M.A.D.

[Veho Nex]

Mutual Assured Destruction...
I don't know if this is a back room topic but, what are you're guys takes on this. I have a specific interest in Cold War era visitors. But anyone can throw down their input.

[Marshal Murat]

What exactly is the question?

[Veho Nex]

Lemme rephrase my original statement. What is M.A.D.? I want to know everything there is to know about it. And I want to know what Cold War era people think about it, and how it affected them.

[Marshal Murat]

Mutually Assured Destruction is the concept that were the United States to launch it's missiles, the Soviet Union would see the launch and return fire immediately. This means that it's a no-win situation as both nations would be turned into nuclear slag by the rain of nuclear weaponry. Thus, war is prevented because neither side has an advantage were they to launch missiles.

[Veho Nex]

But what did it feel like, all those tense moments of air raid drills and everything. I should have changed the name to Cold War. But MAD is what got me into the cold war.

[Brandy Blue]

Sorry, Veho, but I don't remember any tense moments or air raid drills. As I remember it, hardly anyone really believed that there would be a hot war, still less a nuclear war. Most people believed that M.A.D. would keep us safe, because it had worked for years. If it didn't, we assumed that most people would die almost before they knew anything was wrong anyway. We were more likely to be tense about a test at school.

Mind you, people who lived through the Berlin Crises and the Cuban Missle Crisis might have a different take. I was born after those events. Also, it was a "Cold War" only in the sense that Russia and the U.S. did not go to war with each other. There were hot wars in which the giants confronted each other indirectly. For example, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and the Americans sent advisors and supplies and weapons to the Afghans. I assume there were plenty of tense moments in these indirect confrontations, if you happened to be involved in one.

[Fragony]

Good book, http://www.amazon.com/Spread-Nuclear-Weapons-Debate-Renewed/dp/0393977471

If the nuclear balance of terror helped maintain the 'long peace' between the united States and the Soviet Union during the Cold Ware, will the spread of nuclear weapons to new states also help stabilize international relations in the future? In this increasingly complex world, how do issues such as global terrorism, missile defense, and the Indian-Pakistani conflict factor into the decisions states make about nuclear weapons?
In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, two major international relations scholars resume their well-known dialogue about these important questions, as well as others. Kenneth Waltz, the dean of realist theory in international relations, expands on his argument that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Scott Sagan, the leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics, continues to make the counterpoint that "more will be worse": novice nuclear states lack adequate organizational controls over their new weapons, which makes for a high risk of either deliberate of accidental nuclear war.

The global community has long been fascinated by—as well as terrified of—nuclear weapons. This short and engaging book is required reading for citizens and statesmen, as well as scholars and students.

[Veho Nex]

That book looks good, once I get the money that goes straight to the top of my to do list. But do we have anyone on the guild from the Cuban Missle Crisis?

[Kralizec]

AFAIK the reason why the Cuban missile crisis was such a tense moment because M.A.D. didn't exist as a concept. M.A.D. only becomes a "fact" when you have enough missiles (wich are unstoppable) to practicly saturate eachother's territory, whereas in the beginning they counted heavily on strategic bombers (not so unstoppable) to deliver their bombs.

[Fragony]

That book looks good, once I get the money that goes straight to the top of my to do list. But do we have anyone on the guild from the Cuban Missle Crisis?

Plenty of that in it, the book is a 'conversation' between a supporter and an opposer and it's awesome. Just about everything you could possibly think of is covered and debated.

[TinCow]

That book looks good, once I get the money that goes straight to the top of my to do list. But do we have anyone on the guild from the Cuban Missle Crisis?

Not me personally, but my father-in-law was an officer on the USS Essex during the blockade. He's told me stuff about it that was deadly serious. His ship stopped (or attempted to stop) several Soviet ships during that time, and release of weapons was authorized for defensive purposes. Essentially, the order was return fire if you are fired upon. Apparently at one point they were even dropping active sonar buoys on a Soviet submarine and forced it to surface. According to my father-in-law, most of the crew expected the Soviets to resist if they attempted to board, and they were certain that it would have turned into shooting war if it had gone on much longer.

[King Kurt]

I was only 10 at the time of the Cuban missle crisis but I do recall that there was a tenseness here in the UK - certainly for a day or 2. In some ways there was more tension in the 80's when Reagan was about - after 20 odd years of MAD the advent of cruise missles, neutron bombs and the Star Wars schemes began to make people think that you could have a limited nuclear war where it would have been Europe that really suffered as opposed to USA/ USSR. Certainly CND - the UK anti nuclear campaining group - had a resurgence in its popularity to reach levels of support on a par with the 60's.
Personally I always thought the most likely place for a nuclear war to start was the Middle East - perhaps it still is although there seems to be a MAD situation developing there as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For a great study of the Cuban Crisis, try Allison's The Essence of Decision.

Born 1964, so I missed the Airlift, Hungary, and the Missile Crisis and was too young to understand Prague Spring. I will tell you that you always had a little thought in the back of your mind, wondering if some concantenation of events would lead to nuclear exchange. Really did reinforce the us v them mentality.

PM Kukrikhan if you want another perspective. He was even a gundog during that era.

[Flavius Clemens]

I once heard a retired bishop talking about when he was training for ordination around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As part of their training he and a colleague regularly took the evening service in a small village church deep in rural England with a tiny congregation. That particular Sunday they arrived to find the church was packed to overflowing with staff from the nearby US airbase who had just heard that the Russian ships had turned back. Everyone thought things had come damn close to hot war.

[Mangudai]

I was a kid during the Reagan era, I understood MAD when I was 6 years old. But, everybody who grew up in the 50's scoffs at that.

You should study Herman Kahn, the preeminent cold war theorist.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Thermonuclear-War-Herman-Kahn/dp/141280664X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240199602&sr=8-1


As I understand it, MAD was accepted as the de facto reality. It was not a goal of anyone.

Kahn stressed the importance of having a strategic reserve of nuclear warheads. i.e. use 2/3 of warheads in the initial strike and save 1/3. If the world is wiped out, it won't matter that you didn't use all your weapons. If the world goes on, the survivor who still has nuclear weapons can dictate terms.