JACKSON 1

Michael W. Jackson

A02-92-6779

Warren 11A

19 October 1999

Mutual Assured Destruction:

Is it an effective form of deterrence in today's post cold war society?

"Duck and Cover!" is shouted throughout the halls of the school in the Midwest.

The students hide under their desks and cover their necks to protect themselves from the

nuclear explosion. This was the world of the 1950's elementary school pupil. The threat

of an all out nuclear war was a possibility in the collective psyche of all Americans.

Society today, however, feels secure in the belief that the threat of nuclear war is not a

major concern. The vehicle that has brought about this change is the central dogma of

peace in today's society. Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) is the weapon of

deterrence from the minds of men that has secured a peace for all time. Has M.A.D.

secured peace for all time or is it on a slippery slope into oblivion, and with it the threat

of nuclear annihilation will rise from its ashes. The support of M.A.D. is found in the

realization of the timetable of an attack, counter value versus counter force theories, and

the readiness of the nuclear arsenal. The detractors to this deterrent are development of

flexible response theory, 1st strike weapons, and the susceptibility of the nuclear arsenal

to computer warfare. MAD is an effective form of deterrence that will secure peace for

generations to come.

Self-preservation is the definition of support for M.A.D policy founded by John

Foster Dulles. This is seen as the common thread that links the three main arguments of
 JACKSON 2

effectiveness: timetable to destruction, counter force versus counter value theory, and

readiness of the nuclear arsenal. The elapsed time to impact has greatly decreased in the

period from 1945 to present, varying from 12 hours to a matter of 30 minutes (Gay 26-

27). The civil defense policy of nuclear America has changed greatly in response to the

diminished amount of time it takes for a nuclear bomb to hit our shores. The Civil

Defense Act of 1950 instated an evacuation plan of major urban areas in which there was

a 12-hour period before the B-2 bomber would unload its payload. The introduction of

Sputnik was a shock to the security of the free world. Sputnik displayed the ability of a

country to reach the United States in a relatively miniscule amount of time. The

introduction of Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's) now moved civil defense

theory into the realm of fallout shelters and a decisive effort to avoid the mass destruction

of our society. In 1979, the Crisis Relocation Program was initiated where if a global

conflict was imminent the days preceding the war would allow for evacuation of the

populated regions or targets (Gay 27). The construction of these theories was not only

for safety reasons but to sustain the appearance of a creditable threat.

The second issue, counter force versus counter value focuses on the targets of a

nuclear bomb. The nuclear age opened the realm of targets to civilians and property i.e.

not just military and defense facilities. Counter force is associated with the positioning of

nuclear warheads at military facilities. Counter value is the use of warhead positioning to

destroy the population and the economic infrastructure of a nation and resources that may

become necessary in a post apocalyptic world (Dauber 75). The counter society theory is

a factor in the continued success of M.A.D., as it is the duty of the leaders of nations to

protect their citizenry to maintain the power they crave. The desire to live and the desire
 JACKSON 3
to maintain power, be it the ability to decide the future of your life or to take your

country to the final war is a cautionary tale that keeps the peace.

Will the arsenal be prepared for war if a worldwide test ban is proposed and

accepted? The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is confident on the readiness of the

stockpile and does not see a need for continued testing of nuclear weapons. The issue

addressed in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory report is focused on the realization that

we can keep the threat alive during a Low-Threshold Test Ban or Comprehensive Test

Ban (R. E. Kidder). The nuclear stability of this nation is well protected and significance

is given to the triad defense system that plays an important role in the maintenance of the

threat of war (Dauber 34). Triad is the assurance of a three-pronged nuclear arsenal by

which all branches of the armed services have nuclear capability. These three threats

maintain the security and peace that is inherent in M.A.D. allowing the threat on nuclear

war to remain a minimal issue in the minds of the average American.

The M.A.D. philosophy however has not survived unscathed by attempts to

dissolve its focus: War will kill everyone. The thought of a loss of power within the

international realm has lead American Presidents from Nixon to Reagan to pursue a

flexible response to a nuclear attack. The predecessor to Star Wars was the Antiballistic

Missile (ABM). This missile was the result of a program developed prior to the Reagan

years, and was quickly placed off limits by treaties to maintain the threat of M.A.D. The

greatest move towards flexible response is seen in the Star Wars program of the Reagan

Administration. The purpose of Star Wars was to develop a system in which the U.S.

could regain its foothold as the supreme world power. The hope of Reagan was a nuclear

umbrella that would destroy any ICBM nuclear threat. The system, however, placed the

two superpowers at odds with one another and moved the nation closer to war. The fatal
 JACKSON 4
flaw in the Star Wars program was the inability to test the system without causing a

global conflict. In current society, however, tests have begun again for a missile defense

system to protect from rouge states. This new player in the nuclear card game is a reason

to worry about the security of a world in which a move to prevent the reliability of

nuclear weapons may spur a war. The flexible response only opens a door to renewed

defense spending and the further creation of weapons of mass destruction.

The second response to the M.A.D. dogma is the development of first strike

weapons (Schwartz 20-28). The first strike is a term used to describe highly accurate

nuclear weapons that have a low yield. These weapons would be able to launch on

enemy defenses to disable their nuclear defense before a response would be initiated.

The flaw in this policy is that all first strike weapons would have to attack simultaneously

to effectively knockout the triad defense structure. First strike development of weapons

has lead to great tension among nuclear powers, however the accuracy required to

effectively disable a nuclear threat would be impossible. For example even if first strike

was to disable 95% of the arsenal the remaining 5% would still be locked on to our nation

and have the same ability as the arsenal before first strike (Schwartz 56).

The final weakness of M.A.D. is the development of Electromagnetic pulse

(EMP) technology that has the ability to disable the computers and circuitry behind the

weapons of mass destruction (Gay 98-99). The warfare of the 21st century involves an

electronic battlefield that may spawn the development of EMP weapons that will cripple

the infrastructure and security of a nuclear response leaving the world unaware of

impending doom. M.A.D. is effective in current society but what may lie ahead is the

true danger to the stability of peace in the post Cold War period.
 JACKSON 5
The purpose of M.A.D. is to protect society through fear, and it has been and

continues to be an effective deterrent. The focus of the future of security, however, does

not remain in the realm of the Super Powers, but in the global community in which

biological weapons, technological advancements, and newfound vulnerability displays

new weaknesses of fear. If it is possible to defeat a nuclear threat, what will keep the

world powers from developing expansionistic policies and ultimately war? The answer

lies in the future of warfare and the new counter value and counter force initiatives

displayed by military powers, i.e. the "new" nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of

M.A.D. is clearly represented in the hallowed halls of history, and with this effectiveness,

a necessity to maintain global fear is evident.

 JACKSON 6
Works Cited

Dauber, Cori Elizabeth. Cold War Analytical Structures and the Post Post-War World.

Connecticut: Praeger, 1993.

Gay, William, and Michael Pearson. The Nuclear Arms Race. Chicago: American

Library Association, 1987.

Kidder, R.E. Maintaining the U.S. Stockpile of Nuclear Weapons During a Low-

Threshold of Comprehensive Test Ban. Livermore, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, 1987.

Schwartz, William A., and Charles Derber. The Nuclear Seduction: Why the Arms Race

Doesn't Matter-and What Does. Los Angeles, California University Press, 1990.