Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
What would happen if the US defied MAD?
 Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/31/2013 11:54:59 PM Posted: 6 years ago Obviously it make it so the US could stay de-militarized while still buying us a few more decades of ensured military supremacy, but what would be some consequences internationally? Since other nations couldn't use nukes as a deterrent against the western powers anymore, would nations like Russia and China be forced to re militarize and have large standing armies (1 million for China and Russia is not really large) to ensure regime survival and regional hegemony?
Other scenarios? Thoughts? |
|
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/31/2013 11:55:20 PM Posted: 6 years ago *obviously it would make it*
sorry |
 Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/1/2013 4:36:52 AM Posted: 6 years ago Awwww, I thought this was about MAD magazine :(
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon "I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor |
 Posts: 6,072
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/1/2013 6:23:23 AM Posted: 6 years ago I've been a proponent of the argument that MAD is essentially dead. Because everyone knows/understands MAD, I don't see anyone actually retaliating to a nuclear attack with nukes.
In essence, because the world knows that retaliating to a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons would fulfill MAD and basically destroy the world, I doubt anyone is willing to say, after a nuclear strike "Well, someone violated MAD, guess we're all going to die now." I've been waiting for my whole life to grow old, and now we never will, never will. - CHVRCHES, "Graffiti" |
 Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/1/2013 7:29:28 AM Posted: 6 years ago MAD is just a loud version of "war crimes" that people will follow. If a nation defied it, they would instantly be eliminated from the world stage: whether that meant just being completely ignored and embargoed or generally attacked by everyone depends. Then again, Syria shows us that nations are a lot more reluctant to maintain rules of war...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org... |
 Posts: 626
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/1/2013 3:31:19 PM Posted: 6 years ago It is a misconception that a nuclear war would necessarily result in the end of man, although the devastation would be profound, and civilization-threatening. These are dangerous weapons, but not supernatural things with godlike power. They can cause widespread extinctions, and cause a significant drop in the human global population.
|
|
Posts: 626
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/1/2013 3:36:11 PM Posted: 6 years ago We are at a good time period for this discussion.
Sarin is a weapon that can be easily transported, and can be smuggled with ease across borders. If the US is correct that the Assad regime has, and is willing to use these weapons, why should we think that he would not order a Sarin attack in the United States during his final hours? An attack on the Syrian warlord can be considered an attack against a nation that can be taken seriously when it threatens to use these weapons. It is possible, therefore, that we are on the verge of ignoring many of the foundational justifications for MAD. |
