Home / A New Type of MAD

A New Type of MAD

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Cold War kept from getting hot in no small part because of MAD — Mutual Assured Destruction. The idea that if one side attacked, even in a limited way, with nuclear weapons, the other would attack back with everything they had. That would mean the only viable attack for the aggressor would be an all out attack, but since that had no guarantee of destroying the ability of the other side of launching a devastating counter-attack (especially via nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, aka “boomers”), the attack would almost certainly result in the destruction of both sides.

So no attack ever happened (not to say we didn’t come close here or there).

In fact, the system was predicated on the idea that both sides knew what the other was up to.

Since only two sides (essentially) had the bomb, the scheme was stable. Both sides were rational, with rational goals, and so could be trusted to act in a predictable manner.

Today there is news that the North Koreans have claimed to have a working bomb, and Iran is promising “burning hell” for any aggressive acts against its nuclear weapons program. Neither North Korea nor Iran could be easily labelled rational. Both are aggressive, almost rabid at times. In the case of Iran, there is the added motivation of other-worldly paradise for those who vanquish Allah’s enemies — America and Israel.

Furthermore, both have a history of working with other nations or with terror groups to arm and supply them in order to improve their ability to spread terror and mayhem. What if North Korea never launches a nuclear weapon against Japan or the United States, but rather gives a warhead to a well-financed south Asian Islamic group? Iran is already the paymaster for Hizbollah — they would have no problem finding people willing to drive a warhead into an Israeli city, or sail a warhead into a Mediterranean or American port, and then detonate it.

In these scenarios, there is no launch of a missile that NORAD satellites can track. No way to know it was one of these countries that provided the weapon.

Why couldn’t the Russians or Chinese have done something like this during the Cold War? Well, they could have. The movie “The Fourth Protocol” explored such a scenario (the fictitious protocol being that both sides agreed never to do this). But strategically, such an attack would have little real effect. First, it’s not like you could disable the entire nation by popping a single nuke. Second, the price to pay if the plan were foiled makes it too risky. Too risky for a rational nation, that is.

One problem is that we are on the verge of having two rogue nations with nuclear capability in an environment in which too many nations already have the bomb. These nations can each blame the other, or blame rogue Russion nuclear bombs left over from the fall of the Soviet Union, or the Chinese trying to make it look like they did it, or Pakistan losing control over their arsenal, or even the French. Hell, some people would believe that last one.

How do you respond?

Well, as any parent knows, you send them both to bed without their supper. Or in this case, you make it clear to both Iran and North Korea that a detonation of a nuclear device as an act of terror anywhere in the world will be met with a full nuclear attack on both their nations. No excuses, no pleading, no finger pointing.

But what if it was the Chinese? You bet North Korean and Iranian intelligence agencies would be working damn hard to make sure that didn’t happen. Better yet, they might realize the only real protection is to dismantle their nukes altogether, because to hold on to even one or two bombs runs the risk of being blamed for something you didn’t do, by a United States that is ready to really let the hammer down hard on someone.

You think it was scary when your mom was mad? This gives MAD a whole new meaning.

Powered by

About angry_in_t_o

  • Eric Olsen

    very well written and logical Steve, thanks and welcome! I’m not sure either would actually believe the threat from us however, nor perhaps do these paranoid cult of death regimes really much care if we nuke them into dust – they may rather enjoy it, which would deter the deterrent. We may be crazy, but they’re insane.

  • RJ

    If such an event occurs, I will be happy to know I’m not in the Oval Office.

    How does one respond? With a genocidal full-scale nuclear attack on a country that might not have even been involved in the initial strike? People would call him a monster.

    With calm and diplomatic attempts to solve the larger problem? He’s be impeached and scorned by his own people.

    With a conventional strike? People would question why we even have a nuclear “deterrent” in the first place.

    The response to such an attack would depend a lot upon who was in office. I can’t see Hillary nuking North Korea or Iran. Frankly, I can’t see GW Bush doing so either.

    But McCain or Rudy might…

  • To Eric: Thanks. Of course these regimes are not of one mind. Face with
    personal death and national destruction, a formerly cowed officer
    corps might decide to take on the fanatical secret police and depose
    the ruling cadre. The value of such a threat is in what actions it
    might prompt, or deter, as long as the threat was credible.

  • To RJ: The irony is that the only way to prevent the immoral act of destroying an entire population of innocents whose only crime was to be born under the reign of a tyrant is to credibly promise to do exactly that. Any President faced with this situation would be made to understand that if America didn’t retaliate, every nation on Earth would realize that the emperor had no clothes, so to speak, and further nuclear terrorism (or blackmail) would be inevitable. The cost of *not* retaliating is even worse. But then everyone already knows that America cannot afford *not* to retaliate, so they believe that the threat is real, and will not attack in the first place.

    But the threat has to made, and publicly, in order for all this to work. So North Korea and Iran must be put on notice and the threat of annihilation made — once it’s out in the open, it *has* to be real, and everyone knows it.

  • RJ

    I don’t really disagree with your reasoning, Steve.

    All I’m saying is that it will be very difficult for any President to actually follow through with the threat.

    After all, we are talking about the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents…

    I mean, how would the President sleep at night after such a barrage? And how would the rest of the world react?

    After 9/11, I knew there would be a war on. But the scale of that war was in question. Our President made decisions in the wake of that attack that will effect the world, forever.

    What effect would the complete atomization of North Korea and Iran have on the world, in the wake of a nuclear “incident” on US soil?