Examples:
The fear of Mutually Assured Destruction helped prevent direct conflict.
military, US) mutual deterrence between countries possessing nuclear weapons, based on the capacity of each to inflict major damage on the other in response to a first strike
-------------------------------------------------
Example Sentences Including 'mutual assured destruction'
MAD, mutual assured destruction , was the name given to this doctrine that was designed to ensure peace.
Grenville, J. A. S. The Collins History of the World in the 20th Century
Some will point to Cold War history and conclude that a state of mutual assured destruction is better than war. mutual assured destruction
n.
Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
The Nuclear Doctrine of MAD
When the atom was split, a Pandora's box was opened. This scientific advancement led to the development of the atomic bomb -- humankind had never before possessed such a destructive weapon. The United States was the first to successfully develop the atomic bomb and the first to show the bomb's level of devastation when it unleashed two on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan. Other nations scrambled to catch up; in the hands of just one country, this technology could arguably give that country control over the rest of the world.
Within eight years, the USSR had its own nuclear weapon -- the hydrogen bomb [source: Murray]. The ideological conflict between capitalism and communism sustained tensions between the U.S. and the USSR, and this prolonged conflict between the nations became known as the Cold War. From 1947 to 1991, the nations built up their nuclear arms, each expanding its arsenal in pace with the other. It was soon clear that both sides had built and stockpiled enough nuclear warheads that the U.S. and USSR could wipe out each other (and the rest of the world) several times over. They had reached nuclear parity, or a state of equally destructive capabilities.
As a result, the nuclear strategy doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) emerged in the mid-1960s. This doctrine was based upon the size of the countries' respective nuclear arsenals and their unwillingness to destroy civilization. MAD was unique at the time. Never before had two warring nations held the potential to erase humanity with the entry of a few computer codes and the turn of matching keys. Ironically, it was this powerful potential that guaranteed the world's safety: Nuclear capability was a deterrent against nuclear war.
Because the U.S. and the USSR both had enough nuclear missiles to clear each other from the map, neither side could strike first. A first strike guaranteed a retaliatory counterstrike from the other side. So launching an attack would be tantamount to suicide -- the first striking nation could be certain that its people would be annihilated, too.
The doctrine of MAD guided both sides toward deterrence of nuclear war. It could never be allowed to break out between the two nations. And it virtually guaranteed no conventional war would, either. Eventually, conventional tactics -- like non-nuclear missiles, tanks and troops -- would run out, and the inevitable conclusion of a nuclear strike would be reached. Since that end was deemed unacceptable by the Soviets and Americans, there was no chance of an engagement that could lead to this conclusion.
But MAD didn’t exactly create an atmosphere in which Soviet premiers and American presidents felt like they could shake hands and call the whole thing off. The nations had very little trust in each other -- and with good reason. Each side was steadily building its nuclear arsenal to remain an equal party in the MAD doctrine. A détente, or uneasy truce, developed between the U.S. and USSR. They were like two gunslinging foes, adrift alone in a life boat, each armed and unwilling to sleep.
So the situation had to be managed. On the next page, find out how nuclear proliferation was controlled.
Mutual Assured Destruction When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War had entered a new phase. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force, an unchallenged economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the | | | Soviets. In the new cold war, however, Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. Each side could destroy the other many times. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second. From MAD to SDI
MAD acctually acknowledged more than just nuclear parity. Both sides admitted their vulnerability and prepared early thinking on a concept that later became known as "Star Wars." As early as 1961 former secretary of defense Robert McNamara said: "If we could create an umbrella we would need it, no matter what it costs." In subsequent years, protecting strategic forces rather than the population appeared to be the morally wrong choice. When MAD lost its domestic credibility, the Reagan administration promised to work toward Mutual Assured Security (MAS) instead of relying on MAD. |
Mutual assured destruction
In the event, technological developments supported the second strike. Initially, long-range bombers had to be kept on continual alert to prevent them from being eliminated in a surprise attack. When ICBMs moved into full production in the early 1960s with such systems as the U.S. Titan and Minuteman I and the Soviet SS-7 and SS-8, they were placed in hardened underground silos so that it would require an unlikely direct hit to destroy them. Even less vulnerable were submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) such as the U.S. Polaris and the Soviet SS-N-5 and SS-N-6, which could take full advantage of the ocean expanses to hide from enemy attack.
Meanwhile, attempts to develop effective defenses against nuclear attack proved futile. The standards for antiaircraft defense in the nuclear age had to be much higher than for conventional air raids, since any penetration of the defensive screen would threaten the defender with catastrophe. Progress was made, using surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) such as the U.S. Nike series, in developing defenses against bombers, but the move to ICBMs, with their minimal warning time before impact, appeared to render the defensive task hopeless. Then, during the 1960s, advances in radars and long-range SAMs promised a breakthrough in antiballistic missile defense, but by the early 1970s these in turn had been countered by improvements in offensive missiles—notably multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIRVs), which could swamp any defenses. (The first MIRVed ICBMs were the U.S. Minuteman III and the Soviet SS-17.)
Measures of civil defense, which could offer little protection to the civilian populace against nuclear explosions and, at best, only some chance of avoiding exposure to nuclear fallout, also appeared hopeless in the face of the overwhelming destructive power being accumulated by both sides.
By the mid-1960s fears had eased of a technological arms race that might encourage either side to unleash a surprise attack. For the foreseeable future each side could eliminate the other as a modern industrial state. Robert McNamara, the U.S. secretary of defense for much of that decade, argued that so long as the two superpowers had confidence in their capacity for mutual assured destruction—an ability to impose “unacceptable damage,” defined as 25 percent of population and 50 percent of industry—the relationship between the two would be stable.
The need to maintain strategic stability influenced the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), which began in 1969 and became the centrepiece of Pres. Richard M. Nixon’s policy of détente with the Soviet Union. In 1972, with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the two sides agreed to ban nationwide antiballistic missile systems, thereby confirming the primacy of the offense. Attempts to consolidate the strategic standoff with a treaty limiting offensive weapons proved more difficult. (In 1972 only an interim freeze had been agreed upon.) The second round of talks was guided mainly by the concept of parity, by which a broad equality in destructive power would be confirmed. However, the difficulty in comparing the two nuclear arsenals, which differed in important respects, resulted in long and complex negotiations. A treaty called SALT II was agreed on in June 1979, but by this time détente was in decline, and it was dealt a final blow with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan at the end of that year. In addition, the strategic underpinnings of arms control had been undermined by a growing dissatisfaction in the United States with the principles of mutual assured destruction
Fifty years ago this week the idea of mutually assured nuclear destruction was outlined in a major speech. But how did this frightening concept of the Cold War fade from people's psyches?
Today the notion of all-out nuclear war is rarely discussed. There are concerns about Iran and North Korea's nuclear programmes and fears that terrorists might get hold of a nuclear bomb.
But the fear of a war in which the aim is to wipe out the entire population of an enemy has startlingly diminished.
In 1962, the concept of mutually assured destruction started to play a major part in the defence policy of the US. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, set out in a speech to the American Bar Foundation a theory of flexible nuclear response.
In essence it meant stockpiling a huge nuclear arsenal. In the event of a Soviet attack the US would have enough nuclear firepower to survive a first wave of nuclear strikes and strike back. The response would be so massive that the enemy would suffer "assured destruction".
Thus the true philosophy of nuclear deterrence was established. If the other side knew that initiating a nuclear strike would also inevitably lead to their own destruction, they would be irrational to press the button.
Continue reading the main story
Arms race between Soviet Union/Russia and the US since 1962
Nuclear
warheads (000s)
The US line only includes warheads in the Department of Defense stockpile, which was declassified in May 2010. Several thousand additional retired but intact warheads are awaiting dismantling, probably 3,500-4,500 as of August 2010.
Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
October 1962
October 1962 Cuban missile crisis - US blockades Cuba after photos show Soviet missile bases being built there.
May 1972
May 1972 Salt 1 (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) is signed by Nixon and Brezhnev
March 1983
March 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) is proposed by Reagan, threatening to alter the Cold War balance of power
December 1987
December 1987 Gorbachev and Reagan sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
December 1991
December 1991 the Soviet Union formally breaks up, two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall
In the past, wars had been fought by defeating your opponent on the battlefield by superior use of force. But MAD was a radical departure that trumped the conventional view of war.
The age of MAD heralded a new fear, with citizens knowing that they could be annihilated within a matter of minutes at the touch of a button several thousands of miles away.
"The central thing was the public had no control," says Dr Christopher Laucht, a lecturer in British history at Leeds University. "You were at the mercy of political decision makers. Apart from the fear that one side would do something stupid, there was also the fear of technology and the question of 'what if an accident happened'."
Continue reading the main story
The arms race
* US dropped first atom bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 1945, and three days later on Nagasaki * Estimated death toll between 150,000 and 250,000 * It took the USSR until 1949 to explode their own test bomb * Resulting arms race peaked in 1986 with global nuclear warheads numbering more than 69,000 * Arms race ended in 1991 with fall of the USSR
Eight months after McNamara's speech the notion of MAD was almost put to the test by the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the end both superpowers gave ground and the problem was averted but mankind had never come so close to doomsday.
Following a period of Cold War detente in the 1970s, tension rose again in the 1980s. By this point the Soviet Union had many more warheads, and it was commonly said that there were enough nuclear arms on Earth to wipe the planet out several times.
The fear of impending attack became a part of everyday conversation. Children speculated in the playground about the first signs of a nuclear attack - hair and fingernails falling out - and whether one could survive a nuclear winter.
In 1983 there were a number of Russian false alarms. The Soviet Union's early warning system mistakenly picked up a US missile coming into USSR airspace. In the same year, Nato's military planning operation Able Archer led some Russian commanders to conclude that a Nato nuclear launch was imminent.
A string of films and TV series in the 1980s - from WarGames, Threads, and When the Wind Blows - reflected these fears.
On the set of Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Sometimes the black humour emanated from unlikely places. In 1984 President Ronald Reagan famously said in a radio soundcheck: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Protesters in Khrushchev and Kennedy masks in 1962
The authorities tried to offer reassurance. In the UK a famous public information campaign Protect and Survive gave people advice on how to build a nuclear shelter. It was later satirised by When the Wind Blows, which portrayed an elderly couple building their shelter and perishing in the nuclear aftermath.
Two decades after the Cold War ended, there are still more than 17,000 nuclear warheads around the world, the majority still pointing back and forth between the US and Russia. But MAD as a public fear has disappeared.
"In the Cold War there was a small risk of utter nuclear catastrophe," says Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University.
Today the risk is not so much armageddon but a "slippery slope" of proliferation, he says. North Korea is thought to have around 10 warheads, Rogers notes, while Iran is thought to be close to a nuclear bomb.
Some have speculated Saudi Arabia could follow if Iran succeeds and it's been suggested that Israel already has more than 100 warheads.
Continue reading the main story
The deterrent effect?
In the National Review, Clifford D May writes: "During the Cold War, the United States adopted a strategic doctrine called MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The logic behind it was both perverse and compelling: So long as we were vulnerable to missile attack by the Soviets, and so long as the Soviets were vulnerable to missile attack by us, neither side would benefit by attacking first - on the contrary, a devastating retaliation would be assured. Assuming that both we and the Soviets were rational, the result would be a stand-off, stability, and peaceful coexistence.
"Veterans of the Cold War, still influential in the foreign-policy establishment and the Obama administration, believe that if this kind of deterrence worked then, it can work now.
"Missile-defence advocates - I list myself among them - counter that MAD is an idea whose time has come and gone."
The most serious stand-off today is not the US and Russia but the prospect of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which "tens of millions would die", Rogers suggests. And the danger in any of these regional disputes is that the US and Russia get sucked in and what began as a war between two neighbours goes global.
"The fear of nuclear war has diminished partly because the risk has receded significantly with the end of the Cold War," says Nick Bostrom, director of Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute. "But another factor might be simple changes in risk fashion - it becoming more popular recently to worry about global warming, for example."
More immediate worries are terrorist attack, pandemic disease, and economic meltdown.
Robert Harris in his recent novel The Fear Index examined the modern anxiety that fuses the threat of powerful technology with unbridled financial markets.
The main character, who runs a hedge fund, remarks: "Fear is driving the world as never before... The rise in market volatility, in our opinion, is a function of digitalisation, which is exaggerating human mood swings by the unprecedented dissemination of information via the internet."
These are modern fears that John F Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, leading the superpowers at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, would struggle to comprehend.
But the end of the Cold War hasn't removed the nuclear warheads. Relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated in recent years. China, whose nuclear programme is little understood in the West, is doubling its military spending. India and Pakistan remains a potential flashpoint. So why don't people fear nuclear war as they used to?
For many analysts the world is now a less stable place than it was during the Cold War. And all the major geopolitical confrontations still revolve around nuclear weapons, says Dr Nick Ritchie, lecturer in international security at the University of York.
"At least several hundred American and Russian nuclear missiles remain on 'hard alert' capable of being launched within minutes. Even if that isn't necessarily the policy or intent, the systems and practices remain in place."
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
With the Soviets increasing their power with more nuclear weapons, U.S. leaders now had to face the risk- if they dropped nuclear bombs, they would face an “all out nuclear counterattack”…
- 556 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
• Existing argument: Preemption is most likely path to armed conflict (Int’l system as primed powder keg, waiting for single spark to explode into war) BUT these claims have not been matched by extensive empirical scholarship, has not been proven.…
- 648 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
In the heat of the Cold War, in which the United States and the Soviet Union fought against each-other without any direct battles, and the tensions between the two countries were extremely high. The concept of brinkmanship, which is when both countries are at the brink of war for an extended period of time was exercised. This concept, of brinkmanship, stemmed from the invention of the nuclear weapon, as countries were now able to destroy entire civilizations. One of the most famous conflicts caused by nuclear weapons was the Cuban Missile Crisis (“Cuban Missile Crisis”). In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union brought nuclear missiles to Cuba, which is only 90 miles from the United States (“Distance from”).…
- 1681 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.…
- 5226 Words
- 21 Pages
Better Essays -
During this speech at the United Nations, the U.S. insisted that they will protect its allies by responding to military provocation “at places and with means of our own choosing” (Dulles, 1954). This was a military doctrine and a nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack. The policy announcement was further evidence of Eisenhower’s decision to rely heavily on the nation’s nuclear arsenal as the primary means of defense against communist aggression. Even though Eisenhower didn’t personally give the speech, he agreed 100%. This was another proof that Eisenhower’s all-or-nothing strategy threatened to turn the Soviet Union into a smoking, radiating ruin within 2 hours.…
- 892 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
A fundamental component of the proliferation debate revolves around the perceived or alleged efficiency of nuclear deterrence. Proliferation optimists argue that, “more may be better” because nuclear weapons increase the cost of nuclear conflict, ultimately deterring states from engaging in nuclear warfare with a nuclear-armed state (Suzuki 2015). Optimists argue that nuclear deterrence works reliably, thus there seemingly less to be feared from nuclear proliferation and beneficial to a state to…
- 581 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Bibliography: 1. Sanger, David E., Baker, Peter. “Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms”. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, April 5, 2010. Web. January 23, 2014.…
- 1791 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
The nuclear arms race: a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.…
- 568 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Georges Clemenceau once said “war is too important to be left to the generals.” In Dr. Strangelove, Col. Ripper remarks that now “war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought” but Kubrick’s message implies that war is too important to be left to anybody at all. So with the persistence of nuclear technology as weapons of mass destruction, the question arises: Do we, as decision-makers, have the restraint not to use such weapons on one another? The question remains unanswered, but if there is to be peace, we must remain cautious and aware of their implications. Nuclear technology gives humanity an incredible opportunity to move forward, but if misused, it could send all life on earth back to the stone…
- 1243 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
During the Cold War period there was a conflict between the Communist nations led by the Soviet Union and the democratic nations led by the United States. The United States and the Soviet Union represented two opposing government systems. One of the direct threats to the citizens of America was the possibility of a nuclear war because of the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence existed to show how horrible a full-blown nuclear exchange would possibly erupt. This began because Cuba received a nuclear missile from the Soviet Union and America was forced to protect itself at any cost. That problem was that even in the case of victory of a nuclear war, the fruits of victory would still be ashes in our mouths (Farber, 2012). No matter if we win or lose, if we enter a nuclear war, the world will be destructed.…
- 565 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The United States government had been warned that Nazi Germany had embarked on a program to create an atomic weapon. Germany had surrendered months prior to the intelligence reports, however the war against Japan was still intense. After creating and testing the atomic bomb, it was the responsibility of the President of the United States to make the decision to either use or not use the destructive power that is the atomic bomb. Using the atomic bomb was the correct decision, given an assessment of the facts and tests leading up to that determination and in light of the history leading up to that decision. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had received had written letters from Albert Einstein to warn the United States of Nazi Germany.…
- 1062 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
German sociologist Max Weber wrote of the Great War, “this war, with all its ghastliness, is nevertheless grand and wonderful. It is worth experiencing” (EP 768). Embellishing the heroism of warfare, Weber reflects a common acceptance of war in the early twentieth century as one of sport and necessity. However, with the development of nuclear arms came a paradigm shift concerning war and its role amid international powers. Acknowledging the destructive potential of nuclear warfare, Kennedy adamantly stated, “We were not going to misjudge or challenge the other side needlessly, or precipitously push our adversaries into a course of action that was not intended” (75). Using historical precedent as his guide, President Kennedy acts upon the belief that war is rarely intentional, while also recognizing the evolving dynamic of war as one of an arms struggle.…
- 1470 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
In response to the 911 terrorist attacks, president George W Bush recited a speech that described the specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Bush's speech later turned into what is now known as the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was used to indicate a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests and as an effort of spreading democracy at the global level. Following the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy relied on the concepts of “deterrence” and “containment”. In a world dominated by two superpowers, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), both armed with huge arsenals of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the policy of deterrence relied on mutual assured destruction (MAD) to prevent the outbreak of war.…
- 955 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
To better prepare for threats from weapon of mass destruction the United States should never under estimate the power and capability of foreign allies such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Iraq to strike the United States. In addition, the National Resource Defense Counsel Report should keep track of the nuclear warheads that each country has. As…
- 411 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Throughout the 20th century, humanity has witnessed monumental historical events. From the great depression, to the devastation of two world wars, to the Holocaust, all the way to the creation of a superweapon. However, The Cold War was a different and unique concept on its own. So unique, that humanity has entered a new chapter never discovered before. Throughout history, there was always conflict, but never before has a conflict of this magnitude and potential mutual destruction ever been observed before. “Human history is highly nonlinear and unpredictable” (Michael Shermer). Mr. Shermer’s quote is highly relevant in the Cold War, because at its height, both the United States and the…
- 1285 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays