Why was mad a deterrent to nuclear war?

Proponents of MAD as part of the US and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state. This MAD scenario is often referred to as nuclear deterrence.

What did nuclear deterrence theory argue?

Deterrence theory holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction. Nuclear deterrence can also be applied to an attack by conventional forces.

Does nuclear deterrence still work in today’s context?

Nuclear deterrence is still relevant in dealing with contemporary security issues. Although different strategies concerning the use of nuclear weapons have been proposed in recent times, their application would be extremely controversial, and for this reason is very unlikely.

Is deterrence still relevant?

As an approach to security policy, deterrence still has a role to play, although not the role it was granted during the Cold War. Deterrence still helps explain why states, and even non-state actors, fail to act against the interests of others. So, at one level deterrence never goes away.

Why do we need a nuclear deterrent?

The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression. Potential aggressors know that the costs of attacking the UK, or our NATO allies, could far outweigh any benefit they could hope to achieve.

Is nuclear deterrence moral?

Nuclear deterrence is frequently claimed to be unacceptable from a non- consequentialist perspective on the following argument: it is wrong to kill innocent persons; because retaliation with nuclear weapons would inevitably kill innocent persons, nuclear deterrence involves the intention to kill innocent persons; but …