Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18,19 (click to see context) from:
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and [[WrittenByTheWinners according to the victors]], the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
to:
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and [[WrittenByTheWinners according to the victors]], the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
system[[hottip:*:Not too far from the truth, but the reality was that the Soviet system was really good at lying to itself, and their economy had been in the shitter long before the Reagan era arms race. They were doomed either way]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16,17 (click to see context) from:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. Indeed, before the [[TheGreatPoliticsMessup the end of the cold war]], most academics thought the acronym "MAD" was appropriate - the strategy seemed insane. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
to:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. Indeed, before the [[TheGreatPoliticsMessup the end of the cold war]], most academics thought the acronym "MAD" was appropriate - the strategy seemed insane.insane[[hottip:*:To be fair, hindsight reveals that most politicians on both sides ''also'' thought it was insane, but didn't have any better alternative: nukes were a way of life since the 50's and the genie couldn't be put back in the bottle. This is also why the various nuclear weapon reduction treaties were so contentious and difficult: SALT and START faced the prospect of reducing nuclear stockpiles from "We can kill everything everywhere several times over" to "If we fired our missiles just right, we might win now".]]. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->''"The only winning move is not to play"''
-->-- ''Film/WarGames''
-->-- ''Film/WarGames''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Where there is no parity between the two nuclear belligerents, TheMoscowCriterion is used. This was developed by the British, who could not build and fire the same number of rockets as the Sovs and who did not trust the Americans to launch their own missiles to back up a MAD doctrine - instead, the aim is to have the ability to slaughter as many of the enemy civilians as possible, thus attaching a prohibitively high human cost to a nuclear release by the more heavily-armed power.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
-->''"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but [[AfterTheEnd World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.]]"''
---> --'''{{Albert Einstein}}'''
---> --'''{{Albert Einstein}}'''
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[AC:Fan Fiction]]
* The backstory of FanFic/FalloutEquestria was that the megaspell was created and given to both sides to invoke this scenario and end the pony/zebra war. However, when the zebras believed they were doomed to lose the war anyway, they decided to go the "TakingYouWithMe" route and both sides ended up flinging them off.
* The backstory of FanFic/FalloutEquestria was that the megaspell was created and given to both sides to invoke this scenario and end the pony/zebra war. However, when the zebras believed they were doomed to lose the war anyway, they decided to go the "TakingYouWithMe" route and both sides ended up flinging them off.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19,21 (click to see context) from:
* Visually deconstructed in WarGames, when Joshua plays out every possible nuclear strike scenario.
to:
* Visually deconstructed in WarGames, Film/WarGames, when Joshua plays out every possible nuclear strike scenario.
scenario.
* Film/DrStrangelove is based around this, because the Russians have a doomsday device raring to go if they get hit with a nuke. One [[GeneralRipper rogue general]] in the US air force ignored MAD and sends nuclear bombers at Russia.
* Film/DrStrangelove is based around this, because the Russians have a doomsday device raring to go if they get hit with a nuke. One [[GeneralRipper rogue general]] in the US air force ignored MAD and sends nuclear bombers at Russia.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[AC:Music]]
* The TomLehrer song "We Will All Go Together When We Go" is a bleak look at the enormous scale of devastation a nuclear war would bring [[LyricalDissonance set to a jaunty tune.]]
--> Oh we will all char together when we char.
--> And let there be no moaning of the bar.
--> Just sing out a ''te deum'' when you see that I.C.B.M.
--> And the party will become as you are.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
to:
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and [[WrittenByTheWinners according to the victors]], the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.system.
!!Examples:
[[AC:Film]]
* Visually deconstructed in WarGames, when Joshua plays out every possible nuclear strike scenario.
[[AC:Video Games]]
* VideoGame/{{DEFCON}}.
!!Examples:
[[AC:Film]]
* Visually deconstructed in WarGames, when Joshua plays out every possible nuclear strike scenario.
[[AC:Video Games]]
* VideoGame/{{DEFCON}}.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,14 (click to see context) from:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. Indeed, before the [[GreatPoliticsMessup the end of the cold war]], most academics thought the acronym "MAD" was appropriate - the strategy seemed insane. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
to:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. Indeed, before the [[GreatPoliticsMessup [[TheGreatPoliticsMessup the end of the cold war]], most academics thought the acronym "MAD" was appropriate - the strategy seemed insane. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
One of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in this doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) from:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
to:
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. Indeed, before the [[GreatPoliticsMessup the end of the cold war]], most academics thought the acronym "MAD" was appropriate - the strategy seemed insane. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate, and vice versa, thus putting the superpowers in a MexicanStandoff. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[FromRussiaWithNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
to:
MexicanStandoff meets LensmanArmsRace meets WeaponOfMassDestruction.
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate, and viceversa, thus putting the superpowers in a MexicanStandoff.versa. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[FromRussiaWithNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate, and vice
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
YMMV sinkhole
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
YourMilageMayVary on this, but one of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
-->''"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought [[AfterTheEnd with sticks and stones.]]"''
to:
-->''"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but [[AfterTheEnd World War IV will be fought [[AfterTheEnd with sticks and stones.]]"''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6,11 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[FromRussiaWithNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, it has no incentive to begin one.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, it has no incentive to begin one.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate.retaliate, and vice versa, thus putting the superpowers in a MexicanStandoff. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[FromRussiaWithNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, ithas no incentive will get too scared to begin start one.
Needless to say, this theoryput the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, it
Needless to say, this theory
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
-->''"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."''
to:
-->''"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought [[AfterTheEnd with sticks and stones."'']]"''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Fixed link
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes [[FromRussiaWithNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
---> --Albert Einstein
to:
---> --Albert Einstein--'''{{Albert Einstein}}'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
-->"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
-->"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
---> --Albert Einstein
---> --Albert Einstein
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] illustrates how devastating this theory could be in practice]]
to:
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] VideoGame/{{DEFCON}} illustrates how devastating this theory could be in practice]]
practice.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] illustrates devastating this theory could be in practice]]
to:
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] illustrates how devastating this theory could be in practice]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[quoteright:327:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/DEFCON_Worst_Case_3194.png]]
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] illustrates devastating this theory could be in practice]]
[[caption-width-right:327:The video game [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DEFCON?from=Main.DEFCON DEFCON]] illustrates devastating this theory could be in practice]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more
more firepower than the other that it could "win" a nuclear war with one sudden, overwhelming strike.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,3 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]]. It also assumes that neither side has so much more
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, it has no incentive to begin one.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclearweapons.weapons.
YourMilageMayVary on this, but one of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
The goal of a MAD strategy is counter-intuitive: it is actually to ''prevent'' a nuclear war. The theory goes that if each side knows that there is no way it can survive a nuclear war, it has no incentive to begin one.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear
YourMilageMayVary on this, but one of the theories for why the ColdWar ended [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp as peacefully as it did]] is that belief in doctrine prevented the US and USSR from fighting any war directly against each other, for fear it would escalate to nuclear weapons and destroy both powers. Instead, it became a war of ideologies and economics, and the US eventually out-converted and out-spent the Soviets, who then collapsed under the weight of their own system.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,3 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Needless to say, this theory made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
did]].
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Needless to say, this theory put the superpowers into a global MexicanStandoff and made people on all sides of the ColdWar very nervous. It may come up in hypothetical WorldWarIII scenarios or works set in the late-era (1980s) of the ColdWar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, MAD has lost its value as the focus shifts to combating [[TheWarOnTerror terrorists]] who do not have access to a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be [[MutualDisadvantage assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore.anymore]]. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if either the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
this - and [[PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower they]] [[MnogoNukes did]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ([[FunWithAcronyms MAD]]) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both country's have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
to:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the doctrine that nuclear weapons, if deployed against another nuclear power, should be deployed en masse with the objective of completely destroying the other country's capacity to retaliate. In other words, if the USA or the USSR ever used nuclear weapons against the other, it would be assured that neither the USA nor the USSR would exist anymore. Naturally this assumes both country's countries have a large enough stockpile to accomplish this.
