M.a.d.

[montka]

If anyone is clued up on international politics, could you offer an opinion on whether Mutually Assured Destruction through nuclear weaponry ensures a (relatively) safe an peaceful globe?

Surely no one would be dumb enough to risk a nuclear strike against their nation. Does this make warfare between developed nations a thing of the past?

Or could a totalitarian regime one day have the balls to call everyone's bluff and invade a neighbouring territory, taking a risk based on an assumption that other powers would not dare call a nuclear strike on said totalitarian regime, knowing that said developed power would in turn perish as a result of the totalitarian nuclear counter attack? (phew!)

Just imagine COD Modern Warfare Two scenario - superpowers fighting it out with armies because neither power had it in them to trigger a nuclear armaggeddon...

 

[slah]

This quote from Blackadder sums it up quite accurately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJDyAnL9RQhttp://www.johndclare.net/causes_WWI1_Blackadderversion.htm

 

[Shawn R. L.]

The presumption of M.A.D. was that each side wanted to survive any conflict and come out winner. That's not what you got now. Many of these terrorists welcome death with bravado.

I could see N. Korea being nuts enough to presume they could get away with it, betting on the restraint of the South.

Warfare will always be with us.....sadly. If nuke's put a cork in war in one direction people will find another way to subgigate others. Cyber attacks, gurilla warfare, small scale terrorism, manipulated civial unrest, fiscal warfare etc....

 

[freakinacage]

Just imagine COD Modern Warfare Two scenario - superpowers fighting it out with armies because neither power had it in them to trigger a nuclear armaggeddon...

i thought the states got nuked in mw? that's why all the choppers crash at the white house - emp

 

[funnymouth]

we have always sidestepped m.a.d to some degree by fighting it out in satellite/puppet/aligned weaker nations. e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan (1979). the COD scenario has played out through third parties. because use of a nuclear weapon is so serious, "smaller" conflicts do not warrant their use.

the largest risk of nuclear attack is that posed by unaffiliated non governmental groups who are not risking retaliation because they are sheltered by the innocent people they operate amongst.

that being said, m.a.d. has worked historically.

 

[supervike]

i thought the states got nuked in mw? that's why all the choppers crash at the white house - emp

Yeah, that was my thought as well.


Let's hope that sort of MADness stays in video games.


Imagine where we'd be as a society if we put all the effort, money, and time that is spent on warfare, and direct that towards bettering ourselves.

Maybe those hippies were right all along.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Imagine where we'd be as a society if we put all the effort, money, and time that is spent on warfare, and direct that towards bettering ourselves.

I've wondered the same thing, although conversly there has been a lot of rapid inventing when one's life depended on it. I've thought about how much money time and effort we each spend in our individual lives dealing with the bad guys. How much money do we spend on locks, alarms, safe's, paying the police, uninsured motorist insurance, theft insurance etc.... all because some folks just don't give a wit?

 

[montka]

Just to clarify the question:

Does the widespread possession of nuclear arms by major world powers make direct armed conflict between these powers an impossibility?

i.e. ignore terrorist threats and the funding/arming/backing/training of troops in satelite states - consider only the possibility of direct warfare between major sovereign powers.

IIRC The nuke in MW2 was set to blow up in the sky over Washington for its EMP effect.
For reasons not explained by the game there was no retaliation in kind after the missile's launch, i.e. the United Sates did not reply with her own nuclear arsenal.

 

[waghorn41]

As an ex-serviceman who served during the MAD era I can say that although it was considered unlikely there was always the possibility that a massive strike by one force would negate enough of a response. However, that said, it was widely recognised that the MIRV systems deployed on the submersible fleets had more than enough capability to ensure no-one survived. Subsequently the arms reduction process in response to sensibility of a pointless massive exchange - especially given that the major nuclear powers still have enough individually to destroy life on this planet.

The problem now exists of the proliferation of nuclear arsenals among countries where such devices are considered to be 'just another weapon'. Many believe they have the right to use these against their adversaries regardless of the effect of the aftermath of their use. The rising extremism, and scant regard for human life, make a nuclear attack more likely particularly as some of the protagonists aiming to secure, and use, such weapons are themselves deployed where identification is difficult and possibly without the knowledge of the 'host' nation. It would be quite possible for Al Q to deploy a unit with a nuclear device into a 'non-beligerent' country and then launch the device against their target - but would we then target the launch source of an innocent nation. I don't think so, and the extremists are banking on it. They would have melted away into the background, faceless and invisible - so who could we retaliate against?

 

[Dedwrekka]

If anyone is clued up on international politics, could you offer an opinion on whether Mutually Assured Destruction through nuclear weaponry ensures a (relatively) safe an peaceful globe?

Surely no one would be dumb enough to risk a nuclear strike against their nation. Does this make warfare between developed nations a thing of the past?

Or could a totalitarian regime one day have the balls to call everyone's bluff and invade a neighbouring territory, taking a risk based on an assumption that other powers would not dare call a nuclear strike on said totalitarian regime, knowing that said developed power would in turn perish as a result of the totalitarian nuclear counter attack? (phew!)

Just imagine COD Modern Warfare Two scenario - superpowers fighting it out with armies because neither power had it in them to trigger a nuclear armaggeddon...

The problem doesn't come from developed nations, even the Soviet officers held off nuclear launch durring the many close calls in the cold war. The problem with nuclear weapons comes from groups that take the party line "By any means necessary" and aren't concerned with "mutually assured destruction". Many developed, and some developing, countries already have much more powerful weapons that have less of a chance of creating a nuclear holocaust.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.


Let's hope that sort of MADness stays in video games.


Imagine where we'd be as a society if we put all the effort, money, and time that is spent on warfare, and direct that towards bettering ourselves.

Maybe those hippies were right all along.

To be fair, countries aren't fighting large scale wars over resources anymore. Wars for "how we think bettering ourselves should look like" seem to be more common. Racial, ethnic, and idealogical wars are being waged more frequently than land and resource wars.

 

[montka]

The idea of this post I should make clear is not to establish what sort of wars ARE being fought, it is to examine whether large scale wars COULD be fought HYPOTHETICALLY, given the existence of nuclear armaments.

e.g. China wants to invade Tibet - she knows there will be military consequences from UN/NATO if she does so, and ultimately a threat of nuclear confrontation if she does so. Is it conceivable in your view that China in this example would carry out an invasion?

Or change the example to any nation you care to mention. Surely Russia wouldn't invade Georgia for example; oh no wait - they did that!

Also it seems a prevalent idea that modern warfare is fought over ideology and counter-terrorism, a form of national defence. Well, sure but I personally believe that ideologies can change like quicksand - if a recession became a depression and various nations were thrown into absolute poverty, and nobody bailed them out, how do you know that there wouldn't be a resurgence of Fascism or Communism, with ever so slightly new nomenclature and ideas to break from the guilt of the past - but with the same underlying beliefs and power structures.

I remember reading V for Vendetta, which is based in a totalitarian Fascist Britain and thinking, 'you know, this is not altogether unlikely or impossible if things went to shit for us. And, given that the banks are run by and for the banks, and our whole economy depends on them right now, it isn't impossible that we could be faced with biting poverty one day". Course that could never happen and hopefully it won't I am just making a point that the world is not a stable place and I think that if things become less prosperous generally and peoples standard of life starts to decline to the point of poverty again you can count on increased conflict between the nations of the world, and more bully boy powers pushing their luck politically.

A note on the economy - most powers in Europe and North America are in debt by 50% of their GDP. That's fine if trade goes well and they become more and more prosperous. What happens if the opposite happens? America can hardly continue policing the globe in her own ever endearing way if she is unable to continue borrowing the resources to finance this police work.

 

[waghorn41]

The premise of M.A.D was that if two superpowers went for each others throats then nobody would survive - globally - because of the radioactive fallout. We've pulled back from that. If, as for your example, China invaded Tibet, nobody, really NOBODY, is going to take military action against China. Economic yes, political yes, but not military and certainly not nuclear. There is always the possibility that a tactical battlefield weapon would be used as a warning in some areas of conflict; a clean bomb i.e. a neutron device. This was one of the reasons which got the then Soviet Union around the table. They didn't have the weapon and it negated their massed armour advantage.
So, back to the beginning. Yes, large scale wars could be fought without recourse to the nuclear arsenal, and will likely do so at some point. However, in the current world situation it is the small scale conflicts which are dictating military policy; fragmenting nations and internal uprisings do not require weapons of such destructive power. If one of these smaller conflicts had a side with a credible nuclear weapon it would be used primarily to threaten as actual use would effectively remove any gains be they territorily, economically or strategically with the area targeted being untenable for either side. Personally I can't see any country going it big time against another of comparable size; and actually there's few left of the size or capability. M.A.D has gone and has been replaced with the normal madness that goes with war.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Does the widespread possession of nuclear arms by major world powers make direct armed conflict between these powers an impossibility?

In the most simplistic terms, No.
At the moment in the more complex terms of mutual financial interdependance on market consumerism, trading supplies of goods ands services the possibilities of a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario within the current world trading market is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

The scenario to be most concerned with is unrestrained Nuclear weapons proliferation by countries with no development of a world trading market place.
Add to that a directly antagonistic governmental attitude towards political, ideological or even religous differences, particularly when a government is totalitarian or divorced from accepting opposition from within its own people and then you have cause to be concerned.

Having said that I strongly suspect that China having a newly developed economic marketplace would tolerate any threat to a stable world economy by a country it has political ties with. Should North Korea put China's economy at risk I think they'd get "re-adjusted" pretty sharply, and probably back to the stone age.

 

[montka]

"There is always the possibility that a tactical battlefield weapon would be used as a warning in some areas of conflict; a clean bomb i.e. a neutron device. This was one of the reasons which got the then Soviet Union around the table. They didn't have the weapon and it negated their massed armour advantage.
So, back to the beginning. Yes, large scale wars could be fought without recourse to the nuclear arsenal, and will likely do so at some point. "

If I understand you correctly, during the Cold War the existence of nuclear deterrents did not preclude pressures from military factors - nuclear war was a realistic possibility but having a nuclear deterrent was not by any means the be all and end all of defence strategy?

"At the moment in the more complex terms of mutual financial interdependance on market consumerism, trading supplies of goods ands services the possibilities of a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario within the current world trading market is HIGHLY UNLIKELY."
Does this mean reliance on trade creates interdependence, which breeds peace?

 

[waghorn41]

If I understand you correctly, during the Cold War the existence of nuclear deterrents did not preclude pressures from military factors - nuclear war was a realistic possibility but having a nuclear deterrent was not by any means the be all and end all of defence strategy?

Realistic possibility? You bet, we trained for it! Even after a nuclear strike there was a good chance that some installations and resources would survive and these would need to be brought to retalitory readiness asap. The nuclear deterrent was simply - you nuke us and we'll nuke you! It did not preclude normal warfare which we expected, nuclear escalation was a possibility if one side was getting mauled, but also the ever present threat of biological/chemical warfare. Yep, trained for that too and I think most service people would agree that was far more worrying. Being vapourised instantly is one thing but suffering bio-chem agents is a really nasty alternative.

 

[montka]

Superb to know about it from the horse's mouth so to speak

 

[Dedwrekka]

The idea of this post I should make clear is not to establish what sort of wars ARE being fought, it is to examine whether large scale wars COULD be fought HYPOTHETICALLY, given the existence of nuclear armaments.

e.g. China wants to invade Tibet - she knows there will be military consequences from UN/NATO if she does so, and ultimately a threat of nuclear confrontation if she does so. Is it conceivable in your view that China in this example would carry out an invasion?

Or change the example to any nation you care to mention. Surely Russia wouldn't invade Georgia for example; oh no wait - they did that!

Two countries which have nothing to fear from the "nuclear deterrent". Russia and China are geographically too big, and have too large a military force, both possible and standing, to be deterred or removed by nuclear threats.

Also it seems a prevalent idea that modern warfare is fought over ideology and counter-terrorism, a form of national defence. Well, sure but I personally believe that ideologies can change like quicksand - if a recession became a depression and various nations were thrown into absolute poverty, and nobody bailed them out, how do you know that there wouldn't be a resurgence of Fascism or Communism, with ever so slightly new nomenclature and ideas to break from the guilt of the past - but with the same underlying beliefs and power structures.

It hasn't?

A note on the economy - most powers in Europe and North America are in debt by 50% of their GDP. That's fine if trade goes well and they become more and more prosperous. What happens if the opposite happens? America can hardly continue policing the globe in her own ever endearing way if she is unable to continue borrowing the resources to finance this police work.

Which is why the UN should stop leaning on America to pay for, and supply with troops, their police actions across the globe.

 

[montka]

Russia and China are geographically too big, and have too large a military force, both possible and standing, to be deterred or removed by nuclear threats.

I'm pretty sure they are no more keen on being reduced to radioactive dust than anyone one else.

 

[Dedwrekka]

I'm pretty sure they are no more keen on being reduced to radioactive dust than anyone one else.

But they wouldn't (at least on a national level) which is the thing. If they were ever in a position where they were willing to use their nuclear arsenal (provided they can find it) they could use it, and their wide spread geography and population leaves the resulting retalliation somewhat impotent. Even if there was nuclear retaliation it would be unlikely to create any real damage aside from major population centers (which are a big no-no in national politics now). They would still be able to fight. Where-as you could bomb relatively few cities in Great Britan and America and destroy the economy and ability to fight back.

 

[montka]

Interesting; wouldn't they have a few important command centres that you could take out?