The conceptualization of mutually assured destruction is derived from the military theory of balance of threat. In context, the balance of threat indicates the capacity of conflicting sides to have equal military power and threat against the other. The offensive capabilities of each side are therefore equal or greater than the other. The term of mutually assured destruction gained traction during the cold war era as the United States and the Soviet Union involved in sequences of proxy wars across the globe while mutually increasing their military arsenal. In context, each nation developed a sizeable amount of nuclear weapons that ensured that mutual destruction of both sides if any of them decided to act against the other (Chassang, and Miquel, 2010). The threat of mutually assured destruction is underscored by the recognition of the destructive force of nuclear weapons. Therein, in any hostilities, should any side decide to strike against the other, the other side is obligated to retaliate with equal or greater force. The result, therefore, would indicate extensive damage and massive loss of life to both sides to the scale that is undesired by all parties.
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is also employed as a deterrent against a first-strike attack. This is exhibited in the event of a first strike, the second party would retaliate on warning, or the surviving forces would launch a second strike with equal or greater force. The consequence, therefore, would constitute massive levels of devastation on both sides that would not be acceptable. Consequently, the doctrine ensures the preservation of a stable peace among the opposing parties due to the deterrence of first-strike attacks.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Underscored in the context of global peace, the morality of mutually assured destruction is pegged on the recognition of capabilities of both parties. For instance, the recognition that the Soviet Union had and has ample nuclear ordnances to ensure the total destruction of the United States and vice versa, prevented both nations from engaging in direct conflict (Parrington, 1997). The doctrine of mutually assured destruction creates a solicited global peace as all actors in the international system recognize the destructive force of weapons of mass destruction. In context, nations underscore the importance of maintenance of world peace through the balance of threat that is maintained by the concept of mutually assured destruction. Therein, since the massive loss of life and destruction of economies is undesired by all parties, the doctrine ensures the peaceful coexistence of all nations.
The development and advancement of technology have changed the landscape of war as well as the platform of the international system. Focus has shifted greatly from physical warfare to cyber and economic rivalries in the twenty-first century. Nonetheless, despite the change, the policy of mutually assured destruction holds considerable influence on military policy as it evolves with the evolving landscape (Kassab, 2014). Essentially, the presence of weapons of mass destruction such as the nuclear arsenals held by various nations across the globe ensures the applicability of mutually assured destruction in military policy.
Nuclear proliferation across the world has denoted the escalation of conflicts among nations. For example, the North Korea nuclear crisis has denoted the uncertainty of effective arms control treaties. Therefore, an alternative to arms control treaties can be purported to be economic corporation among nations (Sokolski, 2004). Corporation enhances the relationships among states, therefore, reducing the need for weapons of mass destruction and military expenditure. Consequently, the relationships created with corporation ensures a more stable world peace as opposed to the tense global peace ensured by that doctrine.
References
Chassang, S., & Miquel, G. P. I. (2010). Conflict and deterrence under strategic risk. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 125 (4), 1821-1858.
Kassab, H. S. (2014). In search of cyber stability: international relations, mutually assured destruction and the age of cyber warfare. In Cyberspace and International Relations (pp. 59-76). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Parrington, A. J. (1997). Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited. Strategic Doctrine in Question. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL AIRPOWER JOURNAL.
Sokolski, H. D. (2004). Getting MAD: nuclear mutual assured destruction, its origins, and practice. Diane Publishing.
