Mutually Assured Destruction

Lucy Lastovic
May 12, 2015
Mrs. Lawson- H Block
Exam

Mutually Assured Destruction

US vs. USSR

DEFCON Map

Political Cartoon

Robert McNamara

Nikita Khrushchev (Soviet)

      Mutual assured destruction or MAD, is a doctrine of military strategy and National security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both sides. In Layman’s terms, each side threatens to annihilate the other side if the opposing side threatens to bomb them. According to the Center for Naval Analyses, “When Soviets accepted ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ as a reality in present-day conditions, the soviet debate on the viability of nuclear war as an instrument of policy was resolved by a consensus: nuclear war is so unpromising and dangerous that it remains an instrument of politics only in theory, an instrument of politics that can not be used” (Fitzgerald). There is still much controversy about if we should should still keep the policy of mutual assured destruction. Does it keep us safe? Is it dangerous for so many countries to be in possession of thousands of nuclear weapons? In this essay, I will discuss the benefits or lack there of in regards to mutual assured destruction, while also focusing on how this military tactic has affected society and the outcomes of wars against our enemies.

Mutual assured destruction was created on the principle or fear of communism, and the unknown possibility of an enemy "lurking in the shadows" ready to attack (Parrington). Past U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, argued for a flexible nuclear response, which meant stockpiling a huge nuclear arsenal (Castella). In the event of a Soviet attack on the U.S., the U.S. would have enough nuclear firepower to survive the first nuclear attack and also be able to strike back full force (Castella). For most of the 1960’s, McNamara argued that as long as the two superpowers—the U.S. and the U.S.S.R— had confidence in their capacity for mutual assured destruction—an ability to impose “unacceptable damage”— the relationship between the two would be stable (Freeman). Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, explained that by stockpiling ample amounts of nuclear weapons, neither side would have anything to gain by initiating a first strike because of the "retaliatory capability" of both to send the other pack to the Paleolithic (Shermer). According to Teller, this tactic would prove effective in any military crisis (Shermer). “The Soviets developed their arsenal in response to the United States; the Chinese in response to the Soviets; the Indians, the Chinese; the Pakistanis, the Indians; and so on” (Parrington). MAD spread like wildfire, one country felt the need to build a nuclear stockpile in response to their enemies and so forth. Although mutual assured destruction has never been used, it caused quite an emotional effect on society.

The age of mutual assured destruction brought forth a new fear amongst society, with citizens fearing for their lives, knowing that they could be annihilated within minutes with just a touch of a button. According to Dr. Christopher Lauct, one of the main fears was that the public had no control whatsoever. “ You were at the mercy of political decision makers. Apart from the fear that one side would so something stupid, there was also the fear of technology and the question of ‘what if an accident happened” (Castella). In the 1980s, fear of an impending attack became part of everyday conversation. It even became a frequent discussion amongst children, who would speculate what the first signs of nuclear attack were. In 1983, there were numbers of false alarms in Russia: the Soviet Union’s early warning system mistakingly picked up a U.S. missile coming into the U.S.S.R (Castella). Fear became widespread across the globe, despite the authorities efforts to offer reassurance. In the U.K., officials promoted a “Protect and Survive” campaign which gave tips on how to build a nuclear shelter (Castella). In today’s society, the fear of nuclear warfare is minimal, almost nonexistent. With 21st-century technology and highly skilled military branches, it is the belief among most Americans that nuclear war could never happen because both sides, no matter who the “opponent”, were in possession of large and protected forces and nuclear stockpiles. Nick Bostrom, the Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University agrees with this claim by stating, “ ‘The fear of nuclear war has diminished partly because the risk has receded significantly with the end of the cold war’” (Castella). Although American society today fears the possibility of nuclear warfare much less than America in the late 1900s, there still is the question as to if mutually assured destruction keeps us safer or more at risk?

President Reagan once said, “ ‘ […] to look down to an endless future with both of us sitting here with these horrible missiles aimed at each other and the only thing preventing a holocaust is just so long as no one pulls this trigger—this is unthinkable,’” (Jervis). President Reagan was one of the biggest enemies against mutual assured destruction. Like a majority of the population, he viewed it as a policy that involved destroying the would if war broke out: “ ‘totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization,’” (Shermer) No U.S president since Jimmy Carter has been willing to renounce this defense (Jervis). The White House altogether has rejected the central precepts of mutual assured destruction which is that nuclear weapons are good for deterrence only (Jervis). The only military uses that they deem appropriate for using nuclear weapons would be in destroying an adversary’s WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) sites that are buried deep underground (Jervis). To answer the question, “does MAD keep us safer”, the answer would be no. Mutual assured destruction or the use of nuclear weapons did not keep the peace in Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, or Latin America (Parrington). Even though one side in the war often had “the bomb” and theoretically coerced the other side into submission, nuclear weapons have gotten us no where (Parrington). Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world views nuclear warfare as "civilian annihilation" (Sokolski). Donald Brennan, a specialist in arms control from the US Hudson institute who coined the term or acronym “MAD”, used this acronym to ridicule the idea that in a nuclear war each side should be prepared to destroy each others societies. How could we be safer with this policy with just a push of a button  our country would be eliminated? In the U.S. Government’s eyes, mutual assured destruction is our “fail safe”. However, political scientist Jacek Kuger disagrees. His reasons for this claim are that: “ One, some states that have nukes, such as North Korea, are unpredictable. Two, rogue states want nukes. Three, states waging conventional wars might escalate to using nukes. Four, if terrorists get nukes, they'll use them. Five, the taboo against using nuclear weapons has not yet expanded into a taboo against owning them, and so the danger of accidents or unhinged leaders remains. And six, the nuclear genie of how to make an atomic bomb is out of the bottle, which means other nations or terrorists can obtain them and destabilize deterrence” (Shermer). In closing, mutual assured destruction does not keep us safe. In reality, mutual assured destruction is an empty threat to declare nuclear warfare, yet everyone is too afraid to take that risk.

In October 1962, eight months after the mutual assured destruction policy was announced, it was almost put to the test during the 13 day ordeal of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Castella). In response to the Bay of Pigs invasion and other American discrepancies agains Cuba, as well as the build-up of U.S. strategic nuclear forces with "first-strike capability" directed at the Soviets, the U.S.S.R increased their support of Fidel Castro’s Cuban Regime. Nikita Krushchev—became head of the Communist Party (after the death of Stalin) and one of the most powerful people in the USSR—secretly installed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba. When the U.S. government discovered this intel, President Kennedy publicly denounced the Soviet’s actions. In response to the Soviet’s actions, Kennedy placed a Naval blockade on Cuba and declared that any missile launched from Cuba would warrant full-scale attack by the U.S. on the Soviet Union. On October 24 1962, Russian ships bringing missiles to Cuba turned around and Krushcher agreed to withdraw missiles and dismantle missile sites. November 20, 1962, the U.S. ended the blockade placed on Cuba, and in return, the missiles and bombers were removed from Cuba. The U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba and also removed ballistic missiles placed in Turkey, per orders of Krushcher (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). The Cuban Missile crisis was one of the closest calls in American history where we have come close to acting upon mutual assured destruction. 

At the beginning of this project when we were selecting our topics, I was first drawn to the science-based topics concerning where our food comes from and whether or not it is safe to eat. However, I decided to branch out from my go-to topics and research something I knew absolutely nothing about, mutual assured destruction. Seeing as I had no knowledge beforehand, my focus did not change throughout my research process. The biggest obstacle throughout this paper was sifting through all of the data and only taking notes on what pertained to my topic. In order to do so, I narrowed my search questions into more specific and focused topics where I would find more in-depth information. By writing this paper and researching about mutual assured destruction, I learned that our government along with every country who participates in mutual assured destruction, are extremely idiotic. The whole policy itself is ridiculous, but the outcome of this policy would be detrimental to the entire human race! Altogether, I really enjoyed researching this topic because I learned lots of information about the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Union that I had never known before.

Throughout this essay, I have discussed the pros and cons in regards to mutual assured destruction, how this particular military tactic has affected our society, and the outcomes of wars against our enemies that were greatly influenced by this policy. Mutual assured destruction was a product of the U.S. Doctrine of Massive Retaliation, and despite the attempts to redefine or reevaluate it into contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for over three decades (Parrington). A constant theme throughout my research is that worldwide many view mutual assured destruction as a tactic that will end up killing states, countries, or even nations. MAD does not keep us safer, it just keeps 9 countries in possession of 17,300 nuclear weapons (Shermer). In closing I will leave you with a question: If mutual assured destruction has been shown not to make us any safer, then why are we still in possession of enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the earth five times over? 

 Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited
I used a lot of information from this source, which was written by Alan J. Parrington. It provided a lot of insight on how MAD came to exist, and for that matter, why it came to exist. Throughout my essay I used many quotes from this paper. This source provided me with a majority of my data and information, and it was easy for me to understand what the author was saying.

 Getting MAD: A Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Origins and Practice

This source included information on the nuclear development of MAD and how different countries began to stockpile their weapons. Other than that, I did not find much use out of this source. It was hard for me to pick out what was and what was not important to my paper because there was so much information clumped together that it became overwhelming to read. However, this source was extremely consistent with their information and it seemed that everything was accurate and credible.

The Dustbin of History: Mutual Assured Destruction.

This was probably the source I used the most because it included a lot of information about how this policy affected people and what people thought about it. It talked a lot about the concept of how no one dared to even bomb someone else because the outcome would be so devastating to both sides that it wasn't even worth it to declare nuclear warfare. 

Mutual Assured Destruction

I did not find much information from this source except for McNamara's argument for how MAD was beneficial to military actions because it would create a stability between the two opposing sides. It also included views of the critics or people who saw what MAD for what it really was: a disaster waiting to happen.

How Did We Forget About Mutually Assured Destruction?

This source provided a lot of information about how this policy affected people worldwide. It stated that the age of MAD brought forth a new fear because citizens knew that they could be annihilated at any moment with just a push of a button. I used a lot of quotes from this source to help back up my claims and argument. 

 Marshal Ogarkov And The New Revolution In Soviet Military Affairs
This was my primary source which contained documents from the Center for Naval Analyses. I did not find much in this site except for a quote which was about how the Soviets viewed mutual assured destruction. The site was very long so I was unable to read through all of the material. However, the information was easy to understand and the author supported all of her claims with plenty of evidence.

 Will Mutual Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?

In this source it included the perspective from Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb. He explained the effectiveness of this policy by saying that,"by stockpiling many weapons neither side has anything to gain by initiating a first strike because of the retaliatory capability of both to send the other back to the Paleolithic." It also included quotes about President Reagan's view of this policy and how he planned to get rid of it.

 Cuban Missile Crisis
This source was extremely straight forward and did a great job of summarizing the cuban missile crisis to where it didn't include unnecessary details. I knew nothing about the cuban missile crisis and this source was really easy to follow and it helped me to understand the policy of MAD so much more. 
 Nikita Khrushchev

This source was used just to find out what Khrushchev did during the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis because his name appeared a lot throughout my research. The information was really easy to follow and did not include a crazy amount of details. Although I only used a snippet amount of information from this source, I really liked the way they put all of the information together.