added distinction between "mutual" and "mutually" which I would like to attribute - it seems obvious to me but someone may want to hear from a diplomat on it. good links sipri.se, transcend.org
I made reference to "multiparty" as a bridge term that is implied in the adverb "mutually" - as "multiparty assured destruction" no longer appears on google, the redirect could disappear. But it's interesting that literature of this period, making the arguments that two-player destructive games have third party consequences, is not visible on the net... hmm...
I'm no expert in the area, but I do read reasonably widely, and I've never seen the term "Mutual Assured Destruction" applied to the China-Taiwan or especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are unwinnable wars, true, but they are very different situations to the Cold War military balance.
Basically, I think everything after the first paragraph is irrelevant to MAD. Am I Robinson Crusoe here? --Robert Merkel
I think so. First, you are confusing "mutual" with "mutually". Read the text please. The two phrases reference an outcome and a process respectively.
Second, do a google search, and note that there is much use of these terms in reference to "unwinnable wars" and standoffs.
Its *because* they are "very different situations to the Cold War" that they needed a new term...
Can you point some links to this? I've never heard the term used in this sense in the literature.
There is a discussion of the "adverb issue" re: "significantly" at http://jove.prohosting.com/~jrprager/2001top.htm and it also uses the term "mutually" rather than "mutual" and refers quite generically to weapons of mass destruction rather than nukes specifically.