Talk:Mutual assured destruction
someone care to review "assured destruction" and make sure it fits well enough in context for those reaching it from this point?
Another murderously tough topic...
Also there is a big literature on multiparty standoffs in game theory, and peace and conflict, etc., and the role of the original two-party US/USSR MAD in developing this theory should probably be mentioned.
IGNORE THIS: evidently a refresh problem, now fixed. It works correctly.
When I go directly to mutually assured destruction, I get redirected here - to the proper name for the Cold War doctrine MAD - that's reasonable as long as we didn't have a generic definition. Now we do, I wrote it, and I linked multiparty assured destruction to it. To keep this clear:
Mutual Assured Destruction is a doctrine from the Cold War that no longer applies officially as the ABM Treaty has been abrogated (by Bush). Mutually assured destruction is a generic term to apply to similar situations. Since the role of third parties in containing the conflict, acting as mediators, etc., is now very broadly recognized, there is no value in distinguishing between multiparty and mutually assured destruction in the modern context.
So, I want to remove the redirect so that MAD goes to MAD, and the two ways to say "m.a.d." go to the right place.
If that's controversial, let's discuss it. But I can't figure out how to *do* it. JUST A REFRESH. SORRY.
What other premises apply to MAD in the cold war between the US and the Soviets? Was there the assumption that either side would launch a first strike if it dared? Was there a (perhaps related) assumption of moral equivalence? If so, who was making that assumption? Did the Soviets believe that we would launch a first strike -- to conquer them (for our profit) or to "liberate" their citizens (to end socialism) -- if we dared? Would the United States have gone so far as to conquer the USSR with a first strike, or have stopped only at the point where the Soviet arsenal no longer presented a level of threat leading to assured destruction?
Note that I'm not arguing for or against any of these points. I'm interested only in accurate presentation of history. Who thought (or said) what? That's what I want to know.
The term "multiparty assured destruction" does not give ANY hits on Google - are we sure it's not made up by 24.150.61.63?
I think the term has fallen out of use for the reasons I list: it just isn't separate from modern use of the term "mutually". Anyway it is just a redirect and helps to clarify the relationship to multiplayer or multiparty game theory.
If you want to remove it, remove it, but it just makes it harder to follow the related game theory, diplomacy, history, and military science of this topic.
If you can think of any other meaning that term could have, well... ?
Ad to Ed's answers.
The biggest and scariest assumption of MAD was that rogue acts could be contained. The fear and hatred on both sides was such that there were several cases much like the rogue general in Dr. Strangelove that both sides hushed up.
nothing that went that far, of course... so operational control became key to the doctrine - a big assumption.
The moral equivalence assumption was only made openly by third parties - which is outlined a bit in "mutually assured destruction" - that should be enough... there were analysts in the USSR who believed in capitalism's triumph, and others in the USA who believed in Marxism. But I think both side saw just how corrupt each other's implementations were - there was moral equivalence at that tactical and policy level at least. This was most obvious to Europeans who pursued mixed economy strategies all through that period, and often had Marxist and classic economics in the same departments of the same universities.
I believe all positions from "destroy the entire planet down to the algae" to the "only blow up the Kremlin and the White House" approaches were explored - both sides were doing a lot of scenarios...
Also, if you look up "multi-party assured destruction" you find quite a few links to this transition literature, none of it seemingly using the term quite the same way. It seems to have settled down 1980-1990 or so. For instance there is reference to BLIND - Britain's Little Independent Nuclear Deterrent, etc., which indicates some cracks in the MAD two-player mythos of US/USSR.
I don't think this literature or the history of how MAD became m.a.d. needs a separate explanation - the fact of the adjective versus adverb use is probably the single best indicator of mind-set, "war threat" versus "peace process".
Tried to fix link to ABM treaty, but still broken. I'll try again.
This statement is wrong
- After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a reduction of tensions in the 1990s, and as nuclear arms proliferation increased the number of parties involved, the proper term and doctrine of two-party MAD has fallen largely out of use, and is now usually confused with the generic usage. To distinguish the two in speech, especially diplomatic negotiation, the terms mutually assured destruction and multiparty assured destruction are now generally preferred.
What's not true? Many people think MAD in its original form disappeared with the ABM Treaty abrogation recently. It might be debatable - in which case it should be rewritten to something less debatable.
If I talk about "Mutual" as opposed to "mutually" assured destruction, then I am referring to the old US-USSR standoff as opposed to some process by which two or more other parties are assuring each other.of dstruction. That's the usage in the peace movement, usually.
However, as long as we have separate entries for "M.A.D." the Cold War rules, and "m.a.d." the peace movement argument (applicable not just to US/USSR nuclear but anything truly nasty and all-encompassing, like biowar or ever-growing "terrorism"/retaliation).
The "First Strike" issue applies to M.A.D. for instance but not m.a.d. which plays out generally over a longer time with more escalation.
Also, we have a problem if we try to name the current standoffs in the world "mutual assured destruction" becuse wiki doesn't let something else be Mutual..." argh.
Removing all this stuff:
- "The generic term mutually assured destruction or multiparty assured destruction has come into use in part to preserve that acronym and the general reference to nihilism and futility of conflict that it represents."
Usual 24.150.xxx.xxx thing: zero google hits, presumed idiosyncratic until a verifiable cite can be offered.
You may remove the motivation or rationale, but the term "mutually assured destruction" does describe the modern use:
COL ALAN J. PARRINGTON, USAF http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html
"During the 1950s, Air Force leaders, almost to the man, did not believe in the stability of mutual deterrence, describing the concept as “a dangerous fallacy” and “a tremendous disservice.” One leader wrote, “I suggest that the so called atomic ‘stalemate’ or ‘standoff’ is more of a psychological than a real deterrent. At best it is a cliché born of the natural tendency to rationalize away the prospects of total atomic war."
Note the use of "mutual" to describe the Cold War situation... and in the same article " the strategy behind the weapons—a strategy oddly known as mutually assured destruction (MAD)."
So, "mutual" is referring to the "deterrence", "mutually" to the strategy.
That's right, 'mutually assured destruction' is a phrase that has often been used. Indeed, 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and 'mutually assured destruction' are the same thing. That's why I redirected the latter to point at the former. The Anome
No, they are only "the same thing" to an American. Your "reasons why" are of no interest. It's the outcome of your action (convincing readers that there is no current situation in which the futility and waste of M.A.D. circa 1950 is echoed) that is of interest, and that action is to render this whole line of discussion useless.
The 1950 doctrine is not the 2000 doctrine. Read the papers, and you'd know that. How many talks have you given at DARPA?
1. I'm not an American. What gave you that idea? 2. Which papers? Cites please. 3. None. Are you implying that you have? Evidence, please.
---
1. I didn't sya you were American, but the idea that the implications for behavior under M.A.D. and all other contexts where destruction is mutually assured are the same, is an American idea. I've heard it often in the U.S.A. that all conflicts must be resolved to American moral standards up to but not including global thermonuclear standoff. At which point everyone is suddenly supposed to stiffen up and behave totally predictably without moral judgements on each other justifying attacks. You have a bias on this issue, and I think rather than play with ethnicity or personal history I'll say that you're making the same mistake as those who dreamed up that doctrine...
2. The Parrington article cited above. The quote provided makes it clear enough that some elements of the U.S. military leadership never believed in M.A.D. as anything *but* "assurance" or rather psychological warfare...
3. Yes, once. They didn't like these arguments either...
Evidence? Then I'd have to shoot you...
In the top of the article it says MAD refers only to two party standoff, then later on it says that China will be moved to MAD... which is what? Some kind of multi-party assured desturction? If the outcome isn't mutual in that all of China, the USA, and Russia, are all totally destroyed, then isn't it best to say that they are "mutually assured" of some level of destruction, but not promising any mutual "assured destruction" of all players?
This article now makes exactly no sense. Also the doctrine applies almost as clearly and obviously to biowar as it would to nukes. Which this avoids.
proposal: *one* of us, either you or me, writes *one* article which refers to the full generality of the *strategy* of mutually assured destruction... That would include substantially all of the text herein describing the Cold War original two-player M.A.D. game and the potential for a Chinese move to three-party m.a.d. thanks to "S.D.I." - then another article to do the same for the peace movement, with roughly the same structure.
Else, this is going to be stomp city, as I restore everything previously written with mild rewrites to remove a few things you don't like because of their common Latin roots...
Looking more generally at the meta here, we have had arguments regarding both this and the reasonable method issue. We may well be in a mutually assured destruction scenario w.r.t. each other's edits - although we are clearly not in a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario with nuclear weapons.
If you agree, we can search for a "reasonable method" to get us out of it - a 'peace process'.
That process will likely demonstrate who is the best to write what article.
Don't you think?
You first... what's the reasonable method here?