Mutually Assured Destruction
Suzy Hannigan
The idea of mutually assured destruction creates a false sense of security for many countries because mutually assured destruction only works if the powers are equal. This means that for mutually assured destruction to actually be a deterrent there has to be a reasonable assumption that if one power was to attack they would both inevitably destroy one another. Any other distribution of power could not guarantee mutually assured destruction and therefore, proves that it does not actually exist.
Mutually assured destruction gives the illusion that states are protected from nuclear weapons but in reality an attack could happen at any time especially to states that do not have second strike capability. Nuclear weapons may not be used between major powers because the destruction it would cause would be astronomical, but there is really nothing stopping major powers from using nuclear weapons against smaller powers to send a message, especially when they cannot attack back with the same amount of force. This idea that simply the presence of nuclear weapons stops nuclear attacks is not really true. The size, power, and quantity of these weapons play a major role in whether they are a deterrent or not. Having nuclear weapons is not enough, a state must have a mass quantity with second strike capability for states to question if they should attack in the first place. This means that even if smaller nations were able to possess some form of nuclear weapons, it would not actually matter because they could not compete with the major powers of the world.
This proves that mutually assured destruction does not protect against nuclear attacks. The only true way to protect against these attacks is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. This would be near impossible, but the idea itself would prevent the astronomical destruction that nuclear weapons cause. These weapons cannot be truly justified considering the damage they cause to innocent civilians. Since the trajectory of the nuclear weapons cannot be perfectly precise the weapons could destroy the lives of innocents without even reaching their intended target. The use of these weapons cannot be justified especially considering how dangerous the outcome could be. Mutually assured destruction, although it cannot prevent attacks, still explains how these weapons can truly destroy millions of lives. Nuclear weapons are a constant threat as long as they are in existence and mutually assured destruction cannot destroy this threat.
Is there anyway for us to know for sure that nuclear assured destruction does not prevent attacks? The only time that nuclear weapons have been used was when only one country possessed nuclear weapons. Because of this theory, we have not had nuclear warfare. Also, is there any way to completely ensure that there are no nuclear weapons. If even one country keeps a nuclear weapon, then the world is at an even greater risk than when many countries had nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteLike Drew mentioned there has been once instance of nuclear weapons being used so far, so isn't the treat that your cities could be abolished a big enough threat to keep countries in check. In terms of smaller countries not having access to these weapons a lot of them have allies that do. And if weapons aren't accurate and accidently fall onto a larger power then retaliation is guaranteed. What i think mostly keeps these big powers in check is the consequences that comes from utilizing these weapons. 1,000 of innocent lives lost. News reports, senate hearing etc all make using nuclear weapons a last resort.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that the deterrence of a country is dependent not only on the existence of nuclear weapons but also on having second-strike capabilities. Having these second-strike capabilities would be a big step from just having nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteI do not fully agree with this view. In many scenarios, the risk of attacking a country with even a small nuclear arsenal is just too high, even for big nuclear powers. Even one bomb can have a devastating effect and can kill ten thousand innocent civilians. Furthermore, a nuclear attack can also be launched from submarines, which are very difficult to detect for the enemy. That is why I do believe in the deterrence of even small nuclear powers.
Although I can see all of your viewpoints, I believe that overall mutually assured destruction is too complex to assume that the presence of one nuclear weapon, or as Madison said allies with nuclear powers, is enough to deter large superpowers from using nuclear weapons if it was truly necessary to accomplish their goals. I believe that the concept of innocence lives lost is not relevant to the opposing state when it comes to that countries national interests and the lives of their own citizens. Although only one nuclear weapon can cause mass destruction I think the severity of the issue at hand plays a huge role in whether the risk is worth the end result. This is why I believe mutually assured destruction cannot be relied on when it comes to war and the consequences of it.
ReplyDelete