Mutually Assured Destruction What is the strategic logic behind mutually assured destruction? Does nuclear deterrence increase security?


I think the strategy behind it is that no government would use a nuclear weapon with the knowledge that it would ensure their own and their own people's destruction, since the recipient country or recipient country's allies would respond in kind.

It's important to remember that the best example of nuclear deterrence we have in history is the cold war, in which both the Soviet Union and the United States possessed nuclear arsenals more than sufficient to destroy each other, and both had response systems in place that would have enabled a quick enough nuclear counterattack.

On that history, one can make the claim that nuclear deterrence works.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it makes you more secure.  Lower level, conventional conflicts can still erupt, though they seem less likely to erupt into full scale war. For example, in the case of India and Pakistan, nuclear deterrence has proven effective. There have been skirmishes between the two nuclear armed countries, but nothing significant.

Answer add
To write questions and answers you need to register on the site