Mutually Assured Destruction - Still viable?

During the “Cold War” there were two major “superpowers” who held the fate of the world in their hands in regard to nuclear capabilities. There probably were times during those four decades, or so, that each would have dearly loved to have annihilated the other were it not for the fear of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The United States and the Soviet Union were bitter enemies but they were enemies who understood and had a fair degree of respect for each other. They dominated the nuclear scene.

After the fall of the Soviet Union we all breathed a sigh of relief as we thought that we were once again safe from attack. That relief was to be short lived though as we soon began to realize that instead of there being a “superpower” in charge of the button, there were many smaller countries attempting to reorganize as sovereign nations. Many of them now had nuclear capabilities and material that they inherited from the former Soviet Union. They were also hungry and desperate to get re-established as nations in their own rights. Soon portions of that material began to go missing and when it did our world changed.

The only way that fear of mutually assured destruction (MAD) can be effective is if the enemy has territory and assets that can be identified and threatened. We had failed to appreciate the promise of security offered us by that threat during the “Cold War”. Now over 60 years into the “Nuclear Age” that technology has become almost common knowledge among nations and organizations who have no respect for those safeguards of restraint that we have learned to depend upon. This fact was driven painfully home on September 11, 2001 when representatives of just such an organization hijacked four commercial passenger jet liners to be used as weapons against us. This was done by an organization that represents a loose alliance of nations whose main bond is radical elements of one of the worlds’ major religions. Some of those nations now have nuclear capability while others sit on the brink of obtaining it. ‘MAD’ is no longer an effective deterrent.

Additionally, our leadership here in the U. S. has proved to us time and again that regardless of who’s in power, collectively they are not up to the task of leading us into that secure and prosperous future that we once believed to be our birthright.

What new dangers does the absence of the threat of mutually assured destruction pose and what can we do about it? Is there any way to defuse it or is it destined to blow? In what ways could we use the concept of MAD on a smaller scale in securing home defense?

Beautifully written points.

The problem with this newly rising threat is that the rewards and consequences have changed in a critical way.

In the case of MAD, The United States and the USSR held themselves in check simply because to wipe out the enemy meant to also wipe out themselves. (The very definition of MAD.)

Now we face a new threat where extremists believe themselves to be following a higher calling. To convert or kill all who don't already believe their beliefs. The reward is much greater than say vanquishing a super power and claiming bragging rights, this new threat is bringing religious zeal to a whole new level and they are willing to kill everyone in order to please their god.

Seventy-two virgins in paradise awaits the fanatical zealot (read Terrorist) who rids the world of the infidels. There is no sanctity of life to hold these new enemies in check. This new enemy flies no flag, wears no uniform, will murder civilians (including their own) to bring about The End Times.

They fight dirty, are not bound to the rules we bind ourselves. They don't stand out in fatigues and patches and flags. Martyrdom is like an embolism waiting to strike without warning. Invisibile, silent, and deadly. Consciousless. Amoral and unseen, until it's too late; they were already here.

"All the king's doctors and all the king's men tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again..."

2 very good posts on a very complex subject.

The thought of a full scale nuclear exchange does not frighten me. I'm a child of drop and cover.

What does scare me is the lone or very limited number of nuclear devices going off at random within the United States and the results of that action. Without a doubt, our response would be swift once we figured out where the nukes came from. Total devastation on their area of the planet. This is to be expected and will happen, but this is not what scares me.

Our response will severely limit personal freedoms for a long time and some may never come back. This is the scary part. How do Americans treat Americans in a desperate time of crisis. The government would go ape sh.. on basic rights trying to find terrorists.

It's a different mindset to think of the cold war era as also a golden age of peace.

The Cold War was raging at a time when technology severly limited tha accuracy of ballistic missile delivery systems. To make up for that, each side designed huge warheads in the 4+ megaton range. That way, even if they got only relatively close to a target the attack would succeed. The sheer size of these weapons (in mass and physical size) necessitated massive delivery systems.

These days, with sophisticated inertial guidance and satellite navigation, we can deliver weapons with amazing accuracy. This has allowed us to engineer smaller, lighter nukes that can be carried faster by smaller, lighter and more maneuverable missiles. Nowadays nukes are in the 100-200kt range.

MAD continues to work for the super powers because each knows the other has such a large number of weapons that even if they were able to strike successfully, the other would be able to strike back and inflict unacceptable damage. Our submarine launched nukes alone could devastate any country even after we were seriously nuked.

Smaller countries, rogue nations and terrorist groups simply cannot amass the numbers of weapons needed to truly devastate the USA. Absolutely, even popping-off a small number or even one would cause unimaginable destruction, loss of life and upheaval in the country. But we would most definitely survive. And IF the perpetrators were acting as part of a country they would know that country's fate when they acted --- they would be glassed. If they were terrorists their host nations would route them out post haste to avoid a similar fate.

The hysteria over Iran falls into this category. What if they DID build some nukes. Would they use them? Unlikely. They know without question that retaliation would be swift and immense. Would they attempt to stockpile? That would be a mistake.

So, yes, I believe MAD does continue to work even today. Using a nuke in today's world ---whether a nation or a terrorist --- is certain social, political and economic suicide.