MAD only works if the other side is afraid they'll be destroyed if they destroy you.

John_C_87

@excon
That is not true... and the situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction. Fear was never the purpose behind mutually assured destruction, the introduction of a plan to use Chemical / Nuclear weapons in combat is just the prediction of a course of violence that will not stop at the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is clear and has been made clear. But, NOW, we're afraid to threaten Putin, the way he's threatening the world. We will not threaten Putin the question is what actions will be taken to liberate a future Ukraine held globally from a criminal occupation, will it come from the Russian military itself. Will it come from somewhere else or a combination of both internal and external tribunals?  As a Presdient of Russia Putin can be officially relieved of command of military forces as those under command become accountable. Though because Russia calls its leader a President much like the United States it does not make him by whole truth and vote a United Stated President preserving constitutional states of the union. Not that it will happen, or must happen in that way. At this point, very few nations in the world look at Ukraine as the invasion force of any Nation. The argument appears to be over a portion of Ukraine's border that is in contact with the Russian border directly.

If Putin is no longer afraid of us, what will he do?
Putin was never afraid of America, the fear if any is over constitutional united states of law which are the reason behind attempts to alienate. Remember with America's removal from the events of Afgan opioid exposures in Europe.

MrDebatePerson2

 

excon

John_C_87 said:

@excon
That is not true... and the situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction. Fear was never the purpose behind mutually assured destruction

Hello John:

It is, indeed, true..  The ONLY reason MAD worked, is that SANE people on both sides knew, absolutely, KNEW, that they'd be destroyed themselves, if they fired their nukes.

When ONE side, like Putin STOPS believing that, the world has shifted.  I'm just wondering what we should do.

excon

MayCaesar

The idea of "mutually assured destruction" is unsound game theory-wise. If initiating AND retaliating against an attack leads destruction, then initiating an attack makes practical sense, because retaliating is impractical and, hence, is not to be expected. In turn, retaliating makes sense, because retaliating against retaliation is impractical. And so on. The bottom line is, a rational agent has no reason to be stopped by the "mutually assured destruction" considerations.

I think that what contains regimes like Russia and China is not this weird idea, but just the clear stance of the Western countries: that if they were to go too far, there would be consequences. I am sure Putin is not afraid of Russia burning in a nuclear fire - but he is afraid of heavy sanctions and military operations that can potentially shatter his regime, which undoubtedly would result in him being imprisoned, at the very least.

excon

MayCaesar said:

The idea of "mutually assured destruction" is unsound game theory-wise. If initiating AND retaliating against an attack leads destruction, then initiating an attack makes practical sense, because retaliating is impractical and, hence, is not to be expected.

Hello May:

Huh?  Are you saying whoever fires 1st, WINS a nuclear war, because it's "impractical" to retaliate??   What's impractical is for one side to BELIEVE that they WOULDN'T be destroyed if they fired 1st.. 

It takes about 15 minutes for Russian missiles to reach us. So, we'd have plenty of time to fire back and annihilate them.  Why you and/or Putin thinks we wouldn't is what's maddening..

excon

MayCaesar

@excon

Suppose there are two sides, A and B, maintainig peace solely out of the consideration of mutually assured destruction. Two assumptions are possible.

1. Side B is irrational. Then there is no reason to assume that it is planning to act the way MAD prescribes, therefore justifying a nuclear attack on A's part.

2. Side B is rational. In that case, it understands that retaliation is not in its best interest, given how it will only trigger re-retaliation on A's part leading to even worse casualties, while providing nothng of value in return. Hence it will not retaliate.

Either way, the MAD considerations do not cause B to retaliate against A's attack, therefore A does not have to take them into account when deciding whether to attack B or not.

MAD is not stopping Russia now, is it? When has it ever demonstrably stopped any potential aggressor?

excon

MayCaesar said:

MAD is not stopping Russia now, is it? When has it ever demonstrably stopped any potential aggressor?

Hello May:

No..  But, Putin isn't rational.

excon

Barnardot

I totally agree because Putin is scaring every one with his madness and then no one knows how to deal him. So what we need to do is ignore him because mad people always look for attention because they didn’t get there mommy’s baby milk. Then like all ways with these psychos the Russians will get tired with him then linch him like they did to the Zar. @excon