Mutually assured
destruction, or MAD, claims that nuclear weapons have so much potential for
destruction and such a large capacity to inflict death upon an enemy that
actors possessing nuclear weapons will resist using them knowing that they
would likely be destroyed by their enemies’ nuclear weapons as well (Shermer). Fundamental principles of MAD are that the
actors are rational and that both actors involved in the conflict have second
strike capability, or the ability to deliver a nuclear strike after already
having been the victim of a nuclear attack (Shermer). Mutually assured destruction has held true since
the inception of nuclear weaponry, the only nuclear strike ever delivered being
the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan by the United States at the end
of World War II. Even in that scenario
Japan possessed no second strike capability, nullifying a founding principle of
MAD (History Channel). However, as times
have changed and the variety of legitimate actors has changed, does MAD still
hold true?
On the one hand, no
nuclear attack has occurred or appears anywhere near imminent, so MAD holds up. Even the most unstable leader with nuclear
capabilities in the world today, Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, has only
threatened to attack the United States for various perceived indiscretions and
has failed to pull the trigger (BBC "North Korea Threatens War on US over Kim Jong-un Movie.").
However, on the other hand,
many more actors exist in the world today that, if given the opportunity to use
a nuclear device, may in fact do so based on little possible ability for
effective retaliation. The most glaring
examples of such actors are terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant. The
animosity towards western culture by and ideals of organizations such as these is
well publicized and documented by not only western states but by ISIL and
Al-Qaeda themselves. Al-Qaeda organized
and conducted the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001,
while ISIL has threatened President Barack Obama and the families of United
States servicemen and women (BBC "In Full: Al-Qaeda Statement.", Ernst, Scarborough). The motivation to attack a western state with
nuclear capabilities, specifically the United States, is clearly present. The problem with MAD in the cases of these
two actors, along with any decentralized actor, is that finding a location to
strike with a nuclear device in retaliation is impractical at best and
impossible at worst.
Should ISIL or Al-Qaeda
strike a nuclear capable state with a nuclear weapon of their own, where should
the state fire back a second strike and how effective would said strike be? In the case of ISIL, should the fired upon
actor return fire on Mosul, a city of 1.8 million largely innocent civilians
(Sydney Morning Herald)? Despite
succeeding in eliminating a large contingent of ISIL militants, this
retaliatory nuclear action would mostly slaughter innocent civilians and appear
inhumane among the rational states of the world. Additionally, actors like Al-Qaeda and ISIL
are extraordinarily difficult to neutralize through conventional military means
or even a nuclear attack because they are not rooted in the ground on which they
stand or in the important leaders an attack might successfully
exterminate. They are instead rooted in
ideas and extreme ideologies that can be passed on from person to person and
likely can never be fully eradicated.
ISIL and Al-Qaeda are
extremely decentralized and possess no ideal location for which to execute a
nuclear strike. Even if a strike were
executed on ISIL or Al-Qaeda and it somehow did manage to eliminate every
participatory militant, the extreme ideologies the organizations were founded
upon will remain for others to emulate and recreate. For these reasons, should ISIL or Al-Qaeda
attain a nuclear device, it would be highly likely for them to violate the MAD doctrine
and use said device in a strike against the west. Therefore, in the 21st century,
MAD does not entirely hold true.
BBC News. "In Full: Al-Qaeda
Statement." BBC News. BBC, 10 Oct.
2001. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
BBC. "North Korea Threatens War on US over
Kim Jong-un Movie." BBC News. BBC, 26 June
2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
Ernst, Douglas. "‘We’re Coming for You,
Barack Obama’: Top U.S. Official Discloses Threat from ISIL." The
Washington Times 23
July 2014. The Washington Time, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/isil-threatens-obama-top-us-official-discloses/>.
History Channel.
"Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." History.com. A&E
Television Networks, LLC, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
Scarborough, Rowan. "U.S. Military Ordered
to Hide Identities, Change Routines to Avoid Terrorist Attacks." The
Washington Times 29
Oct. 2014. The Washington Times, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/29/pentagon-issues-islamic-state-warning-to-staff-rem/>.
Shermer,
Michael. "Will Mutually Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?"Scientific American 1 June 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
Sydney Morning Herald. "ISIL's New Rules
for Captured City of Mosul." Sydney Morning Herald 13 June 2014. Fairfax Media. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.smh.com.au/world/isils-new-rules-for-captured-city-of-mosul-20140613-zs783.html>.
I like the direction you took with your blog post. When you pointed out the MAD example about North Korea and the United States, I started thinking that MAD completely holds true today. I especially thought this because I believe that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East would be a safer place because of MAD. However, I like how you brought in the idea of terrorist groups such as ISIL. It's interesting how you pointed out that because these terrorist groups are built on extreme ideologies and do not posses an ideal location, they would be more likely to use a nuclear weapon against another state. After you explained this, I began to agree that MAD may not hold entirely true today, especially because terrorist groups have become such a common threat to the world in recent years.
ReplyDeleteThank you Caroline. That is exactly what I was hoping readers would get out of this post. Threats are always changing shape and adapting to the world around them. Therefore, the means by which threats can be sufficiently neutralized will have to change along with the threats themselves.
DeleteI have a completely different view towards MAD weapons. I think that which ever countries launches the first nuclear strike will become the first country that will be officially be at war with every other country on Earth. Nations go to war not because their leaders want to but because their people want to. A MAD weapon whether it's biological or nuclear or something else will make person in every nation hate that country, which is why Assad's regime tried so hard to hide their bio weapons. So China, Russia, and everyone else wouldn't turn against them.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that any country that uses a nuclear weapon will become an immediate pariah to almost the entire international community. However, I fail to see how this contradicts my claim that MAD is less viable now due to the presence of decentralized, extremist terrorist organizations. ISIL is already a pariah on the international stage, so what incentive would they have not to use a MAD weapon? More over, the question remains as to how any nation would retaliate with a MAD weapon against ISIL.
DeleteMAD is definitely being put to the test in today's political climate. With Al Qaeda and ISIL lacking any agree upon territory, a second strike against them is rendered dangerous, as it risks the lives of millions of innocent civilians. However, I think it can be hypothesized as to what may happen in the instance of a nuclear-capable terrorist group. Unless the countries hosting the terror groups, voluntarily or not, are also nuclear capable, they will be more active in removing their presence, for fear of retaliation. While the threat of nuclear retaliation over a peaceful country is indeed inhumane, it may perhaps be the only way of driving terrorists out of these countries, or, at the very least, allowing nations with the capability to remove them, the ability to operate within their nation. Whether or not this ultimately happens, however, is dependent on nuclear proliferation and the likelihood of terrorist acquisition of these WMDs.
ReplyDelete