MADness

Warning: Today’s post is a little morbid.

MAD, or mutually assured destruction, is a military acronym for a nuclear war in which both (or all) countries were able to hit each other with nuclear weapons. Obviously this is a scenario we would like to avoid, and for the past 50 years, nuclear non-proliferation groups have been trying to do just that. These groups have been working to ban nuclear weapons and reduce nuclear stockpiles by ensuring the safe decommissioning of these weapons. These programs have been met with mixed success—overall, stockpiles have not gone down, but there is certainly more awareness of who has nuclear arms. Some countries, such as Russia, have only agreed to decommission missiles that are now outdated anyway.

But recently I was wondering if non-proliferation is really what is best for us. As crazy as it may sound, it may be safer for us to have nuclear weapons than not to have them.

I would like to discuss an analogy used by Tom Clancy in one of his books. It goes something like this: I am pointing a loaded gun at you, which has six bullets in it. You realize that this is a problem, so you decide to reduce the danger by convincing me to take three bullets out of the gun. But the fact remains: three bullets is more than enough to do you in. Clancy’s point is obvious: reducing nuclear arms stockpiles is useless—either nuclear weapons must be totally banned, or simply allowed in any quantity. One is all it takes to commit atrocities.

Next, remember that the fear of MAD is one of the reasons a nuclear war has never taken place. Because missile interception pales in comparison with missile stealth technology, no one is going to want to start a nuclear was because it is more than likely that everyone is going to get hit. Even though we came awfully close during the Cuban missile crisis, the reason we were able to eventually resolve the problem is that no one really wanted MAD. The fear of MAD also deters wars between superpowers, since nuclear war would seem the most likely option—and neither side really wants that.

Also, consider the other potential uses for nuclear weapons. For example, there is no other way to swat an incoming asteroid out of the sky. Also, “clean” atomic bombs are often used to create huge holes in the ground for mining purposes.

Of course, I am not suggesting that nuclear weapons are nothing to be worried about. I do have some serious concerns when it comes to WMD’s. The first is terrorism. Recently New York City created something called “the ring,” which is a series of radiation detectors at tollbooths on highways leading into the city. Why? Because the threat of a nuclear attack is still present. Countries like Russia must not be so careless when it comes to security, since carelessness with weapons of mass destruction puts everyone at risk. Next, third-world countries with nuclear weapons worry me. India does not bother me because their centralized government is stable, but what about countries like Iran and North Korea? They are far from benevolent, and their political climates are too turbulent to be safe. Mixed with nuclear weapons, that won’t be a pretty sight.

I would now like to make one final comment on MAD. Despite the fact that it deters war, I have no doubt that if one country launched a nuclear missile a whole bunch of countries would. This might sound natural, but think about it for a moment. If you are the leader of a country that is about to be obliterated, why take steps to obliterate the people attacking you? It serves no logical purpose, and is simply a destructive act of vengeance. Once world leaders realize this, I think, the world will be much safer. Because, as some philosopher once remarked, in the nuclear age the enemy is war itself.