M.A.D.: Mutual Assured Destruction (Modern Plays)
FREE Shipping
M.A.D.: Mutual Assured Destruction (Modern Plays)
- Brand: Unbranded
Description
Jervis, Robert (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics: New Edition. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-8511-4. Kaplan, Edward. "To Kill Nations: American Strategy in the Air-Atomic Age and the Rise of Mutually Assured Destruction." Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015. Danilovic, Vesna (2002). When the stakes are high :deterrence and conflict among major powers /. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p.10. hdl: 2027/mdp.39015056796371. ISBN 978-0-472-11287-6. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( August 2013) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia
MIRVed land-based ICBMs are generally considered suitable for a first strike (inherently counterforce) or a counterforce second strike, due to:
a b Richard Pipes (1977). "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War" (PDF). Reed College. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 14, 2013 . Retrieved September 4, 2013. Ross, Douglas Alan (1998). "Canada's Functional Isolationism: And the Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction". International Journal. 54 (1): 120–142. doi: 10.2307/40203359. ISSN 0020-7020. JSTOR 40203359. What caused these oscillations between pessimism and optimism about the nuclear balance? American officials did not express confidence in MAD, as predicted by the theory of the nuclear revolution. Instead, these mood swings confirm Green’s theory about a delicate nuclear competition. But the threat of nuclear annihilation remains real. The Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit founded in 1945 by scientists and engineers who had worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear bomb, reports that as of early 2022, about 12,700 nuclear warheads are possessed today by nine countries: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Most of them are held by the United States and Russia, which have about 4,000 warheads each. And according to a 2018 scientific study in the journal Safety, that's enough to wipe out almost all of us. This is where mutually assured destruction comes in. Since multiple nations have nuclear bombs they could deploy, any one country deploying them would result in the destruction of nations and a majority of humanity. Knowing that worldwide, humanity would suffer from the deployment of a nuclear bomb forces each nation with nuclear bombs into a stalemate. The fear of retaliation inhibits action. Reverting to the childlike tendency of ‘I won’t if you won’t’, the development of mutually assured destruction as a result of nuclear bombs is actually a method of peacekeeping.1 It is a rational response to the knowledge that acting would lead to one’s own destruction.
Plays for Teenagers by Acclaimed Playwright Don Zolidis
Steelhooves: In a world where not everyone is sane, it is the height of insanity to believe you could create a weapon so devastating, so horrible, that no one would dare use it. To go after cities, if deterrence should fail, to my mind would be suicidal. It wasn’t just a question of damage-limiting; I believed—and still do—that a counterforce doctrine and posture of sufficient scope would persuade the Soviet Union that it could not count on achieving a military victory in a nuclear exchange. This would assure effective deterrence. After the deployment of the first atomic bomb came a race between other nations to develop this same cruel weaponry. The Soviet Union did not want to find themselves in the same position as Japan in the event that they engaged in a war with the U.S. They began to work towards creating hydrogen bombs that would have an even more devastating impact than atomic bombs. The U.S. responded by equally dedicating time, effort and resources into developing their own hydrogen bomb. Not before long, other nations got in on the action. 4 Buzan, Barry. “The Logic of Deterrence”. In: An Introduction to Strategic Studies . International Institute for Strategic Studies Conference Papers, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18796-6_12.
History
Animorphs: Crayak and Ellimist, two Sufficiently Advanced Aliens who would likely destroy the entire universe and themselves along with it if they ever fought openly. This forces them to engage in Proxy Wars with such groups as the Yeerks and the Animorphs.
Nuclear strategy - Deterrence, Flexible Response, Arms Control
The prisoner’s dilemma is a classic philosophical thought experiment that shows why acting in one’s own self-interest often results in worse consequences than working together with others. It provides evidence that mutually assured destruction should be considered when making decisions, as it can benefit both competing parties.
Examples:
The term "assured destruction" was first used in the 1960s by then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. But according to Britannica, the longer phrase "mutual assured destruction" was coined by an opponent of the policy, American military analyst Donald Brennan, who argued that it did little to secure U.S. defense interests in the long-term. Frost, Peter. "Newport News contract awarded". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2009-04-26 . Retrieved 2011-09-27.
- Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
- EAN: 764486781913
-
Sold by: Fruugo