PDA

View Full Version : MAD Treaty



Twocky61
29-08-2017, 09:11
MAD Treaty (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what is what is preventing Thermo Global Nuclear War/WWIII

As quoted in the film Wargames "Do you really believe the other side provocation would launch so man ICBM's subs & ships knowing we would have no choice but to annihilate them?"

Try telling Trump & Puting & their ilk. They believe you can win a nuclear war with acceptable losses

Istvan
25-11-2017, 19:05
I think that Putin probably knows, it was the likes of Kennedy who thought that they could win a nuclear war, that is why he nearly started one over Cuba, just think of the "Bedford Incident", Soviet missiles were under much stronger control, remember we in Eastern Europe knew what total war meantand that was without nuclear weapons, the Americans just made a profit from it, no enemy troops land on American territory or flew over it

staffslad
25-11-2017, 22:42
The doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction is when a surprise attack by one side cannot eliminate the nuclear forces of the other side sufficiently to prevent a counter-attack inflicting unacceptable damage to the side who launched the first strike. Each side has a triad of strategic nuclear forces: land-based nuclear missiles in silos (such as the US Minuteman), submarine-based missiles (such as the US and UK Trident) and manned bombers (such as the US B-52 and B-1). If, say, Russia wanted to initiate a strike on the US, they might be able with their nuclear forces to take out the land-based Minuteman missiles and air-bases where bombers are based, but the US could strike back with whatever survived and their submarine-based Tridents. Modern air defences have somewhat reduced the importance of each side's manned bomber fleet in their triads, but interception of ICBM/SLBM is still very difficult given the numbers of missiles held by each side and the fact that each missile can carry multiple warheads. In the 1950s/1960s, the manned bomber fleets were very important and a number of US and Soviet bombers were always airborne 24/7 to provide a counterstrike against a surprise attack by the other side.

Twocky61
26-11-2017, 10:17
Good points Istvan & Staffslad

We have had Russian aircraft flying out at sea near the uk recently; obviously monitoring the uk just incase we decide to strike

staffslad
26-11-2017, 11:21
The presence of Russian aircraft near to UK airspace is nothing new. It happened regularly during the cold war. It petered out following the break-up of the Soviet Union and in recent years has started again. In the cold war, though, there was no internet to spread news and it was viewed as a matter of routine. The aircraft probe defences to judge RAF intercept reaction times and to gather intelligence on the UK nuclear deterent. NATO did similar to the Soviet Union in the cold war and probably does it now, though it is usually subtler and we hear far less about it.

Istvan
26-11-2017, 14:07
Good points Istvan & Staffslad

We have had Russian aircraft flying out at sea near the uk recently; obviously monitoring the uk just incase we decide to strike
unlike the USA that had aircraft flying OVER Soviet territory, e.g. U2 and pilot Gary Powers

battyrat
26-11-2017, 14:34
Mutual suicide or genocide depending on how you look at it. Dictated by those in charge at the time but not by those that live under the shadow of such possible horrors.
It's no more of a deterrent as a lolly pop given to a spoilt brat that wants the latest toy and won't back down.
If a country launches nuclear attack it's obvious that the receiving country will also launch its arsenal in defence anyway. It's human nature to defend if under attack. The MAD treaty is just another way of making mass genocide legal in the eyes of the countries that signed it.
Sorry but I feel strongly that nuclear weapons should be banned. There is a place for nuclear technology but weapons is not one of them.

Istvan
26-11-2017, 15:05
unfortunately, not having nuclear weapons is like going to a gun fight with a knife, it guarantees the other side winning and like hitler and Poland it guarantees that the aggressor WILL attack, when he thinks that he will succeed with little or no cost to him, overwhelming forces, superior air-force and tanks, against cavalry and biplanes.
Yes Nuclear weapons ARE dreadful, but now that we all have them, one cannot put the genii back in the bottle, for one side to unilaterally give them would be suicide, remember neutrality did not save Holland or Belgium, only the fact that Switzerland was more difficult to invade and that they acted as bankers for the NAZIs saved THEM and one has to ask for how long, had hitler been able defeat Britain and the USSR

battyrat
26-11-2017, 15:37
Yes the genie is out of the bottle, and even Oppenheimer realised rather too late what he had done and brought upon the world. It had to happen sooner or later, But we also have a choice to lead the way to cleaning up this mess.

Istvan
26-11-2017, 16:31
which poses the question, who are WE and just how would we do this, obviously NOT by giving up our weapons unilaterally for as I said that would be suicide.
Don't forget the allies were not the only ones working on nuclear weapons, the Nazis were also working on them, one of the reasons for operation Gunnerside and the Sinking of D/F Hydro, fortunately the Germans had there figure wrong, had they not one dreads to think what the results might have been, they certainly wouldn't have given up their weapons

CrystalBall
26-11-2017, 17:27
unfortunately, not having nuclear weapons is like going to a gun fight with a knife, it guarantees the other side winning and like hitler and Poland it guarantees that the aggressor WILL attack, when he thinks that he will succeed with little or no cost to him, overwhelming forces, superior air-force and tanks, against cavalry and biplanes.
Yes Nuclear weapons ARE dreadful, but now that we all have them, one cannot put the genii back in the bottle, for one side to unilaterally give them would be suicide, remember neutrality did not save Holland or Belgium, only the fact that Switzerland was more difficult to invade and that they acted as bankers for the NAZIs saved THEM and one has to ask for how long, had hitler been able defeat Britain and the USSR

Absolutely. If your opponent has nuclear weapons and you do not, all they have to do is use (or even just threaten to use) a single tactical nuclear weapon and you have no option but to raise the white flag. Superior conventional forces are not going to save you.

Istvan
27-11-2017, 10:57
in all this we must remember the Soviet position, it was very popular in the 1970-80s, but it never replaced the Missionary position