MAD suggests that two countries of similar nuclear powers would draw a stalemate with each other if the countries went to war and launch a nuclear weapon. Therefore, flexing muscle is an important factor in avoiding conflict. In order to deter potential attacks it is important for states to show their powers. The greatest power of nuclear weapons is the threat they establish which acts as a defense mechanism. Countries with nuclear weapons enforce potential consequences to any country who attacks or wrongs them. As MAD suggests if nuclear weapons are launched, chaos would ensue and countries would be obliterated. Countries who have nuclear weapons should not hide it. If other countries do not believe they have nuclear powers, given MAD it makes the country more susceptible to nuclear attacks and weaker. Countries with known nuclear weapons are super-powers. Having nuclear powers automatically puts states on the top of the latter in terms of power because of the destruction they can cause. So few countries possess nuclear weapons and even fewer are allowed to possess them. MAD explains what could happen if every country had nuclear powers. Although it suggests that any leader would be reluctant to launch the weapons it also suggest that nuclear war and world destruction are plausible. Restrictions on nuclear weapons should continue to be tight and any country developing unlawful nuclear powers should be stopped. All the countries who hold nuclear weapons through treaties are allies and are in cooperation with one another. Nuclear weapons automatically puts a country at the top of the totem poll in terms of power; so it makes for the best deterrence in protection against foreign enemies because of the threat it creates.
Another deterrence strategy that can be considered given the idea of MAD, is creating foreign allegiances. Having foreign allies causes a secondary defense against foreign enemies. Firstly, countries who cooperate are less likely to go to war. Countries who are selfish and do only what they believe is in their best interest are naturally more prone to foreign conflict. By having many allies it establishes a diplomatic nature and that makes the country less prone to conflict, attack and war. Secondly, countries with allies provide an additional threat. It gives potential opponents the thought that if they mess with one country they might be messing with a host of other countries. It makes a country significantly more powerful because of the threat that allied countries can aid in any warfare. When less powerful countries create allegiances with world powers it significantly increases the strength of the country because of the allied countries power. Given MAD, a country with more allies will be able to end conflict sooner. If it is two or three countries firing nuclear attacks against only one country the group of allied countries will be able to destroy the other country quicker.
Good and bad reputations is a deterrence strategy that is beneficial and detrimental to countries given MAD. A country with a bad reputation specifically a reputation known to be unpredictable creates a predicament. Rational leaders resort to nuclear weapons as a last line of defense. Irrational leaders might use nuclear weapons as offense or more sparingly than rational ones. This unknown and unpredictable nature of irrational leaders imposes a giant threat to all unfriendly countries. It establishes the thought that rational countries need to have nuclear weapons pointed in the direction (not literally) of potential irrational opponents as defense . Irrational leaders can develop nuclear powers without the consultation and approval of other countries. Because of this it makes countries who do not have nuclear powers to want to defend from the unknown threat of attack. In turn countries with bad reputations leads to more countries producing nuclear weapons to defend against them. A good, diplomatic reputation shows reliability and rationality. Even with conflict, countries with good reputations do not impose a giant risk for nuclear attack because their leaders act rationally and therefore pose a small risk of nuclear warfare because they use it as a last resort.
I do not believe creating alliances prevents war. It may prevent war between the country who have those alliances (not always the case i.e. USSR and USA), but it does not prevent war completely. In fact, I think it does the opposite. Take WW1 for example. One of the main reasons the U.S. got involved was because of the economic investments/alliances we made with Britain and France.
ReplyDeleteI think alliances create greater accountability for countries. Not only do they have to worry about the interests of their country they also have to worry about their allies interests. Because of this interdependence, war is deterred by the collective decision making involved in pleasing multiple parties.
ReplyDelete