Is M.A.D defunked.

a reply to: Coelacanth55

Poland would be on its own.

Poland will never be on its own.

a reply to: annonentity

The short answer is ,No ,MAD is still valid, and always will be.

a reply to: rigel4

Yes.. to rational people M.A.D. is valid. But I think we are seeing more and more non rational thinking. Add in various vested interests trying to control an outcome, and I think chaotic decisions can be made when various points get reached. Factor in messianic thinking and any rational conclusion gets tainted with it. Material loss can be overcome with alterntives, you just have to look for them and implement them. But the thinking that opens games and ceremononies with cult symbols , either sends the message that you are mad , or trying to make it look like you are for a desired result. Granted there is and always will be far more going on than we can know for certain ,but throw in non rational thinking and not many outcomes can be predicted with any high degree of probability, I think that's where we are at the present state of affairs.

a reply to: annonentity

This is especially good reasoning for why we can't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Most of the current nuclear states are rational actors. Iran is ruled by religious zealots.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The rejoiner is that Iran already has Nukes.

Long as the subs are still in operation MAD is alive and well.

That said I am not certain Russia could take poland solo unless they nuked it drove into the radiation and raised a flag over the ashes.

Irrational despots and little green men aside, how effective are modern anti-ballistic missile systems? I can't imagine that any strategic bombers (from any side in a major war) would make it to their targets, which leaves the land-based and submarine launched missiles, and maybe Chinese balloon-delivery platforms. If there's high confidence that these can be intercepted, M.A.D. almost certainly goes away. If the enemy believes that very few of your 1000 warheads will ever hit their targets, what sort of deterrence is that? Are the weapons being updated to counter modern interception technologies?

a reply to: hrondil

The problem with a first strike is that they will come with a lot of decoys, you would have to have enough antibalistics to take all of them out plus the real ones.

a reply to: annonentity

It's estimated that the United States would intercept only about 10% of incoming warheads in a first-strike scenario.

And the United Kingdom currently lacks a comprehensive missile defense system capable of reliably intercepting and destroying ICBM.

Again nuclear war is a mugs game and there would be no real winners under any sort of full-blown nuclear exchange.

a reply to: annonentity

That's a fair point, I sincerely hope that we do have enough to get them all. Or have systems to take them out before the MIRVs leave the bus.

a reply to: hrondil

You dont have anywhere near enough.

Thats a fact.