Role of Mutually Assured Destruction in Keeping Peace during the War - Coursework Example

How ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ kept peace during the Cold War Rachna Jalan Role of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ in keeping peace during the Cold War Introduction Definition Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is that doctrine of military strategy which restricts the full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two enemy sides which otherwise would grossly result in the obliteration of both the attacker and the defender (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). It follows the theory of deterrence, which claims that the use of powerful weapons is mandatory with the objective of prohibiting the use of the very same weapons (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). It can be considered as a form of Nash equilibrium where endeavors of both the sides are to skip nuclear obliteration, their worst possible result (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Oddly known as the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the doctrine is actually not a strategy behind the weapons (Parrington 1997). “MAD is a product of the 1950s’ US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for well over three decades” (Parrington 1997). MAD has been referred to as an evolutionary defense strategy based on the concept that none of the nuclear powerful nations will ever initiate a nuclear war with the anticipation of the opposite side retaliating massively and unacceptably (Parrington 1997). The doctrine has been a product of the time of unreliable missile technology based on the mortal fear of Communism (Parrington 1997). The Assumptions The doctrine of MAD takes into assumption the fact that both the sides are equally strong nuclear nations capable of annihilating each other and that any one side attacked for any cause by the other would reciprocate with equal or even greater force (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The final consequence is an instant and complete destruction of both sides (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). It is presently considered that the nuclear fallout as a result of a large-scale nuclear war would undoubtedly accompany global destruction (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Moreover, the doctrine holds that neither side will take the initiative due to the fear of the opposite combatant who will launch on warning or with secondary forces bringing up the annihilation of both sides (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The payoff of this doctrine is most probably an apprehensive but secure peace (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). “Nuclear weapons have been no more useful in stopping war than the vaunted Maginot line at stopping Hitler” (Parrington 1997). MAD’S relevance to the Cold War The Cold War, which took place between 1950s and 1990s, marks the beginning of this doctrine of ‘Mutually assured destruction’ (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). In this era MAD proved to be an aiding agent in keeping a check on any direct full-scale conflicts between the two most powerful nations of that time, the United States and the Soviet Union who were found to be engrossed in smaller proxy wars throughout the globe (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). It held a significant position for the arms race too as countries were competing to acquire a nuclear equivalence or at least retaining second-strike capability (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Despite the end of the Cold War by the early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction is still presently active in spite of its retrieval from public discourse (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The doctrine of mutually assured destruction took its shape during the Cold War (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The two superpowers on the world stage at that time were the United States of America and the Soviet Union who were competing with each other for greater nuclear power (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The two nations were two polar opposites and mortal enemies of each other both possessing nuclear weapons (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). On one side there stood the USA, a capitalistic constitutional republic expecting the government to serve the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights, while on the opposite side stood the USSR, a union of countries supervised by communism according to which the government dictates what is best for the people and that the government determines the rights of the people (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). MAD’s contribution in retaining peace in the Cold War Those who advocate MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine claim that the best way of escaping nuclear war by both sides was the anticipation of incompetence in surviving a full scale nuclear exchange (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The credibility of the threat being critical to such assurance, both the combatants were compelled to invest huge funds in their nuclear armories without the intention of using them (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Moreover, neither of the two opposing sides could be expected or allowed to sufficiently withstand the other’s nuclear missiles (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). This resulted into the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems like nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Another consequence was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The Mutual assured destruction strategy has been frequently referred to as the euphemism nuclear deterrence (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). It was only after World War II that the term deterrence was used in this reference (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Before that its application was restricted to legal terminology only (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The Cold War marked the period of two of the most powerful countries standing on opposite sides of an ideological conflict (U Mad retards 2006). Tight competition existed between USA and USSR for influences in smaller states by means of economic and military power (U Mad retards 2006). Further, it was during Cold War only that both the nations strived for nuclear dominance (U Mad retards 2006). The Understanding of Mutual Assured Destruction (U-MAD) provided a sort of a guarantee due to which nuclear weapons were unused and the world enjoyed comfort (U Mad retards 2006). It is believed: Some have argued that through this unchecked nuclear arms build up that relative peace was able to be achieved between the two great states, the mutual awareness that both countries are able to reduce each other and the rest of the world within minutes through nuclear destruction was to be later understood to as the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction or M.A.D, an acronym befitting for the time (U Mad retards 2006). At the beginning of the nuclear era, when the United States and the Soviet Union faced each other, both the combatants stumbled into the doctrine of mutual assured destruction resulting into their best guarantee of security (Erlanger 1998). Not only did the two opposing sides withdraw from the deployment of the ultimate weapon against one another, they never even fought directly in a hot war of any kind (Erlanger 1998). Hence, MAD, the strategy that the two opposing sides armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons won’t go to war with the realization of certain defeat, became as good a theory as the world had for how to make a nuclear standoff stable (Erlanger 1998). The Soviet Union’s achievement of nuclear parity with the United States marked the entry of the Cold War into a new phase (Gaddis 1982). The Cold War turned out to be a period of clash more dangerous and unmanageable than anything the US had encountered before (Gaddis 1982). During the old Cold War, the United States enjoyed the privilege of nuclear exclusivity, a matchless economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to use his supremacy against the Soviet Union (Gaddis 1982). However, the new Cold War revealed a new ambience where the achievement of nuclear equality by the Russian forces assured that each side could ruin the other several times (Gaddis 1982). The Mutual Assured Destruction was the military doctrine expressing this fact (Gaddis 1982). The doctrine began to earn popularity at the end of the Kennedy administration (Gaddis 1982). “MAD reflects the idea that one’s population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second” (Gaddis 1982). In reality, MAD more than just nuclear parity (Gaddis 1982). Both the combatants accepted their susceptibility and pondered upon a concept that later came to be known as “Star Wars” (Gaddis 1982). In the words of Robert McNamara, former secretary of defense in 1961, “If we could create an umbrella we would need it, no matter what it costs” (Gaddis 1982). The Mutual Assured Destruction remained a military doctrine asserting that the relationship between nuclear powers remains stable if they are unable to obliterate each other (mutual assured destruction 2004). “It reflects the theory of deterrence: that a potential aggressor will be discouraged from launching a ‘first strike’ nuclear attack by the knowledge that the enemy is capable of inflicting ‘unacceptable damage’ in a counterstrike” (mutual assured destruction 2004). The Cold War (1945-89) recognized the doctrine, which was specially brought into the force for settling down the nuclear arms race between the USA and the USSR (mutual assured destruction 2004). It remained a subject of great moral debate expressing the idea that the best way of achieving the security of a nation’s population is by leaving it vulnerable, so long as the adversary is equally vulnerable (mutual assured destruction 2004). Both the United States and the Soviet Union had acquired enough nuclear power to inflict ‘unacceptable damage’ that would certainly eradicate each other as world powers during the Cold War (mutual assured destruction 2004). ‘Unacceptable damage’ refers to as 25% of the population and 50 % of the industry (mutual assured destruction 2004). The USA already had other plans towards the end of the Cold War. The country initiated to prepare more tangible means of defense system that would ruin the incoming missiles prior to their reaching the destination (mutual assured destruction 2004). The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was the first endeavor during 1983-93 and was named as Star Wars as it was to be based partially outside the Earth’s atmosphere (mutual assured destruction 2004). However, the program was not successful otherwise the balance of mutually assured destruction would have certainly altered (mutual assured destruction 2004). Later on, the SDI gave way to the National Missile Defense (NMD) program, a less ambitious system the objective of which is to safeguard the USA from a limited missile attack (mutual assured destruction 2004). Revision of MAD in the late and post Col War The genuine doctrine of US MAD underwent revisions on July 25, 1980 (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The US President Jimmy Carter adopted the countervailing strategy with Presidential Directive 59 (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). As per the architect, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, “countervailing strategy” urged that the response strategy for the Soviet attack was not targeting to bomb the Russian population centers and cities any more (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Rather it should look forward to first kill the Soviet leadership and then attack the military targets expecting Russian surrender prior to the complete destruction of the USSR and the United States (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). This revised form of Mutually Assured Destruction was looked upon as a winnable of nuclear war at the same time keeping intact the possibility of assured destruction for at least one side (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The policy was further updated by the Reagan Administration with the announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative nicknamed “Star Wars” which has already been discussed before (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The idea of SDI was not only criticized by the Soviets but also by various American allies as its activation and success would have undermined the “assured destruction” which was mandatory for MAD (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). “If America had a guarantee against Soviet nuclear attacks, its critics argued, it would have first strike capability which would have been a politically and militarily destabilizing option” (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Its oppositions claimed that it could trigger a new arms race, this time to revise countermeasures for SDI (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). In spite of its commitment of nuclear safety, SDI was addressed by various oppositions as being far more dangerous than MAD due to its political implications (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). The issue whether the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was officially accepted by the United States military during the Cold War is of interpretation (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Although the term MAD was not actually coined by the military, it was based on the principle of “Assured Destruction” backed up by the US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the 1960s (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). For instance, the United States Air Force has retrospectively contended that it never stood for MAD and such a type of deterrence simply considered as one of the various options in the US nuclear policy (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). “Former officers have emphasized that they never felt as limited by the logic of MAD (and were prepared to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale situations than “Assured Destruction” allowed), and did not deliberately target civilian cities (though they acknowledge that the result of a “purely military” attack would certainly devastate the cities as well)” (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). One can clearly observe the implication of MAD in various US policies and it was even adopted in the political rhetoric of leaders in both the US and the USSR during various periods of the Cold War (Mutual assured destruction n.d.). Retrieving from the brink of War During those years of Cold War, there arose certain terribly close calls, especially during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when senior American military officials endeavored to encourage President Kennedy in the deployment of nuclear weapons against the Soviets (Erlanger 1998). According to General Butler, “Nuclear war is a raging, insatiable beast whose instincts and appetites we pretend to understand but cannot possibly control” (Parrington 1997). The sound of Fat Man and Little Boy echoed much far beyond the borders of Japan (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). These atomic bombs revealed their strength, the aftermaths of which can still be witnessed (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). These destructions forecasted deadly scenarios of an all-out nuclear war (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The threats appeared to take real shape soon once the Soviet Union too declared its possession of nuclear weapons in August 1949 (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). However, it was only when the delivery systems developed that the chances of its complete execution could be possible (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The arrival of ICBMs in 1959 was like showing green signal to the two superpowers for firing a missile at its enemy and blows the designated target to kingdom come (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). Among those who completely described the concept of MAD was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations) (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The strategy conveyed that whichever side instigated an action or event that would be deemed antagonistic to its opponent, would not be able to survive an ensuing attack (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). At that time both the countries were owning nuclear weapons that were much more dangerous than the Little Boy that annihilated Hiroshima or the Fat Man that ruined Nagasaki along with crumbling Japan’s determination to continue fighting in World War II (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction provided assurance that the neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could endeavor a nuclear attack without risking a deadly reprisal (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The threats of such an event were most likely never closer to reality than they were during the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The two nuclear nations were thus at a standstill (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). Both the superpowers were refrained from fighting with each other directly (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). This was because both had understood doing so would undoubtedly be a threat of each other’s destruction in a nuclear holocaust (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). This is the reason why during the Cold War the armed forces of the United States and its ideological allies encountered clashes with the ‘Red’ communists in proxy wars (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). The Vietnam War has been considered to be the most popular of those proxy wars (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). However, there existed various others, mainly the Korean War. Nicaragua. The Ogaden War fought between Soviet-backed Ethiopia and the US-backed Somalia (“Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006). Oppositions Amidst the patronage for the doctrine of mutually assured destruction there arose oppositions too. During the 1950s the Air Force leaders expressed their disbelief in the firmness of mutual deterrence by referring to the strategy as “a dangerous fallacy” and “a tremendous disservice” (Parrington 1997). One such leader even argued, “I suggest that the so called atomic ‘stalemate’ or ‘standoff’ is more of a psychological than a real deterrent. At best it is a cliché born of the natural tendency to rationalize away the prospects of total atomic war” (Parrington 1997). In fact theses men were demanding more atomic weapons, but their conclusions were drawn when dramatically few weapons were there (Parrington 1997). Lessons Learnt History reveals that wars have always been destructive and inhuman. For example, the American Civil War took away the lives of about six hundred thousand countrymen due to the democratic question of states’ rights, World War I witnessed the loss of around ten million men in the hands of a senseless stalemate egged on by nationalistic pride (Parrington 1997). World War II killed almost fifty million innocents, majority of who were civilians in bombed-out cities and concentration camps, merely on the ground of “total war” initiated by a free and democratically elected chancellor of the German Third Reich (Parrington 1997). “If the world is to reverse the tide of history and survive the atomic age, we must soon recognize the incompatibility of weapons of mass destruction with the political nature of warfare. Only then will we begin to change the counterproductive strategies that threaten us all” (Parrington 1997). According to Arnold, “any Air Force which does not keep its doctrines ahead of its equipment, and its vision far into the future, can only delude the nation into a false sense of security” (Parrington 1997). Moreover, nuclear weapons failed to retain peace in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, or Latin America (Parrington 1997). Around 125 million people have been estimated to lose their lives in 149 wars since 1945 (Parrington 1997). Conclusion From the above discussion we can realize how crucial the role of Mutually Assured Destruction was in maintaining the peace during the Cold War. We all know that wars have always been a giant source of destruction for mankind whether it be the American Civil War, the World War I, the World War II, or any other war. Tolls and tolls of lives have been taken away in the name of wars. The atrocious attack on Pearl Harbor and the devastating aftermaths of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still shocking for mankind. The least thing that mankind will want today is a nuclear attack which will undoubtedly result into the complete obliteration of human lives. The Cold War was a period of warmongers when the two superpowers of the world, the United States and the Soviet Union facing each other as enemies, were doing everything they could to crush each other’s strength and to emerge as the most powerful nation. Things turned more serious when the Soviet Union announced its achievement of nuclear weapon thereby revealing their nuclear parity with the United States. It was at this time when the sensible brains came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction. Thanks to the MAD doctrine, which was brought into action at the very right time clearly saving a nuclear war, the devastation of which cannot even be imagined. The doctrine became a military strategy, which made both the opposing sides realize that any one side, which initiates a nuclear attack, would be bound to face the reply through another nuclear attack thereby losing equal or even great lives. It was MAD, which made both the US and the USSR understand that both the nations were vulnerable in the hand of another. Both realized it’s susceptibly in surviving the might of the counterattack. Hence, we can very well conclude that it was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which successfully retained peace during the Cold War by replacing the idea of “die or kill” by the concept of “live and let live”. Bibliography Erlanger, Steven. (1998). Ideas & Trends; India’s Arms Race Isn’t Safe Like the Cold War. The New York Times, January 17, 2008, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/Erlanger 1998.html?res=9F03E0DB1431F931A25754C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all, accessed 17th Jan 2008. Gaddis, John. (1982). Mutual Assured Destruction. Nuclear Files.org, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/Gaddis 1982.htm, accessed 17th Jan 2008. “Mutual assured destruction”. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual assured destruction n.d., accessed 17th Jan 2008. “Mutually Assured Destruction and Why It No Longer Applies (Vanity)”. (2006), http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665662/”Mutually Assured Destruction” 2006, accessed 17th Jan 2008. “mutual assured destruction”. (2004). The Free Dictionary, http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/mutual assured destruction 2004, accessed 17th Jan 2008. Parrington 1997gton, Col Alan. (1997). Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/Parrington 1997.html, accessed 17th Jan 2008. “U Mad retards?”. (2006). Simplification of complexity, http://raweggs.blogspot.com/2006/08/u-mad-retards.html, accessed 17th Jan 2008. Read More