You are on page 1of 5

EAN UNIVERSITY

MAYRA ALEJANDRA ROJAS
MARTIN ANTHONY HIGGINS
DIPLOMACY
NOV 26th 2014

A MAD1 STRATEGY
“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”
John F. Kennedy, September 25th , 1961

During the Cold War, the political, economic, military informative and social conflict, born
because of the tensions that occurred in the postwar period after the end of World War II, and
between 1947 and 1989, various strategies were established that, in a certain extent, allowed to
avoid an ending with terrible consequences for the United States and Russia mainly. First, and
for some time, the US was in advantage over its nuclear capability.

Therefore, the Soviets, who faced a possible attack and failed to guarantee the deterrence of the
United States, was always in search of a strategic balance that allowed some advantage over
the imminent inferiority, as was forcing the missile crisis in Cuba, when Russia set mediumrange missiles on the island, not to protect Castro as was seen in the media and others, but with
the main objective of being able to pressure the United States from inland waters, using the
opportunity of the revolution to create a strategic balance.

This war was characterized by defined segmentation nations because of the political and
economic ideologies: capitalism and communism. Tensions between the US and Russia,
formerly allies in the struggle against fascism, were multiplied daily, but vigilance exerted by the
other countries in favor of preserving the illusion of peace settled after the war, did not allow
them to reach the peak of performance. However, conflicts were located in third countries, such
as Germany and Korea, where were developed some of the most serious due to the intervention
of international superpowers such as China and the US.

1

Mutual Assured Destruction

hinted at the attack vulnerability that were under US and Western Europe. USSR and USA. Consequently. "Unfortunately. which are defenseless against possible nuclear attack. led to the abstention of attack by countries involved because of the certainty of mutual destruction. the war ceased to be a real threat to become a contrasting ideological struggle through propaganda. US alliances with some European countries began its deterioration and had to raise a new strategic known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). as Russia began to increase Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and strengthen its brand in the security and military strategy. That is. The MAD strategy began in the mid-60's. ensuring the destruction of both. Emerges then. trust that the . ie as objects at rest are categorically threatening and somewhat abstract. which refers to the vulnerability on which are all citizens of a country. made use of one of its nuclear weapons to attack the other. The true potential of nuclear weapons is in its capacity not to use.In the mid 50's tension decreases slightly due to the change in leadership in both powers. the same certainty that none of the two superpowers wanted really push the atomic button. born of mutual deterrence that both nations exercised. which began to make it impossible for the parties and intolerable. The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima shocked the world. since the end of the 50s had already managed to build a large nuclear arsenal. This strategy led to reconsider the consequences that were generating by the conflict.USSR . that. By the end of the 60's. all that could hope for would be an attack immediately after. as a military doctrine based on the principle of nuclear annihilation for both nations when the strategic stalemate. tempted both sides to expedite the use of atomic weapons with negotiating purposes or (in the US) for domestic consumption. the superpowers were making investments exceeding 50 million dollars a day on nuclear weapons. the concept of "balance of terror". while on the other hand. added to the growing equality in nuclear weapons. using the threat called "massive retaliation" to deter the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics . the starting point for this arms race.that not resort to aggression. if one of the two countries. MAD thus became a struggle aimed to set aside the construction of nuclear weapons through the use of deterrence. Since moment when the USSR produced its atomic bomb in 1949 and the H bomb in the 60's.

However. and after several years of conflict. composed of various agreements relating to conflict as were the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) which limited the use of these weapons for defense and limitation in manufacturing ICBM and SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile). In 1974. . and with respect to technological changes. there is less chance of recourse to carry it out. This strategy is based on inhuman assumptions about how to lead a war. 1998. the two superpowers had made it out of the difficult economic situation caused by the arms production. as it leads to a conviction for those who assume a peace based on fear. which produced a strong shock in the international community. mainly ethical. The logic used by MAD is that while most horrible may be the consequences of a war. during that year was detonated a nuclear device in the desert of Rajasthan. can drive with relative ease recurrent need to leave a path of one-way strategic as imposed by MAD and address the political questions that it creates. The logic given by MAD is very difficult to accept. 233) This feeling of imminent equilibrium becomes unstable. on the one hand postures and political ideologies of either of the two superpowers on the benefits or detriments of equilibrium strategy may change. pág. every day with greater complexity and broader range of uses. since it depends on a number of variable factors such as political or technological advancement. In this way. There have been many criticisms of this strategy. political and strategic. but at the price of unhinge the nerves of several generations" (Own Translation) (HOBSBAWM. and Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) in Moscow. In the early 70s.other did not want war. the president of the United States. Richard Nixon. This confidence proved to be justified. and the more controllable those consequences are the possibilities and risks of war occurring will increase. which implicitly leads to the acceptance of the impossibility of defeating the enemy. President Ford and Prime Minister Brezhnev signed the Agreement Vladivostok limiting the number of Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) and the number of delivery vehicles.

MAD does not respond to key questions are raised such as: what if deterrence breaks and a nuclear conflagration by someone involved? i. in terms of the relationship between strategy and policy. specifically in the event that there is a direct threat to the survival of the citizens of a country. arguably. if by that we mean.e. is either psychological. the possibility of lead to its realization an abstract theory. performing practical actions. It is a great political strategy designed to avoid acting. Mutual Assured Destruction is a theory that may sound very interesting and consistent during an event or academic seminar. there is the criticism made at MAD strategy. MAD ethical different political dilemmas presented are added. no president who can establish that threat. unless be is represented in an irrational policy. This dilemma. in principle is not completely removed from reality that is threatened with the possibility of a mutual suicide whenever it is done with deterrence. but in reality are almost entirely ineffective. However. to convey the political courses of action to address the war. refrain from acting. what would happen during breaks making war except humiliation or holocaust? In conclusion. here is the great dilemma that has MAD. Finally. you cannot communicate it.Many questions arise about it and. In other words. from many areas. It is then necessary to ask how can be ethically justify a strategy based on the threat of massive destruction of millions of innocent victims? At this disagreement. not for practical action. as explained above. . which is logically and actually impossible in the current political systems that require project a number of conditions that enable citizens to live according to the principles of moderation and predictability of the movements for the interests of all.

Consultado a través de la Web el 20 de noviembre de 2014: http://www.de.guerra.galaxias. Historia del siglo XX.pdf EstrategiaPoliticaEnLaEraNuclear-4553535.fmmeducacion. Barcelona: Crítica.com.pdf LaDiplomaciaAtomicaEnLaGuerraFriaYEstadosUnidos-3891694.ar/Bibliotecadigital/Hobsbawm_HistoriadelSiglo_XX.Bibliografía HOBSBAWM.las.pdf . (1998).la.pdf http://anibalromero.net/Hacia. E.