Dominican University of California

M.A.D and the Danger in a Nuclear World

A look at the nuclear Cold War and the presence of such weapons in the post-cold war era

Christopher Suen
5113050
POL 1500
Instructor: Gigi Gokcek Ph. D
26 November 2013
1

Throughout the Cold War, America and the U.S.S.R were at the brink of nuclear
confrontation almost insuring the mutually assured destruction (M.A.D) of both their nations
resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Thankfully, there was no nuclear attack and the
Cold War ended without a nuclear weapon launched. Unfortunately, the nightmare of nuclear
weapons continues into the post-cold war era with the danger of not just ambitious countries but
also the scare of terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons. The idea of world peace resulting from
the proliferation of nuclear wepons for every country will do more harm than good.
America and the Soviet Union were able to avoid M.A.D as a result of both countries
possessing second launch capabilities which meant that if one country was hit first, it could still
launch its nuclear missiles in retaliation destroying both countries and killing many people
(Goldstein Pevehouse 221). For example, if Russia launched its missiles and hit America before
they were aware of what was happening, then America could also launch their missiles in
retaliation even after a nuclear attack. Both countries were armed with the capabilities to launch
their nuclear arsenals via from the ground, air, or by sea. The dilemma of total annihilation
of both countries, prevented nuclear war from breaking out. Avoiding M.A.D was also attributed
towards the treaties the America and the Soviet Union signed that help keep tensions amongst
the two nations down. The countries agreed to adhere to agreements such as 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (ABM) and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT) during the 1970s
helped prevent confrontation. The ABM treaty prevented each side from developing antiballistic missile defense preventing the other country from launching their nuclear arsenal while
SALT put a ceiling on the countries weapons (Goldstein Pevehouse 221-222). With the treaties,
tensions were not only kept in check but more importantly prevented M.A.D occurring between
the two countries. The most important factor that prevented M.A.D was the fact that neither the
America or the Soviet Union wanted to use nuclear weapons. Both America and the Soviet
Union were aware of the extent of the damage that would occur if they were to engage in nuclear
2

war. The main targets for both countries would be both military installations but also industrial
areas located in major city areas. According to Brodie, the targeting of the major urban areas
would result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in both countries (Brodie 423). As a
result of the consequences of a nuclear war both America and the Soviet Union used the use of
nuclear weapons as a last resort but hoped the other country would take the bluff and deter from
any hostile action. The possible carnage from a nuclear war was the best type of deterrence to
prevent M.A.D from occurring between America and the Soviet Union (Schelling 440-441).
Even after the end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
danger of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War is just as dangerous as it was in the Cold War.
One danger that is present in the post-Cold War world is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in
countries where the purpose is either questionable or even hostile. A country like Iran claims
that they are utilizing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as scientific medical advances
while the offensive and defensive reasons are questionable causing the nuclear countries to
worry whether Iran wants to gain nuclear weapons to be on equal playing terms internationally
(Jervis 172). Countries such as America are suspicious of Irans claim of peaceful purposes of
nuclear energy and suspect that Iran actually intend to create nuclear weapons to cause harm to
America or its key regional allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia (Mingst Snyder 382-383). Another
fear that draws from nuclear weapons in post-Cold War era is the use of nuclear weapons arising
from tensions between countries. An example could be the conflict between India and Pakistan
and how the two countries came close to nuclear war. With both countries in possession of
nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan were more embolden by their various decrees against one
another and would not be afraid to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against the other
(Goldstein Pevehouse 211-213). A country that possesses nuclear weapons may lead to the
country to be bolder in dealing with tensions with other countries brings the threat of nuclear war
to the table. The most important danger that comes from nuclear weapons present in the world is
3

the illegal sale of nuclear weapons to unfriendly countries or to criminal organizations. The
spread of nuclear proliferation was threat back in the Cold War that in 1968 the NonProliferation Treaty which controlled the sale and transportation of nuclear materials including
weapons (Goldstein Pevehouse 217). However, the illegal sale of nuclear weapons is still a
present danger with the chance of nuclear materials or weapons ending up in the wrong hands
either in unfriendly countries or by terrorist organizations.
The concept of arming every country in the world with nuclear weapons with the idea of
deterrence like America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is not a good idea and will
not lead to a deterrence of conflict amongst countries. One reason why it isnt a good idea to
have every country possess a nuclear weapon is the danger of its use by rogue states. For
example, in the case of North Korea if it was given a nuclear weapon it could use it to bolster its
threats against South Korea, Japan, or America into giving aid to the impoverished country. If
rogue states were given nuclear weapons, it would not lead to deterrence from conflict but rather
increase the level of conflict with other countries (Mingst Snyder 333). Another reason why
every country possessing nuclear weapons is a bad idea is if the nuclear weapons are held by
countries in unstable conditions. If a country is in the middle of a civil war and various factions
are fighting one another, then the nuclear weapon poses a dangerous situation not just for the
country but for the surrounding countries as well. If a country is experiencing sectarian violence
such as in Iraq between Sunni and Shiites and if one faction obtains control of the nuclear
weapon, then it could be used against the other inflicting many casualties. The most important
fear in the idea of every country possessing a nuclear weapon is an accidental unauthorized
launch. If there is an accident involving the nuclear weapon whether it explodes within the
country or if it is accidentally launched by the country it can lead to disaster. If a missile is
launched accidentally in India and heads towards Pakistan might react by launching its nuclear
weapons towards India in retaliation. The fallout from the carnage of an accident can lead to a
4

domino effect resulting in a chain reaction of countries launching missiles at each other leaving
millions of people dead.
In the case of nuclear proliferation in the world, the scariest scenario is the possession of
nuclear weapons by terrorists. The reason why it is a bad scenario to have a terrorist
organization possess a nuclear weapon is because terrorists dont play by international rules.
Terrorists and terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban dont abide to
moral principles like the rest of the world (Goldstein Pevehouse 206-207). Terrorist
organizations will not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon killing innocent people in order to spread
terror. Countries dealing with terrorists are worried in a scenario where terrorists possess nuclear
weapons and will use it against a country to spread terror. Another point of concern is with
countries trying to obtain nuclear weapons whom are state sponsors of terrorism (Goldstein
Pevehouse 207). A state sponsor of terrorism is when a country is friendly and supportive of
terrorists organizations. An example would be the countries of Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan where in the past or present the countries were state sponsors of
terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. The countries could obtain
and create nuclear weapons for the terrorists organizations allowing for the terrorists to use
nuclear weapons against the rest of the world. The fear of state sponsors of terrorism obtaining
nuclear weapons for terrorist groups is a significant threat and the main fear concerning terrorists
in nuclear proliferation.
During the Cold War America and the Soviet Union came close to annihilating one
another in a nuclear war yet were deterred from launching their nuclear weapons because of the
concept of M.A.D. In the post-Cold War era, the threat of nuclear weapons is still present as
many countries try to obtain nuclear weapons to deter or threaten other countries. The concept
of every country owning a nuclear weapon is dangerous because instead of deterring future
conflict, it will increase conflict amongst countries because they all possess nuclear weapons. In
5

nuclear proliferation the concern of terrorism is concerning because of terrorists organization

willingness to kill innocent people in order to spread fear around the world.

Works Cited
Goldstein S. Joshua, and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. 10th ed. United Sates:
Longman-Pearson, 2012. Print.
Mingst A. Karen, and Jack L. Snyder. Essential Readings in World Politics. 4th ed. New York:
W.W Norton & Company, 2011. Print. Barry R. Posen, A Nuclear-Armed Iran: A
Difficult but Not Impossible Policy Problem (New York: Century Foundation, 2006).
Print.
Mingst A. Karen, and Jack L. Snyder. Essential Readings in World Politics. 4th ed. New York:
W.W Norton & Company, 2011. Print. Schelling C. Thomas, Arms and Influence (New
Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1966), Chap. 1. Print.
Mingst A. Karen, and Jack L. Snyder. Essential Readings in World Politics. 4th ed. New York:
W.W Norton & Company, 2011. Print. Jervis, Robert. World Politics 30, no. 2 (Jan.
1978): 167-214. Web.
Schelling C. Thomas. Arms and Influence. London: Yale University Press, 1966. Pg. 92-94, 9699, 103-105, and 116-121. Web.
Brodie, Bernard. Strategy in the Missile Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1959. Pg. 150-158. Web.