4 ms·
Does it check out? India and Pakistan both have nukes and keep semi-regularly fighting each other. MAD "on paper" prevents either side from going far enough to
by vidarh 10d ago
Does it check out? India and Pakistan both have nukes and keep semi-regularly fighting each other.
MAD "on paper" prevents either side from going far enough to provoke the other into using nukes, but even then it's fundamentally flawed because it works on the assumption that both sides are both rational and believes the other side to be rational, as well as that both sides understands the others red lines well enough.
Already Reagan realised that isn't necessarily true - after Able Archer '83, he realised that the Soviet leadership seemed to genuinely believe that the US might be prepared to carry out a first strike, and that Able Archer got dangerously close to convince them one might be imminent. It's one of the things he noted as a reason to get in the room with them and negotiate.
If you believe the other side is irrational (whether or not that is because you are irrational), and think they're about to strike, MAD turns from a deterrence into a reason to try to preempt to ensure you're the "least destroyed" by hitting harder, sooner.
- walthamstow 10d agoMinor skirmishes are not war. China and India have border skirmishes with literal wooden sticks, neither side will use live ammo because they both have nukes.
- vidarh 9d agoConveniently shifting to a different conflict, and ignoring that India and Pakistan have carried out missile strikes on each other, killed civilians, occupied territory.
- walthamstow 9d agoLike I said, minor skirmishes. No war between India and Pakistan since they both got nukes in the 70s. Not bad for two states that have been hostile their entire existence.
- vidarh 8d agoTrying to justify MAD on the basis that missile attacks on a nuclear power is somehow "just" minor skirmish is bullshit, and you know it. It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked. It is then more likely than not than you can carry out significantly worse attacks without suddenly risking a nuke - there is no indication to the contrary.
- deleted 7d ago[deleted]
- walthamstow 7d ago> It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked It's demonstrably the case that attacks can take place between nuclear powers and not escalate to war. Why do you think that is?