Why MAD is Incredibly Credible

Ryder Tang
2 min readNov 22, 2020

Recently, my son (who does public forum debate) has been lecturing me about No-first-use (or NFU), which is the current topic for public forum. He told me he favors the Pro side (the people who want to declare a NFU policy), and that not declaring a NFU policy will eventually lead to nuclear war.

This, however, is untrue. The reason why the US and USSR didn’t bombard each other with their bloated nuclear arsenals is the same reason why countries today will never even think of initiating a nuclear war: mutually-assured-destruction, or MAD.

What MAD essentially means that no government is ever going to use a nuke because of its devastating power, and that if all parties participating decide to launch into a full-blown attack, no one will win and all parties will suffer obliteration.

We have seen MAD work in the past and we see it working in the present. Two quick examples. First is in smack dab in the middle of the cold war. In the 1950s, a flock of Canadian geese were misinterpreted by a US radar system as a Soviet bomber attack. However, the US didn’t fire out of fear of nuclear war and annihilation, and the rest is history.

Second is right now, with the persistent tensions between the US and North Korea. However, despite continuous threats and tensions between us and Kim Jung-Un, they haven’t fired upon us. While to ordinary folk it seems ridiculous for such a small nation to fire upon the US (and it is), some argue that countries like North Korea will use missiles in a “use-it-or-lose-it” mindset, so they might fire first, or else the US could wipe out their entire nuclear arsenal in a single strike, leaving them helpless. However, the fact that they haven’t done such a thing just bolsters the credibility of MAD.

MAD is associated with the longest period of major-power peace in humanity. There’s no reason why that should change. And after explaining all this to my son in an hour-long lecture, he simply laughed and said, “maybe I’ll switch to the Con side.” I completely agree.

--

--