It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Of the strategies put forth on how to achieve world peace, one is inclined to assume that the “build more weapons” one is likely to be a loser. It’s almost like saying, how do we prevent more school shootings? Let’s arm all the kids, and then no one is likely to shoot anyone because the other kids would retaliate and shoot him. A logical kid wouldn’t shoot anyone in those conditions. This doesn’t account for the crazy people factor, or the ‘accidentally shooting someone in the face’ factor. The same risks apply in the global realm. Despite the ridiculous dangers it presented, MAD was a central tenet of the Cold War.

If you nuke me, and kill tons of my people, I’m going to nuke you back, at least as much, but probably more because you really upset me by bombing me. The fact that you struck first means no holds barred, I think that any level of retaliation is acceptable. I wasn’t going to fight you, but since you started it, I feel no remorse. Bring it. Unfortunately for me, you have more than just that one bomb; you’re prepared to match me bomb for bomb. So we’d end up utterly destroying each other. Of course, if I’m silly and strike you first, you’re going to have the same mentality. So let’s not and say we did?

That’s MAD if it was a conversation between two twenty-year old girls. Lucky for us we have eloquent spokesmen to euphemize the above conversation. Kennedy probably didn’t say “bring it” during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Real world MAD has the same problems as the madness that arming all schoolchildren does. MAD rests on the presumption that both parties will act rationally: it would be a really bad idea for me to nuke you, because you’d nuke me back and we’d both die. If one of the parties is irrational and decides to bomb the enemy anyway, the world could conceivably end—so let’s just fight proxy wars in Africa and Southeast Asia. When a kid has a gun, you’re afraid not only that he might get angry and shoot someone, but that he might accidentally shoot someone because he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Well, if one of the superpowers during the Cold War had had an accident, it’s not likely that any of us would be alive. MAD leaves no room for niceties. If the other side bombs you, you must retaliate, because you have to show them what it costs to attack you. If you don’t retaliate in kind, the enemy knows that they can get away with bombing you. MAD requires that both sides fear each other.

MAD shares its principles with the saying “an eye for an eye.” But as Gandhi points out, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” In the case of the Cold War, though, it was more along the lines of “a nuke for a nuke makes the whole world end.”