|
|
|
|
|
by DuskStar
1331 days ago
|
|
It depends on perspective. We in the west generally have a "no innocent lives lost ever" perspective. But sometimes "minimize total societal damage" looks pretty good too. Is it better to live in a world where 1000 murders happen a year and half the murderers escape punishment because they ran, or one with 100 murders where 10 ran and family members were killed in their place? That's a lot less deaths! Nuclear MAD is an extreme example of this - it's very obviously immoral to kill a few million civilians in retaliation for the murder of other civilians. But that's what MAD is! And in practice, it's likely prevented millions of deaths due to war. |
|
It is also not clear if nuclear MAD actually "works". It is a convenient story to justify cold war security measures and military spending.
The deterrance value of promising a second strike is high, but the actual military gain of performing the second strike is small. States are strongly incentivized to announce MAD, but to not actually go through with it. If you are defeated by a first strike and cannot win the war conventionally, it is more logical to surrender unconditionally than to render the world uninhabitable. When it was clear that Germany would lose WW2, Hitler issued the Nero Decree and ordered the self-destruction of German infrastructure, but even the radicalized Germans didn't go though with it.
To add to this, the actual war plans of NATO and Warsaw Pact were centered around swift tank warfare in central Europe. Nuclear weapons were supposed to be used tactically, to deny ground and to destroy groups of tanks. But of course the US military preferred to talk about their awesome power to hit Russian cities, rather than about their plans to deploy nuclear mines in the middle of West Germany.