![]() However, many have argued that mutually assured destruction is unable to deter conventional war that could later escalate. The payoff of the MAD doctrine was and still is expected to be a tense but stable global peace. The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side would launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with surviving forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties. The same principle is invoked against missile defense. If one side constructed a similar system of shelters, it would violate the MAD doctrine and destabilize the situation, because it would have less to fear from a second strike. The doctrine requires that neither side construct shelters on a massive scale. The expected result is an immediate, irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total, and assured destruction. Either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. Under MAD, each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side. ( October 2013) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. This section includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |