A Conversation for The Open Debating Society
MAD wasn't necessarily a bad thing...
Whisky Started conversation Jun 6, 2003
Ok, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about...
Mutually Assured Destruction...
Basically I'm saying the world was a safer place during the cold war, prior to the break up of the old Soviet Union than it is today in a geopolitical situation that should, theoretically, be much less threatening.
Discuss
MAD wasn't necessarily a bad thing...
Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit Posted Jun 6, 2003
It depends on how you define safer.
If safety is the subjective feeling of the population at large, then MAD was awful. People expected to be obliterated at any time. And let's not forget how close they came.
If safety is the statistical chance of dying in combat, then MAD still wasn't any good. The wars during the Cold War took place in backwater countries just as they do today. They were much worse then. Imagine what the Iraq war would have been like if China and the Russians had come in on the side of Iraq.
If safety is the statistical chance of civilian casualties in Western countries, then you have a point. Although there was a statistical chance that absolutely everyone would be obliterated, that chance was remote. The odds that there will be civilian casualties within the next month due to terrorist action is quite high... though the probability that it will happen to you is probably about the same.
MAD wasn't necessarily a bad thing...
Dogster Posted Jun 6, 2003
I was reading an article a few months ago, can't remember the author, arguing, possibly tongue in cheek, but maybe not, that we should give a few nuclear weapons to every country in the world to finally bring about world peace (because then NOBODY could afford a war).
MAD wasn't necessarily a bad thing...
R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- ) Posted Jun 8, 2003
"I was reading an article a few months ago, can't remember the author, arguing, possibly tongue in cheek, but maybe not, that we should give a few nuclear weapons to every country in the world to finally bring about world peace (because then NOBODY could afford a war)."
Yes, but not everyone cares about what they can afford. If you're being invaded and can't win, why should you care whether you can afford the results of your actions. If you are a dictator who doesn't care about the people, there is nothing to stop you from making a nuclear strike if you can.
Key: Complain about this post
MAD wasn't necessarily a bad thing...
More Conversations for The Open Debating Society
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."