W. Kernodle blog #2
William Kernodle
Professor Shirk
Pols 170
03 March 202
MAD
I have long subscribed to the idea that nuclear weapons will prevent another huge war from breaking out. However, due to the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, I have considered flaws in the mutually assured destruction theory. I firmly believe that no rational actor would willingly utilize their own nuclear weapons for fear of subjecting themselves to a reactionary nuclear attack. I would argue that while mutually assured destruction is a very real possibility and definitely serves as a deternace for war between rational powers, that it may not necessarily do the same for irrational powers. Democracy definitely strengthens this theory because an elected leader who leads his people to nuclear war is unlikely to earn reelection whereas this isn’t something a stereotypical irrational actor would have to worry about. I now wonder how effective mutually assured destruction really is if the weapons are in the hands of unstable, authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. Sure, mutually assured destruction might prevent the United States or the United Kingdom from striking but what is to prevent a dictator like Putin from using his largest casualty producing weapon if he doesn’t care about his people?
While the world has neer seen a nuclear war, and I understand that mutually assured destruction has held true, even with irrational players, I fail to understand why this is. The most dangerous weapon is a man who has nothing to lose. I would characterize Putin as such, I think his ambitions to restore the soviet union won’t stop for anything, other than something that affects him directly. I would also argue that radical leaders of the past, like Hitler or Bin Laden, who did not have access to nuclear weapons, would have refrained from using them. I think these leaders, similar to Putin and Un, cared more about achieving their goal and less about their own people enough that they did not fear a nuclear strike.
In summation, despite it presistung to date, I see a main flaw in the theory of mutually assured destruction. I sure hope the world never sees nuclear war and that irrational leaders continue to hold off using their weapons. However, I would not be surprised to see them used by a leader with nothing to lose.
I really like this blog post on mutually assured destruction. I would suggest incorporating information from outside sources, simply to add more evidence to your claim. You raise an interesting point about people being more dangerous if there are no consequences for attempting something, and I like this point. You mention that you do not think Hitler would want to use nuclear weapons, however, would nuclear weapons have provided Hitler with a more efficient way to obtain his so-called "perfect race"? This is just a possible counterargument to your claim, which you may want to consider.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting take on mutually assured destruction. I agree with a lot of the arguments that you presented here, and I think this topic is very timely with our current world situation. I agree with Kim with providing more outside information/class information to help strengthen your argument because I think that would help blend your argument with facts. For example, if you referenced the reading we had that covered MAD, you could have maybe agreed/disagreed with the claims made by the author. Other than that, I think this was a very interesting post, and I enjoyed reading your perspective on the subject!
ReplyDelete