I know MAD is the doctrine that no one in their right mind would first strike with nuclear weapons, because they know the retaliation would be unbearable and no one could possibly win. What I don’t understand is how it works in practice.
The reason I am confused is as follows: it seems like a very aggressive country could initiate a limited first strike against a small target, knowing/hoping that their opponent wouldn’t want to escalate for fear of ending the world, essentially allowing them to strike small targets with impunity.
In: 278
This is essentially what Russia is doing, nibble nibble nibble. Crimea first and then more of Ukraine. Prob Georgia next, etc. The West is set on economically punishing them for this and we’ll see if that is effective in stopping this. If not, prob military intervention is next. Even then, both parties are apt to not strike w nuclear weapons as it’s game over. Nukes essentially will stop nations from taking over the other, not engaging in war either directly or through proxies.
“Hoping” is the key word you use. It’s the uncertainty that would/should hold people back. If Putin used low yield tactical nukes in the Ukraine, would NATO launch a strategic strike at Moscow? Probably not, but it would almost certainly cause an escalation that would spiral out of control very quickly.
The fact remains that it would literally be suicide to launch a large scale strategic nuclear strike, and even a limited tactical strike would likely still escalate to the same results. MAD also makes it difficult for the chain of command to work to launch a strike. If Putin was that deranged, a nuke order would most likely be disobeyed in theory. Hopefully anyway.
MAD is used in various ways. After WW1, Hitler used Europe’s fear of another all out global war to systematically cut through the Treaty of Versailles.
If you work for a company that does some sketchy stuff that if known could damage it’s reputation irreparably, but you enjoy working there and want to stay…you can place them into a situation that as long as they don’t fire you, you won’t destroy them…. everything will be okay.
MAD is a heavy handed way to maintain the status quo. Sometimes can be interchangeable with “Mexican standoff”. Where we have guns pointed at each other….who’s shoots first? Can I shoot faster than you? But neither wants to be the first to shoot in case you survive and be seen as the bad guy. This has been the American/Russian stance since the end of WW2. There have been many examples of “Ukraines”. Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis, Russians invade Afghanistan (we supplied and trained the mujahideen, including Bin Laden), Syria (proxy war), etc…
We don’t like eachother and we both have a pile of grenades. I could grab one, pull the pin, and throw it at you but you’d have the time to grab one, pull the pin, and throw one at me so I decide not to.
Could I grab a smaller grenade, pull the pin, and throw it at your friend (who has no grenades) or at your house under the assumption that you wouldn’t retaliate with a full sized grenade thrown at me? Sure, however that’s a heck of an assumption. Even if you didn’t maybe then you throw a smaller grenade or a full sized grenade at my friend or house, making it that much easier for both of us to use grenades in the future.
Neither of us wants to die so we decide not to use our grenades.
> What I don’t understand is how it works in practice.
We don’t know if it works in practice.
The theory, as you say, is that no one will use nuclear weapons against a target with nuclear weapons, because they will receive them back and everyone will die.
And while it is true that no country has used nuclear weapons against any other country with nuclear weapons, no country (other than the US in 1945) has *ever* used nuclear weapons, so this isn’t proof either way. It may be that MAD works, or it may be that no one wants to be the first (other than the US in 1945) to use nuclear weapons at all.
Countries have invaded nuclear powers, nuclear powers have invaded non-nuclear countries, and nuclear powers have even had wars with other nuclear powers.
MAD is all about the risk and the uncertainty. If one country does a particular thing, will the other country respond with nuclear weapons? Is the benefit of the thing worth the risk of nuclear retaliation? Even if there is a low chance of nuclear retaliation, is the likely devastation so much to outweigh the low risk?
There’s plenty of historical evidence of small scale conflicts starting to escalate and then that pretty quickly spiraling out of control and into a much larger conflict than was originally intended.
Your proposed idea is certainly possible, but the reality is that it’s pretty much impossible to predict what the response would be to a limited first strike, and once that nuclear threshold has been crossed, the consequences of escalation get really bad really fast.
President Kennedy asked your pointed question, he wanted limited strike capabilities (see the book Command and Control, Schlosser 2014) but the military was against it. They wanted a onetime full strike only option to completely annihilate the enemy upon first strike – and they viewed it as a huge risk that a “soft” President would use a limited strike (causing the US to be destroyed in retaliation). By crossing the line and using nuclear weapons you are telegraphing to your enemy that you are not afraid of MAD, that is you are ready for you country to be destroyed by a counter strike. Given that you are actively using nuclear weapons it’s also reasonable to the enemy that you will escalate. You really give the enemy no other option then a full counter strike – in this case you might be destroyed before you can retaliate meaning your attacker survives. It’s a bad strategy, and I think during the Cold War the military didn’t want it as a option.
It seems with MAD in place the strategy is to defeat the enemy without direct conflict. Proxy wars (Vietnam, Latin America, Afghanistan during the Cold War) are an example. The USA won the Cold War by simply out spending the USSR – causing their economy (and country) to collapse. Russia is countering across the world with causing political instability in an attempt to defeat their enemies (including nuclear armed UK and the USA).
It’s the entire logic of gambling….what is the possible negative outcome and what is the likelihood? What is the positive outcome and what is the likelihood of that happening?
If I offered you a wager: 99 chances out of 100 you win $100, but 1 chance out of 100 you die, you probably wouldn’t take that gamble.
If the negative outcome is the end of life as we know it (even if it’s a very low likelihood), that outweighs any possible good outcome (even if the likelihood of the good outcome is high).
Also there are doctrines that state Country X will always and automatically retaliate against a first strike nuclear attack. This means that Country Y would know that unless they can wipe out Country X’s entire nuclear arsenal, they will also be attacked. It’s like a deadman’s switch. You may kill me, but when I die, I’m blowing everything up….me and you.
Risk/Reward.
You stand to gain very little from nuking any small country and you can’t know for sure how other large countries might react if you do. Even if you put the odds of retaliation at 5% then you’re in a scenario where you clearly shouldn’t do it.
It’s sorta like robbing someone who you know is carrying a gun. Sure they might not shoot you, but are you comfortable with the odds that they will?
Your concern is valid. It’s call ‘Salami Tactics’. Take one small slice at a time basically.
Other types of aggression that are just short of war can also be used. Hybrid warfare an the like.
On the other hand, what’s happening Ukraine is a great example of deterrence preventing the West from getting involved.
Even so, if you did try to take a small slice, you’re still risking heavy conventional retaliation for the same reason you attacked. The belief that the other side won’t use their nukes. But the consequences of miscalculation are so great that even a very small attack won’t happen. Hell, the US won’t even allow others to send attack aircraft for the Ukrainians to use because it’s too aggressive and could possibly lead to escalation. And that isn’t even an actual attack.
So while preparing for salami tactics is important, I wouldn’t stress too much about them.
Latest Answers