3 of 4
3
Science of Peace
Posted: 05 February 2016 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
3point14rat - 29 January 2016 02:30 PM

“Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.” 
If both sides were rational they wouldn’t need them in the first place.  You can replace nuclear warheads with chocolate cake, and you get the same outcome, but you can eat the cake.

Excellent 3Point.  grin
The idea that MAD has efficacy is ridiculous. It’s supported by faulty logic.
That being, it worked so far so it will continue to do so in the future.
Plus we must analyze what is meant by “it’s worked so far” And that’s exactly where your “chocolate cake” analogy is as good as any other.
The logical point being that, what worked? We have no way of knowing, nor is there any evidence that shows that MAD was the reason why nuclear weapons have not been used so far(since WWII). In fact there are numerous other variables that could also be pointed to.

The concept of MAD is inherently awful to humanity. It gives justification for continuing to stockpile nukes. In the process it does nothing to stem the tide of multinational proliferation.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

Another one I heard on here before is that Nukes have been beneficial to mankind because they have prevented large wars-like WWII.
Kind of a MAD derivative.
If you take into account that the World has been STEADILY at war since WWII, with combined casualty rates that are just as bad as any could be, now what?
Nothing, again the MAD theory falls away. And were still left with the possibility of Nuclear War. Like we always have been.

[ Edited: 05 February 2016 10:37 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Stardusty Psyche - 05 February 2016 09:58 AM

But to your point, how do you go from the observation of the efficacy of MAD to “defend nuclear war”?  That is a non sequitur. 

Hi, Stardust. People like to do that around here. It’s disingenuous arguing. It’s rampant here by several people.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2012-07-13
VYAZMA - 05 February 2016 10:26 AM
3point14rat - 29 January 2016 02:30 PM

“Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.” 
If both sides were rational they wouldn’t need them in the first place.  You can replace nuclear warheads with chocolate cake, and you get the same outcome, but you can eat the cake.

Excellent 3Point.  grin
The idea that MAD has efficacy is ridiculous. It’s supported by faulty logic.
That being, it worked so far so it will continue to do so in the future.
Plus we must analyze what is meant by “it’s worked so far” And that’s exactly where your “chocolate cake” analogy is as good as any other.
The logical point being that, what worked? We have no way of knowing, nor is there any evidence that shows that MAD was the reason why nuclear weapons have not been used so far(since WWII). In fact there are numerous other variables that could also be pointed to.

The concept of MAD is inherently awful to humanity. It gives justification for continuing to stockpile nukes. In the process it does nothing to stem the tide of multinational proliferation.

Thanks. 

Like you, I also don’t mean that MAD is a completely useless solution to the problem.  It’s a horrible solution in most ways, but it is a solution of sorts.  It you know the other side is not rational and will only bow to force or fear, you almost have to use MAD.  It only takes one side to be irrational to make MAD a possible solution.  By all means work towards other solutions in the mean time and try to get out of the MAD mentality as soon as possible, but don’t dismiss it outright.

And yes, since we only have one history to learn from, we only have one data point to work with regarding methods like MAD.  Had the superpowers used other means of facing off, we might all be dead or we might be living in a way way better world, who knows?

 Signature 

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.  Edmund Way Teale, Circle of the Seasons

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 11:19 AM

Like you, I also don’t mean that MAD is a completely useless solution to the problem. 
And yes, since we only have one history to learn from, we only have one data point to work with regarding methods like MAD.  Had the superpowers used other means of facing off, we might all be dead or we might be living in a way way better world, who knows?

Small point here, hairsplitting if you will….
I do mean MAD is a completely useless “solution”...

But the thing is that MAD is not a “solution”.  It’s not a Method.
The US and the USSR didn’t sit down and work this “method” out.

So what I mean really is that MAD is a completely useless(and insulting)rationale.
WIKI-

The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible.[24][25][26] The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning,

Alternately there was no “official” doctrine of MAD in the US.
All MAD is and was is a way to justify Nuclear weapons arsenals on the idea that they keep us safe.
Where as you pointed out the only way to keep us safe would be to get rid of them.

All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario.
When in fact there were thousands of scenarios plotted and trained for that involved tactical usage of nukes.
And Military planners on both sides realized this.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  387
Joined  2015-11-28
VYAZMA - 05 February 2016 12:55 PM
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 11:19 AM

Like you, I also don’t mean that MAD is a completely useless solution to the problem. 
And yes, since we only have one history to learn from, we only have one data point to work with regarding methods like MAD.  Had the superpowers used other means of facing off, we might all be dead or we might be living in a way way better world, who knows?

Small point here, hairsplitting if you will….
I do mean MAD is a completely useless “solution”...

But the thing is that MAD is not a “solution”.  It’s not a Method.
The US and the USSR didn’t sit down and work this “method” out.

So what I mean really is that MAD is a completely useless(and insulting)rationale.
WIKI-

The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible.[24][25][26] The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning,

Alternately there was no “official” doctrine of MAD in the US.
All MAD is and was is a way to justify Nuclear weapons arsenals on the idea that they keep us safe.
Where as you pointed out the only way to keep us safe would be to get rid of them.

All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario.
When in fact there were thousands of scenarios plotted and trained for that involved tactical usage of nukes.
And Military planners on both sides realized this.

Are you saying that a radical religious fundamentalist, doesn’t matter which religion, who was the head of state of a nuclear power and had the delivery system or forget the delivery system if the intention is to end the world as a self fulfilling religious prophesy? Is that scenario viable in the future?  Kinda sounds like a James Bond movie.

[ Edited: 05 February 2016 02:04 PM by AMH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2012-07-13
AMH - 05 February 2016 01:55 PM

Are you saying that a radical religious fundamentalist, doesn’t matter which religion, who was the head of state of a nuclear power and had the delivery system or forget the delivery system if the intention is to end the world as a self fulfilling religious prophesy? Is that scenario viable in the future?  Kinda sounds like a James Bond movie.

I don’t really get what you are asking.  Can you re-ask in a different way or explain what you mean?

What I’m saying is that MAD sucks as a way of preventing war, but if at least one of the combatants has a mind-set that makes the MAD defense an option, then it’s an option.  I’m not advocating or promoting it, I’m simply stating that there might be situations where it works.  Other options might be better, but it’s a case by case situation, so I can’t say more than that.

 Signature 

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.  Edmund Way Teale, Circle of the Seasons

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2012-07-13
VYAZMA - 05 February 2016 12:55 PM

Small point here, hairsplitting if you will….
I do mean MAD is a completely useless “solution”...

But the thing is that MAD is not a “solution”.  It’s not a Method.
The US and the USSR didn’t sit down and work this “method” out.

So what I mean really is that MAD is a completely useless(and insulting)rationale.

{...}

Alternately there was no “official” doctrine of MAD in the US.
All MAD is and was is a way to justify Nuclear weapons arsenals on the idea that they keep us safe.
Where as you pointed out the only way to keep us safe would be to get rid of them.

All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario.
When in fact there were thousands of scenarios plotted and trained for that involved tactical usage of nukes.
And Military planners on both sides realized this.

I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that’s just minor definitional stuff and not that important.  To me a solution can also be a rationale.  The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution.  I think it’s possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.

I don’t think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they’d state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine.  But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it’s explicitly stated or not.  That’s not to say that there aren’t other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.

 Signature 

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.  Edmund Way Teale, Circle of the Seasons

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  387
Joined  2015-11-28
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 02:19 PM
AMH - 05 February 2016 01:55 PM

Are you saying that a radical religious fundamentalist, doesn’t matter which religion, who was the head of state of a nuclear power and had the delivery system or forget the delivery system if the intention is to end the world as a self fulfilling religious prophesy? Is that scenario viable in the future?  Kinda sounds like a James Bond movie.

I don’t really get what you are asking.  Can you re-ask in a different way or explain what you mean?

What I’m saying is that MAD sucks as a way of preventing war, but if at least one of the combatants has a mind-set that makes the MAD defense an option, then it’s an option.  I’m not advocating or promoting it, I’m simply stating that there might be situations where it works.  Other options might be better, but it’s a case by case situation, so I can’t say more than that.

Right, what got me thinking is your “All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario. “. That is what I was responding to, thought it was an alarming thought.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 02:58 PM

I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that’s just minor definitional stuff and not that important.  To me a solution can also be a rationale.  The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution.  I think it’s possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.

I don’t think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they’d state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine.  But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it’s explicitly stated or not.  That’s not to say that there aren’t other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.

Yes I see your points.
If I’m understanding you than you think MAD is/was a deterrent to nuclear war?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
AMH - 05 February 2016 02:58 PM

Right, what got me thinking is your “All of this also plays into the idea of Nuclear weapons being used ultimately in some Doomsday scenario. “. That is what I was responding to, thought it was an alarming thought.

That was my quote AMH. The Doomsday scenario is one that allows the MAD “construct” to play out in the civic/military mindset. Propaganda. National Security memes etc..

Generally when people think of nuclear war they think of Doomsday…utter annihilation. That’s what MAD is all about to begin with…
Mutually Assured Destruction!

When in fact there are numerous scenarios that could have in the past, or will in the future play out, in which nukes are used in tactical, localized events.
Conventionally or unconventionally.
Thus rendering MAD completely unfounded in it’s doctrine.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2012-07-13
VYAZMA - 05 February 2016 03:16 PM
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 02:58 PM

I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that’s just minor definitional stuff and not that important.  To me a solution can also be a rationale.  The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution.  I think it’s possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.

I don’t think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they’d state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine.  But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it’s explicitly stated or not.  That’s not to say that there aren’t other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.

Yes I see your points.
If I’m understanding you than you think MAD is/was a deterrent to nuclear war?

Unless you’re a jihadist or completely deluded (Kim Jong-un style), then MAD is definitely a deterrent. 

Look at animals that can scare off predators by looking bigger and meaner than they are.  Having a giant pile of weapons is the human equivalent of a cat’s fur standing on end or a frilled lizard spreading his neck frill. 

Don’t forget,we are animals, so big brain or not, we have similar survival instincts.  And even if we didn’t have that instinct, it’s the logical conclusion to not attack a more or equally powerful opponent.

 Signature 

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.  Edmund Way Teale, Circle of the Seasons

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  387
Joined  2015-11-28
VYAZMA - 05 February 2016 03:16 PM
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 02:58 PM

I disagree with your hairsplitting, but that’s just minor definitional stuff and not that important.  To me a solution can also be a rationale.  The rationalization for having many times the number of nukes required to annihilate the other side is also the solution.  I think it’s possible for a solution (even one as crappy as MAD) to also be a rationalization.

I don’t think anyone would call MAD their official doctrine any more than they’d state that ego or not wanting to look weak was their official doctrine.  But when two sides continuously increase their stockpile of weapons to ridiculous proportions, MAD is at play whether it’s explicitly stated or not.  That’s not to say that there aren’t other reasons (rationalizations), but MAD is certainly in there as well.

Yes I see your points.
If I’m understanding you than you think MAD is/was a deterrent to nuclear war?

At that point in time when the nuclear trigger had been pulled once and during MAD era each side represented an attitude of don’t test me.  Yes sir I absolutely do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
3point14rat - 05 February 2016 03:32 PM

Unless you’re a jihadist or completely deluded (Kim Jong-un style), then MAD is definitely a deterrent. 

Look at animals that can scare off predators by looking bigger and meaner than they are.  Having a giant pile of weapons is the human equivalent of a cat’s fur standing on end or a frilled lizard spreading his neck frill. 

Don’t forget,we are animals, so big brain or not, we have similar survival instincts.  And even if we didn’t have that instinct, it’s the logical conclusion to not attack a more or equally powerful opponent.

Yeah good points. We could substitute “nukes” for the term MAD above.
Obviously weapons are a deterrent.

There’s still more complicated logic equations involved with the concept of MAD, but I suppose you’re right about the basic premise.
I think another separate discussion could be had on this topic about the logic behind MAD…but obviously it’s basic fundamentals
are somewhat sound, though unproven.

That’s one of the logical conundrums of MAD, that it will always be unproven..until it’s proved that it doesn’t work.
That’s what I’m trying to get at.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
AMH - 05 February 2016 03:33 PM

At that point in time when the nuclear trigger had been pulled once and during MAD era each side represented an attitude of don’t test me.  Yes sir I absolutely do.

We can look back and say that MAD was a deterrent I guess. It certainly wasn’t the only factor though.
There’s diplomacy…which was actually used in the Cold War. Many times.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
‹‹ Detachment      Not a debate ››