While the existence of nuclear weapons doubtlessly instilled both sides with caution and encouraged restraint, the fundamental problem of potential miscommunications and unwarranted responses could never be resolved - under the strains of MAD, things can go horribly awry even among rational and purely defensive actors. Much thinking went into how conflicts would play out with the nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over both sides, resulting in plans for staggered responses and controlled escalation.
#Mutually assured destruction game popcap upgrade#
The reason given for this was fear of an enemy first strike that would leave them unable to retaliate, requiring both sides to constantly expand and upgrade their arsenals in turn. Both sides engaged in a massive arms race, in the process acquiring nuclear capabilities that would have sufficed to destroy the world several times over. It strongest influence lasted from the beginning of wide-spread deployment of nuclear ICBMs during the 1960s up until the end of the Soviet Union. MAD used to dominate the strategic thinking in both camps during the Cold War - and still has significant modern implications. We're satisfied to be able to finish off the United States first time round. I said jokingly, "Yes, I know what Kennedy claims, and he's quite right. that the United States had the nuclear missile capacity to wipe out the Soviet Union two times over, while the Soviet Union had enough atomic weapons to wipe out the United States only once. “ ”I remember President Kennedy once stated. Disturbingly, America's previous president demonstrated on the campaign trail that he had no fucking idea what the nuclear triad even was.
![mutually assured destruction game popcap mutually assured destruction game popcap](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V9Vs91zN1eY/XbqPPsRhJ-I/AAAAAAAAyXc/SOzB6-PDt_c1PKN6GaU32ndlWt5WdjqigCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/War%2BGames.jpg)
You can see this in action with the US and Russian "nuclear triad" strategy, where they have ensured that there are three means of delivering nukes which cannot be simultaneously neutralized: submarines, strategic bombers, and missiles. This leads to a situation where it is better to protect the weapons than the people. Or, even if you wouldn't, your opponent might fear being left in that position, and thus preemptively attack. Otherwise, there is too great an incentive to attack. At the same time, the people must be vulnerable enough to attack that such a retaliation would be too devastating to cope with. Otherwise, the other side could launch a preemptive strike to take out your weapons. In order to work, both sides' nuclear arsenals must be safe (enough) from an initial attack to launch an effective retaliatory strike. The main shortcoming of MAD doctrine is that it contains no real intermediate stages between the "peace" and "total war", and thus makes any sort of de-escalation impossible. Unfortunately, there have been many close calls in which people have almost started a nuclear war by accident. The other problem is that MAD implementation demanded that there would be absolutely no miscommunication between both sides, no misinterpretation of each other's actions, no false alerts and definitely no provocations of other powers. And MAD poses another question: If one of our cities has been reduced to rubble and millions of innocent people killed, are we willing to kill more innocent people for revenge? In game theoretic terms, the choices posed by MAD are a form of Nash equilibrium.
![mutually assured destruction game popcap mutually assured destruction game popcap](https://www.rgamereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Escape-Games-Series-3.-Escape-The-Emerald-Star.jpg)
They may believe that the retaliatory strike will send them to Paradise, or they may be rogue agents with no clear homeland to retaliate against. Unfortunately, some of them may act out of frothing hatred or insanity. In all seriousness, though, MAD depends on all those with nuclear weapons to act out of rational self-interest.
![mutually assured destruction game popcap mutually assured destruction game popcap](https://www.vegasslotsonline.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/shutterstock_1213515337.png)
In theory, military conflict would become impossible once all sides are armed with credible deterrents, preventing anyone other than an insane leader from launching an attack. Mutually assured destruction, often referred to by the apt acronym MAD, refers to the military defense principle whereby the possession of enough weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear missiles) serves as protection from attack, due to the threat of an overwhelming retaliation.