the US. Am I willing to risk the end of the world to do so? Of course not.
It doesn't matter whether the US ends up retaliating or not, if theres any chance they will I won't attack.
MAD has nothing to do with what happens after the missles go off and everything to do with the other sides capacity to retaliate and the greater than 0 chance they will do so.
It's an irrationality, but it's a guaranteed irrationality.
There's also the chance that launching your missles now will minimize the second size of the second strike and at least save your cat, mother-in-law, and ex-girlfriend.
But the submarines only work if the captains are willing to fire the missiles. There's no automated system for launching submarine-based nukes, right? And it's the choice of those sub captains that I'm talking about here. For them, the choice to counterattack is an irrational choice. So to scare the Soviets away from making a first strike against us, we have to convince them that our military commanders are somewhat irrational actors. That's why I used the phrase "bloodthirsty assholes".
I prefer "furious people whose higher brain processes are disabled by grief".
Seriously, do you think that you've stumbled onto some brilliant epiphany here? The Soviets were pretty sure that American nuke-handlers would do their job when push came to shove. Why do you think they didn't just nuke us, if that wasn't the case?
I'm not really sure if you have an understanding of how human beings work, if you think military commanders with the means to retaliate will just throw up their hands and do nothing in that situation.
More importantly, if you're the Soviets, or China, are you going to roll the dice on the assumption that every American nuke-handler will just say "fuck it?"
If another country had just launched an attack that was going to wipe out everyone you know and love, why wouldn't you turn the key? Especially if, you know, you'd spent your entire career training for that moment.
Seriously, you think guys who have doubts about the job end up as skipper on an Ohio-class sub?
Rigorous Scholarship
Yes, but until you can actually demonstrate why it would fail (gambling is demonstratable), you are simply wildly guessing. Some strategies can and have worked for thousands of years.
Yes, CMC was the closest one. And he says that the 1/3 chance is to lead into a major crisis (in this case invasion of Cuba, which never happened), and THEN there would be ten to 50 percent possibility of a nuclear war.
I'm not really sure what a 1/3 chance here even means though, or how you could even measure something like that. Looking at the article they simply seem to be random calculations. His reasons for calculating those seem to be haphazard as well, like the ridicolous idea that Iran or North Korea would hand nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.
And McArthur was a crazy person and Truman fired him for that crazy idea.
Not a copout. I can't imagine it and neither can you.
And plenty of logical reasons
- Because those are your orders and you are a member of a military
- Because all the countermeasures mean that the opposing country will get nuked anyway
- Because that country is your enemy and you want to curtail their future strategic prospects
From military standpoint there is nothing more logical then to press the button. And we are talking about military men who have trained for this their entire life. Their emotions and orders tell them to do that.
You want a real world, actual honest-to-god nuclear examples? Enola Gay. Bockscar.
And that was when victory was inevitable.
Besides you don't need bloodthirsty people at the launch controls for MAD to work. MAD would work with perfectly reasonable people too. A subcaptain getting launch orders would only get his launch orders. He wouldn't know if it was a preemtive strike, retalitory strike or part of a general nuclear war. There are multiple scenarios where him launching his nukes could be the best way to prevent a greater catastrophe.
I'm sure other people have thought of this before. However I don't have a great deal of faith in the cold warriors to make perfect decisions all the time. They were the same people who led us into the clusterfuck of Vietnam, after all. I think the main reason we avoided a nuclear war with the Soviets was that they didn't want a nuclear war any more than we did. And what MacNamara said about luck.
For what it's worth, I can't think of a better alternative strategy. Maybe MAD is just the best we can do for now, even if it's flawed.
What if they were convinced that the Americans were about to launch a first-strike, and their only chance of survival was hit us first? They might feel it's better to gamble on a chance of survival than to await a certain death.
- Do what your told, no matter what
- Most people are going to die anyway, a few million more won't matter
- I hate them and I want them to die
Enola Gay and Bockscar aren't comparable because they were not counterattacks after being completely destroyed.
Anyway I'm going to bed, talk to you guys later.
Man what humanity have you been hanging out with and how can I get there.
But, keep in mind that the Soviets knew we had a better 2nd strike capability than they did. We were able to track their nuclear missile subs (they were not as quiet as ours, and had less ports to sail from, so our attack subs could track them) while ours went undetected. Even if they completely got the drop on our non-sub nukes, our boomers would still wipe them out. Near the end of the Cold War, there was a decent chance that we could have launched from our boomers in a suprise attack and "won" a nuclear war. But, "win" in that context would have meant losing millions of Americans, since a few Soviet nukes would have almost certainly have been launched.
Rigorous Scholarship