I attended a really interesting lecture on nuclear deterrence and proliferation recently, and I think some people might want to discuss it.
Nuclear strategy is based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD assumes that two nuclear powers attacking each other each have a first strike opportunity and a second strike opportunity (and in some theories, a third strike opportunity); essentially, the first strike is the original launch of a declaration of war. For a variety of reasons, it is assumed that while a first strike will cause major damage and prompt retaliation, the first strike will not completely eliminate the target's nuclear capability, and that as a result the target will have a second strike opportunity to attack the aggressor, causing similar destruction. (The most important factor for allowing a second strike is submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons - it's essentially impossible to know where they are unless you also happen to have a submarine in its vicinity. It is pretty much impossible to know where all of your opponent's nuclear submarines are at a specific time.)
Now, the most interesting theory presented in this lecture is that nuclear proliferation is a good thing. According to this theory, if everybody has nuclear weapons, nobody will use them because of the looming spectre of MAD. Even conventional warfare will decrease, as two nuclear powers won't want to risk escalating a conventional conflict into a nuclear conflict.
Obviously, this theory has a lot of people railing against it. Some point out that there is a massive first strike incentive for nuclear powers whose rivals do not yet have nuclear weapons. Others observe that some world leaders do not act rationally, and would be likely to use nuclear weapons if they got hold of them. More worry about the capability for certain states to keep their weapons secure, fearing that they could be captured by or sold to non-state actors such as terrorist groups, against whom there is no second strike opportunity. There's also the problem of nuclear powers with different capabilities; not everybody has ICBMs or nuclear submarines, so their rivals who are outside their range have an increased first strike incentive. There are plenty of other situations that could undermine the first argument.
The really interesting thing: the empirical evidence supports the original hypothesis (the idea that nuclear proliferation is good). Every one of the situations that its critics have suggested has occurred in the real world, and none of them have led to nuclear war. If two rivals have regular conflicts, the incidences of conventional conflicts decrease once they have nuclear weapons. So yes, the evidence does support this hypothesis.
That said, are you willing to bet the world on it? All it takes is one incident.
So, lend your views. Is nuclear proliferation a good thing? Should certain states be denied nuclear weapons? Should nuclear powers disarm? Let's discuss this, it's interesting.
Nuclear strategy is based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD assumes that two nuclear powers attacking each other each have a first strike opportunity and a second strike opportunity (and in some theories, a third strike opportunity); essentially, the first strike is the original launch of a declaration of war. For a variety of reasons, it is assumed that while a first strike will cause major damage and prompt retaliation, the first strike will not completely eliminate the target's nuclear capability, and that as a result the target will have a second strike opportunity to attack the aggressor, causing similar destruction. (The most important factor for allowing a second strike is submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons - it's essentially impossible to know where they are unless you also happen to have a submarine in its vicinity. It is pretty much impossible to know where all of your opponent's nuclear submarines are at a specific time.)
Now, the most interesting theory presented in this lecture is that nuclear proliferation is a good thing. According to this theory, if everybody has nuclear weapons, nobody will use them because of the looming spectre of MAD. Even conventional warfare will decrease, as two nuclear powers won't want to risk escalating a conventional conflict into a nuclear conflict.
Obviously, this theory has a lot of people railing against it. Some point out that there is a massive first strike incentive for nuclear powers whose rivals do not yet have nuclear weapons. Others observe that some world leaders do not act rationally, and would be likely to use nuclear weapons if they got hold of them. More worry about the capability for certain states to keep their weapons secure, fearing that they could be captured by or sold to non-state actors such as terrorist groups, against whom there is no second strike opportunity. There's also the problem of nuclear powers with different capabilities; not everybody has ICBMs or nuclear submarines, so their rivals who are outside their range have an increased first strike incentive. There are plenty of other situations that could undermine the first argument.
The really interesting thing: the empirical evidence supports the original hypothesis (the idea that nuclear proliferation is good). Every one of the situations that its critics have suggested has occurred in the real world, and none of them have led to nuclear war. If two rivals have regular conflicts, the incidences of conventional conflicts decrease once they have nuclear weapons. So yes, the evidence does support this hypothesis.
That said, are you willing to bet the world on it? All it takes is one incident.
So, lend your views. Is nuclear proliferation a good thing? Should certain states be denied nuclear weapons? Should nuclear powers disarm? Let's discuss this, it's interesting.
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
