Mutual Assured Destruction 3.0 - MAD policies have always sounded 'insane', the concept of using nucela weapons is 'insane' and every

[Doomguy246]

Note: This is a proposed 'MAD 3.0, to replace MAD.


MAD policies have always sounded 'insane', the concept of using nucela weapons is 'insane' and everything about this tipic is 'insane'. So insanity is the order of the day on these issues.
So the question is: How do you deel with multiple states with ICBM capability with programs meant to only respond to a single threat, or variations on programs meant to only understand a single threat.
My proposed solution is to produce a single 'all encompassing threat' to any actor who would utilize nuclear weapons in any capacity. I propose China, Russia and the United States alone, I do not expect the rapidly solidifying EU (which includes France and the United Kingdom) to survive past 2050, while all three nations mentioned can be expected to have a high chance of survival if the proper actions are taken. (None of these are relevant to this concept/document.)

-The aforementioned three nations shall attack any nation with their entire missle based nuclear force which utillizes nuclear weapons first, no matter what reason. (Further known as a 'counter-attack'.)
-Utilization of nuclear weapons includes launching weapons with armed warheads. Said counter-attack will take place once proper guilt can be asertained, but within two hours for missle based attacks. Non missle based attacks may be counter-attacked at any point within three weeks of a non-missle based attack.
-Responsive counterattack excludes retribition-based counter-attack by any nation with which a private agreement with all three signatory nations is present.
-Further sections can be added to this agreement at a later date.

The first section is the basic arrangement. The second defines 'utilization of nuclear weapons'. The third is mostly for private agreements and secret treaties. [Note: You know Isreal will be immune, as it's the only way to get the US to sign such a agreement.] The final part is just to allow more sections to be allowed to the agreement.


If this sounds insane, don't mention it.
But if I missed anything, mention it.
I will ignore list retards and idiots.

(PS: Mods, can you change the subtitle to 'Mutual Assured Destruction in a Post Proliferation World.')

 

[Ol' Slag]

Cam you explain why the EU won't survive past 2050?

 

[cypocraphy]

If there's two Americans and only one Chinaman left alive in the entire world, then that means we win.

 

[Techpriest]

You really don't understand anyone's nuclear doctrine if you think MAD is applicable now.

I'll explain more later.

EDIT:

@millais, please explain the dumb rating.

To understand why MAD isn't applicable, and without going into seriously insanely in depth detail regarding such, you need to look at the general arsenals of the various nuclear armed states and realize the main purposes of nuclear weapons in the current world - deterrence. Nobody but the US or Russia has an arsenal capable of true MAD, which one can roughly define as being able to destroy or incapacitate most large population centers, military installations, strategic targets, and infrastructure. Everyone else might be able to kill millions but more than certainly does not have the ability to destroy the function of a nation state. For that matter, the delivery method of warheads and the response mechanisms need to be considered along with already currently standing nuclear thresholds. Instead, nuclear use is reserved for very specific scenarios, and has been since the mid to late 80's as NATO achieved conventional parity with the Warsaw Pact.

Of the nuclear armed powers, all but one has a deterrence based statement (IE if you use nukes on us we'll smack you back) and even the one that states they're willing to use first (The United States) has a nuclear doctrine developed and based around using their own overwhelming numbers of ready and utilizable nukes to effectively neuter any attempted retaliation against them. Your 'counter attack' plays against the interests of all parties involved, especially when it comes to actual potential nuclear exchange scenarios across the world (Of which only India and Pakistan are really at risk of occurring) many of which would involve one of your three powers utilizing nuclear strikes against another of the three. They wouldn't gain anything in signing onto such a treaty except for limiting their own strategic options.

If you want to understand in rather grim detail why MAD is impossible especially in a modern age, I advise you read into an old but still highly applicable book on the subject, "On Thermonuclear War" by Hermann Kahn, which is and has been one of the major influences on US and Western nuclear strategic policy for decades. The basic principle of Kahn's work however, is that to truly achieve MAD, you need to have an absolutely insane amount of warheads as you need to account not only for destroying the enemy's targets, but your own failure rates, refusals to launch, devices that cannot strike in time, and devices that are incapacitated by enemy launches. In reality, a far smaller nuclear arsenal can circumvent this MAD-ensuring arsenal by simply dedicating itself to a counterforce strike with a small reserve of warheads to destroy counter-value targets in case of a full out civilian focused nuclear war. Maintaining a MAD capable arsenal is expensive and inefficient and ties you to a philosophy where you have to launch even when doing so may not be in your best strategic interests. MAD falls apart when you start involving third parties and nuclear use against these third parties who cannot offer the same scale of an arsenal, nor posess any launch methods to deter a counter-force strike.

Counter-force is the US's primary doctrine for its nuclear forces alongside deterrence simply because it offers far more options than tying yourself to a suicide pact if someone launches anything.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Nukes are a waste of strategic material, made for nothing but international dick-waving.

 

[Bassomatic]

Nukes are a waste of strategic material, made for nothing but international dick-waving.

Half of that is right. Having a big dick is never a bad thing.

 

[Techpriest]

Half of that is right. Having a big dick is never a bad thing.

Nuclear weapons are currently as much a tool of statecraft as they are of war. The age of the tactical nuclear option isn't over, but the chances of tactical nuclear use are extremely low right now. You're more likely to see strategic "Fuck You And Everything You Own" nuclear use through the 'twitches' of a destroyed nuclear capable state as commanders are forced to use their own judgement in regards to launch. Modern BMD systems are a response not only to this but also to the rise of smaller nuclear armed powers - you don't need to engage in MAD with North Korea when they can't uphold their end of the bargain. It also makes 'traditional' MAD scenarios between the US and Russia less likely, much to the whining and bitching by the Russians who can't afford to invest in them on the same scale as the United States, but also because the installation of BMD in Europe prevents them from using their nuclear arsenal to bully non-nuclear states in Europe effectively with the threat of nuclear annihilation if they do things Russia doesn't like (such as say, participate in a NATO response against a Russian incursion into the Baltic States).

 

[Doomguy246]

Cam you explain why the EU won't survive past 2050?

\

It will dissolve into a puddle of shitpeople. That point it cannot be expected tpo have the same policies as the modern (whote) EU states.

So no inviting it to the 'hold the world hostage to it's survival' club. Because we can't rely on it's willingness to do something civilized. You just can't say that politically.

 

[Broseph Stalin]

You really don't understand anyone's nuclear doctrine if you think MAD is applicable now.

I'll explain more later.

EDIT:

@millais, please explain the dumb rating.

To understand why MAD isn't applicable, and without going into seriously insanely in depth detail regarding such, you need to look at the general arsenals of the various nuclear armed states and realize the main purposes of nuclear weapons in the current world - deterrence. Nobody but the US or Russia has an arsenal capable of true MAD, which one can roughly define as being able to destroy or incapacitate most large population centers, military installations, strategic targets, and infrastructure. Everyone else might be able to kill millions but more than certainly does not have the ability to destroy the function of a nation state. For that matter, the delivery method of warheads and the response mechanisms need to be considered along with already currently standing nuclear thresholds. Instead, nuclear use is reserved for very specific scenarios, and has been since the mid to late 80's as NATO achieved conventional parity with the Warsaw Pact.

Of the nuclear armed powers, all but one has a deterrence based statement (IE if you use nukes on us we'll smack you back) and even the one that states they're willing to use first (The United States) has a nuclear doctrine developed and based around using their own overwhelming numbers of ready and utilizable nukes to effectively neuter any attempted retaliation against them. Your 'counter attack' plays against the interests of all parties involved, especially when it comes to actual potential nuclear exchange scenarios across the world (Of which only India and Pakistan are really at risk of occurring) many of which would involve one of your three powers utilizing nuclear strikes against another of the three. They wouldn't gain anything in signing onto such a treaty except for limiting their own strategic options.

If you want to understand in rather grim detail why MAD is impossible especially in a modern age, I advise you read into an old but still highly applicable book on the subject, "On Thermonuclear War" by Hermann Kahn, which is and has been one of the major influences on US and Western nuclear strategic policy for decades. The basic principle of Kahn's work however, is that to truly achieve MAD, you need to have an absolutely insane amount of warheads as you need to account not only for destroying the enemy's targets, but your own failure rates, refusals to launch, devices that cannot strike in time, and devices that are incapacitated by enemy launches. In reality, a far smaller nuclear arsenal can circumvent this MAD-ensuring arsenal by simply dedicating itself to a counterforce strike with a small reserve of warheads to destroy counter-value targets in case of a full out civilian focused nuclear war. Maintaining a MAD capable arsenal is expensive and inefficient and ties you to a philosophy where you have to launch even when doing so may not be in your best strategic interests. MAD falls apart when you start involving third parties and nuclear use against these third parties who cannot offer the same scale of an arsenal, nor posess any launch methods to deter a counter-force strike.

Counter-force is the US's primary doctrine for its nuclear forces alongside deterrence simply because it offers far more options than tying yourself to a suicide pact if someone launches anything.

I find this very informative. But the time it took you to write this post could have been spent making a video of you EATING THE FUCKING HAT.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

My opinions on the subject:

Spoiler

 

[DuskEngine]

Of the nuclear armed powers, all but one has a deterrence based statement (IE if you use nukes on us we'll smack you back) and even the one that states they're willing to use first (The United States)

Pakistan also has a first-use policy. They have a policy against preemptive war in general, but are prepared to respond to conventional aggression with nukes.

 

[Techpriest]

Pakistan also has a first-use policy. They have a policy against preemptive war in general, but are prepared to respond to conventional aggression with nukes.

Pakistan's arsenal is still mostly a deterrence factor against India. Their first-use is basically the "Fuck You" spasms that will occur in case Pajeet makes Pakistan his designated shitting street.

 

[Bassomatic]

I think MAD still applies in some ways but the nuke game has changed and @Techpriest expanded on before.

Let's not forget the Samson option. If that's not MAD I don't know what is. In cases like mentioned with NK it's debatable, they could hit a city and the retort is just pure hell fire. It's a bee sting approach, yea this is gonna hurt but costs me everything.

Places like Russia v America it's always been a tool of dick swinging, but if some how Russia threw at us or vice versa I doubt either of us would walk from that.

 

[CWCchange]

Cam you explain why the EU won't survive past 2050?

Because Techpriest still won't eat the fucking hat, and instead would rather type a fucking novel ITT without the decency of a TD;LR.