Wednesday, May 18, 2016
let's get MAD up in this joint!
Let's get down to the brass tacks of what MAD was and how it benefitted or put us at a disadvantage in the cold war. MAD was essentially stood for Mutually Assured Destruction. Which essentially meant that if we were to send nuclear missiles at the enemy, we would have to literally destroy all of them or else they would respond with equal or greater force in order to try and destroy us. Hence the destruction part. The Mutually assured part was that our president and the enemies president agreed that this would happen if either side were to attack. So essentially this was a good thing because it basically assured that no side would get hurt, because attacking the enemy would almost definitely mean that your country was to get hurt too, and no one wanted that. A con of this would be, if one side were to attack (for any foolish reason) millions of people would die. So after that both sides were hiding their weapons in submarines and silo's in order to have a chance to rebuttal the attack if they were to be attacked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It was a really good summary of MAD, but what is your opinion on it? You say that it is "essentially" a good thing, yet would you be confident in having a mutual "understanding" be the only thing that is keeping your country from being obliterated. You said yourself that this contract actually just forced the countries to be a lot more sneaky about the way that they were producing and stowing their weapons away, so is that really a good thing? To me this seems like a much shadier way to assure the public of their safety and trust, while they are also going around and continuing with the mistrust and deception, this time with a deadly twist.
ReplyDeleteIt was a really good summary of MAD, but what is your opinion on it? You say that it is "essentially" a good thing, yet would you be confident in having a mutual "understanding" be the only thing that is keeping your country from being obliterated. You said yourself that this contract actually just forced the countries to be a lot more sneaky about the way that they were producing and stowing their weapons away, so is that really a good thing? To me this seems like a much shadier way to assure the public of their safety and trust, while they are also going around and continuing with the mistrust and deception, this time with a deadly twist.
ReplyDeleteAll this is correct, but I think it would be good to possibly mention some of the ways MAD developed, and changed over time. One of these such ways would be possibly the introduction of SDI's, which, while they never went into effect, had a large outcome on how MAD was perceived in the later years.
ReplyDelete