The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) idea realizes that any two warring parties have an almost equal amount of nuclear ability and technology such that should one state attack the other, the attacked party will respond with an equal or greater measure causing the ultimate almost equal destruction of both. This concept was largely and more efficiently used during the Cold War period of 1940 to 1991, although it is still applied today, between the main players, the United States and the Soviet Union (Harper, 2011). Every state, therefore, fears a massive retaliation should it initiate the first attack while at the same time holds no motive to disarm itself for fear of an attack.
The first strike is taken to imply a situation where a state attacks its enemy’s nuclear arsenal completely destroying its ability to attack back. It is, therefore, clear that it is almost impossible to launch a successful first-strike and therefore the states maintain a nervous relationship in the matter of balancing nuclear threat and power.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The moral consideration of this deterrence program is usually under fierce criticism. It is founded on the notion that a state will fear to attack the other due to the counter attack effect that it may suffer. A nuclear war has an unfathomable range of effects as realized by the Nagasaki bomb attack where 90000 people within five years on top of the 200000 that died immediately. These deaths were not discriminative, and the biggest percentage was innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war. When MAD, therefore, purports to prevent a strike because of the retaliation effects, it misses the main moral point: that war shouldn’t exist in the first place (Ememe, 2012).
The current warfare is very different from that in the 1950s. The current enemy is not a state; nations are fighting against a hidden enemy. The Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS) militants command that the countries at war with them install a nuclear-free strategy because a nuclear weapon would cause an unprecedented effect on the same victims whose protection was being fought for. Today, nuclear prowess is owned by more nations, not just the USA and the Soviet Union, majorly Russia, alone. Alliances between these countries owning such equipment would threaten any state, should they even fight against themselves. This, therefore, explains the reduced effectiveness of the MAD formula.
Its credibility on its appeal to morality is strengthened by the fact that nuclear weaponry is engaged and used as a matter of last resort. This is where all other conflict resolution measures have been tried and considered ineffective. Even so, high coercion has to be employed to result in this engagement because nuclear effects can escalate to unpredicted levels. The morality of this program, therefore, depends on the reason to engage in war and when war has been established, the manner in which that war is conducted.
Although effective arms control treaties have held a major role in ensuring a stable world, more options could be pursued. Nuclear disarmament is necessary to reduce the nuclear threat in the first place. This process is, in every way, bound to encounter hurdles due to trust and diplomacy issues between states. Great steps would be achieved towards peace and stability if it was effective. Nowadays, the nuclear potential is not a reserve for the select few states because nations like North Korea have undertaken to develop and threatened to use these arms to their defense. The willingness and commitment of such an exercise, in the end, lies on states involved, their allies and any other interested parties.
References
Harper, J. L. (2011). The Cold War . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ememe, L. L. (2012). Deterrence . Place of publication not identified: Lulu Com.
