Mutually Assured Destruction: Who Cares?

I ended yesterday's blog with the idea that if your own destruction is assured as a result of your making a preemptive nuclear strike, then there is no earthly reason to fire the first nuke. This concept, coined during the Cold War, is called M.A.D. It was largely due to the MAD concept that negotiations were entered into between the Cold War antagonists, and treaties concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons were eventually signed. In fact, the Arms Race ended when Mutually Assured Destruction was achieved.



But today things are a little different. With the USA being quite willing to engage in preemptive strikes in order to topple "unfriendly" governments, and the fact that the Bush administration is unwilling to engage in diplomatic discussions with these same "unfriendly" governments, a clear message has been sent and apparently received. That message is this: If you don't already have nuclear weapons we will invade your country and reduce it to rubble and rebuild it as a "friendly" state. If you don't already have nuclear weapons then you better get your ass in gear and get some. Hence the Iranian, North Korean, Pakistani, Indian, and Israeli scramble to acheive nuclear status and thereby deter any future enemy with the promise of MAD.

But will MAD work in today's world? Would any of these nations make a preemptive strike knowing that they themselves would be totally destroyed as a result? Would any of these nations drag their neighbors and allies into a war that could be the end of humanity itself. Would they risk destroying the environment in such a way that it could no longer sustain life at all?


Hhhmmm...Let me think...