Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: MAD Treaty

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Christchurch uk
    Posts
    2,278

    Default MAD Treaty

    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

    Do you really believe the other side without provocation would launch so many ICBM's, subs and ships knowing that we would have no option to launch as well? It would break our MAD Treaty (Mutually Assured Destruction) not to mention the end of the world as we know it.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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

  3. #3

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Christchurch uk
    Posts
    2,278

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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
    Last edited by Twocky61; 26-11-2017 at 10:19.

    Do you really believe the other side without provocation would launch so many ICBM's, subs and ships knowing that we would have no option to launch as well? It would break our MAD Treaty (Mutually Assured Destruction) not to mention the end of the world as we know it.


  5. #5

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    Quote Originally Posted by Twocky61 View Post
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trowbridge,wiltshire
    Posts
    917

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trowbridge,wiltshire
    Posts
    917

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: MAD Treaty

    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

Similar Threads

  1. MAD Treaty
    By Twocky61 in forum World events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-05-2017, 13:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •