Mutual Assured Destruction

J

Josan12

Vault Senior Citizen
There've been some interesting threads here on my favourite subject of nuclear war, so i decided to present one of my own to the collective hive-mind of glittering gems here at NMA.

For those unfamiliar with being M.A.D. - it is an acronym for Mutual Assured Destruction. Wikipedia can give a much better explanation than i:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

But for those too lazy to read it, it is essentially a military doctrine that argues that peace can be maintained when two opposing factions mutually assure each other that they will annihalate the other by launching nukes should they themselves be launched upon using their 'second strike capability'.

Reassuring? Not me, sir.

Well, i can assure you there is a point to my apparently mindless rambling.

Second strike capability basicly means launching nukes from submarines off the coast of the target country. Now, lets put this theory into an imaginary scenario:

The Pentagon suddenly detects nukes launched from somewhere in the pacific against major US cities. Nuclear capable US subs are standing by around the world to launch the US 'second strike'.

So my question is: how the hell would they know who to launch at in retaliation?
 
Well, you have satellites, that can detect the point of origin of nuclear strike. And they will warn you BEFORE the launch happens, they will detect the opening of the large shutters and even the fueling process.

Also, there are other methods, as you can determine
a lot from the angle the missiles are coming from. If they are coming from east, it would be rather obvious who launched them.
Unless NATO has been dissolved.

And there is the "hot line" between US and Russia, if it still exists.

and if all else fails, i guess USA would just launch nukes at everyone , Russia and China, and North Korea, and Cuba ETC.
 
Patton89 said:
Also, there are other methods, as you can determine
a lot from the angle the missiles are coming from. If they are coming from east, it would be rather obvious who launched them.
Click to expand...

!?!?! What? how do you figure? Chinese subs can be anywhere in any ocean and launch from wherever they like!
 
Well, Chinese dont have that many subs. And the Chinese have this claimed policy to not be the first attacker.
But no, its not a certain way to determine, but it gives atleast SOME information.
But MAD isnt used anymore, not atleast the way it used to be.
China isnt stupid enough to be the first attacker, they have a small arsenal when compared to USA or Russia.
 
Josan12 said:
For those unfamiliar with being M.A.D. - it is an acronym for Mutual Assured Destruction.
Click to expand...
unfamiliar with MAD? on my NMA? un-bloody-likely...

Josan12 said:
So my question is: how the hell would they know who to launch at in retaliation?
Click to expand...
if the damage cannot be averted and there is no way to know for sure?

they'll just nuke everyone with nuclear capabilities... if the USA is going back to the dark ages, so is everyone else.

M.A.D. isn't supposed to be rational. it's supposed to scare the shit out of people. and that doesn't work if you have ethical qualms about nuking every-fucking-last one of them, if you're unsure.

of course, this only applies if there is a true threat that all major cities of the USA would be hit. not if some unknown solo sub nukes New York.
 
I talked about this with a friend the other day.
One thing that got me thinking. During the cold war if nuclear war happened would Nato just target the soviet block and vice versa or would it also target all countries that could pose a challenge in the future ? I am asking this because I recall reading somewhere that in case of a nuclear war, almost every country would get hit in order to ensure that it wouldn't pose a threat after it.
I don't know how stupid this is but I would like a confirm this.


Merry Christmas btw :)
 
There never will be a nuclear war except for the stuff that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's because everyone fears it too much, even - or especially - the people who could push the buttons. Trust your poets, man: the world ain't gonna end with a bang, it ends with a whimper.
 
The US and Russia have no interest in playing nuclear chicken.

While the technology between the 2 countries is not 100% on par, there are several factors that could muddle a possible prediction of who would lose. The movie Wargames, while childish and oversimplifying showed clearly how in nearly every scenario involving nukes, the two big powers end up clashing, even if they weren't attacked directly.

The US has the better satellite system, better subs and a better airforce and a partial antimissile defense system.

Russia has the A-135 defense system (which uses nukes at the atmosphere to vaporize other missiles), lots of nukes, subs, an aging but still dangerous airforce and the Perimetr system.

I have no doubt that the US has also developed a system similar to Perimtr.

Perimtr is a Russian system that enables silo commanders to launch even if the heads of State have been eliminated with a decapitation strike. In a totally WOPR fashion, it was also intended to work without human interaction but they didn't have the balls to set it to run autonomously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimetr

The problem with nuclear weapons is that any hostile interaction that involves them, renders predictions moot because the possible iterations are very, very complex and usually grow out of control. Hence, its better to play it safe. Even though the US leadership might be pretty sure that they could knock out Russia now, they still don't because of the simple question that sums up the problem with nukes: what if you don't? how many American casualties are acceptable? 20 million? 30? 40?
 
SkynetV4 said:
The movie Wargames, while childish and oversimplifying showed clearly how in nearly every scenario involving nukes, the two big powers end up clashing, even if they weren't attacked directly.
Click to expand...

Download the DefCon demo. Play it against AI opponent. See for yourself.

Although once out of 25 times I usually manage to destroy the enemy and not suffer one single nuke, but it is VERY VERY VERY unlikely.

Great game.
 
I have played Defcon and was astounded by it. It's interesting to play in a cold, noiseless room. With only its weird, electronic music playing. Makes you feel a bit like Skynet or WOPR, dishing out nukes and watching casualties soar without very much concern.

Very dehumanizing. Once you remember that the numbers 2.2M mean 2.2 million human beings incinerated, the enormity of the carnage is hard to grasp. I don't think, I've ever won a game of Defcon...I quickly grow demoralized and end up pursuing overkill in favor of strategic advantage.
 
SkynetV4 said:
I have played Defcon and was astounded by it. It's interesting to play in a cold, noiseless room. With only its weird, electronic music playing. Makes you feel a bit like Skynet or WOPR, dishing out nukes and watching casualties soar without very much concern.

Very dehumanizing. Once you remember that the numbers 2.2M mean 2.2 million human beings incinerated, the enormity of the carnage is hard to grasp. I don't think, I've ever won a game of Defcon...I quickly grow demoralized and end up pursuing overkill in favor of strategic advantage.
Click to expand...

''The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic'' - Joseph Stalin

I kind of agree with that. And yes, DefCon is an amazing game. I think Bal-Sagoth should play it, I think he will like it :lol:

It manages to completely remove you from any kind of emotion. I would also recommend playing it in a dark, cold room, but also with FO's soundtrack, in particular, Vats of Goo and Metallic Monks. Captures the atmosphere brilliantly.
 
DefCon is however nowhere near reality and it isn't meant to be. it just doesn't work this way... (would be a tad complicated if they wanted it to be realistic anyway)
 
SuAside said:
DefCon is however nowhere near reality and it isn't meant to be. it just doesn't work this way... (would be a tad complicated if they wanted it to be realistic anyway)
Click to expand...

You disagree with MAD and that just like most times in DefCon, in reality, if there were a nuclear exchange both sides would nuke themselves to oblivion?

You disagree with that? Or some other aspect of the game?
 
the sheer quantity of nukes fired and ways to attempt to intercept them are obviously lacking. if M.A.D. kicks in, the skies will darken, so to speak. while not easy in any way, you can "win" at DefCon. something rather impossible in real life.

that said, M.A.D. does fail at times, look up Stanislav Petrov.
 
Never heard of Defcon, but I don't see how you could win a game that's just about the exchange of nuclear missiles. I'd imagine each nation would simply unload all of their arms simultaneously.
 
well it was the "Bomb" that prevented the world in sliding in a next World War. I argued with a friend just rescently about it and he did not believed it. But for at least the last 50 years it helped to prevent situations like the second world war.

nuclear.gif
 
Keegah said:
Never heard of Defcon, but I don't see how you could win a game that's just about the exchange of nuclear missiles. I'd imagine each nation would simply unload all of their arms simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Thats usually what happens yes. You win by having the largest population at the end of the game. You get points deducted for killing the enemy population, and points subtracted for losing your own.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Don't you mean the Third World War?
Click to expand...
Well yes. I ment that it helped to prevent a situation similar to the second world war.

While the nuclear bomb did not prevented wars to happen in general it helped to prevent cases were wars would get the same size like a world war. At least in europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top