Mutual assured end or angry is the doctrine of a situation in which all use of nuclear weapons by either of two opposing sides would result in the demise of both the attacker and the defender. The doctrine assumes that severally side has abundant weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is that the battle would escalate to the point where each side brought about the other total and assured destruction and potentially, those of allies as well. I would like to consider most of the moral questions surrounding mutual assured destruction. I shall submit to present the moral dilemmas that arise, although it would be useless to try to arrest my own response to these dilemmas. Nuclear weapons are so unambiguously powerful and destructive that the moral issues presented by them must be on the same vast scale.
MAD is a product of the 1950s US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in coetaneous terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for well everyplace three decades.
But, MAD was developed during a time of perfidious missile technology and was based on a mortal fear of Communism, by ignorance of unknown enemy that lurked behind the iron curtain. Times have changed. The primary application of this doctrine occurred during the unheated war which was between the 1950s and 1990s between the United States and the Soviet Union. MAD was seen as a tool that helped to prevent any locate adequate-scale conflicts between the two nations while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. The credibility of the threat beingness critical to such assurance,
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper