Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps that it is worth the cost in lives from smaller wars to prevent mass casualties in nuclear ones?
Plus, actually getting rid of all the nukes would make warfare more attractive, which makes acquiring nukes desirable again. And no nation under threat of total war would rather lose everything than use nuclear weapons. So I don't think the equilibrium of nobody having nukes is at all stable: eventually one country begins to think about warfare, decides they need nukes, creating a power imbalance, causing others to get nukes too.
Though of course the flaw of MAD, or even game theory in general, is that it assumes everybody will be a rational actor. People are people, and if someone stupidly violated MAD against their own self-interest or reasoning on some bizarre hundreds/thousands of years timescale, we could all perish. There is a small but nonzero probability on every single day of our lives that we and everything we know will be destroyed by nuclear weapons. So far that day hasn't come yet, and there's no way of knowing how likely it is. But given that banning nukes on an international scale seems unstable anyway, I guess this is the best we can do.
It also relies on perfect information. If one side is convinced they are being attacked, it's all over. There have been a lot of near-misses when it comes to nuclear launches due to bad information.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
The perfect information point is important too. However, historically we've still been extremely lucky. When false alarms or faulty data have indicated that another country had used nukes against the other, the defender has never fought back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
Really I think MAD is the best option for us, given that nuclear technology exists and can't be unlearned from the world. How does one enforce a denuclearized world without military might? The only solution I can think of is something like a mutual carte-blanche to investigate other countries' facilities for evidence of nuclear proliferation. Given that this represents a considerable risk for things like military bases or facilities producing new military technology, I have a hard time believing countries like China, Russia, and the US would be ok with this.
As you said, historically we've been extremely lucky. What happens if next time there's a false alarm, someone actually retaliates?
Presumably the idea is that the US lets go of it's nukes, destroys them, feeds them into nuclear reactors, whatever (assuming that's possible, it'd be "positive"). What happens then ? Well, nothing happens, of course. The main thing that happens is that the US can no longer threaten nuclear strikes, either in retaliation, offensive or to defend itself.
This does not affect Russia's nukes. Doesn't affect France's nukes. Doesn't affect NK, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, Israel, ... nukes. But it gives all of these countries a powerful card to play against the US.
In fact the pressure behing not using nukes is partially that the US will retaliate if an attack happens on it's allies (a promise that largely benefits European states against Russia, but not exclusively).
The inevitable result will be that all these countries will increase the pressure they use against everyone else with nukes. Which of course, only works if they back it with nukes. If at any point someone feels sufficiently pressured to prove their nuke capability ... And remember: the governments of these countries, the people that control the nukes are just as unstable, evil, ... as the US government is. In fact, the consensus is that most are worse.
So what is the real alternative to Mutually Assured Destruction ? What would be the consequence of ending it ?
Simple: the alternative is oppression, more of it, and a good increase in the chance of war, maybe nuclear war.
You can't end MAD by simply demanding it ends, you can only make it worse. You can only end it by proposing something better that is actually backed, something that works economically, something that works militarily, something that works in game theory and negotiation theories.
What does that quote have to do with MAD, the doctrine specifically designed to prevent tit for tat behavior from escalating into a full blown war?
Although I agree with you regarding your scenario, I think it's inaccurate to assume that the decision to retaliate would only be made after the nukes have landed and the "rubble" cleared. The debates and decisions would be made in the minutes after the launch. Considering there would be no way to know whether the attack was perhaps the start of some more-international conflict (e.g. an unlikely NK-Russia or NK-China joint first strike), and considering such an attack would likely coincide with a land invasion of SK, a retaliatory strike might be necessary. Hopefully if this situation ever plays out in real life the US will opt to use low-yield, low-fallout nukes targeting military facilities with minimal civilian casualties.
(Adjust the percentage as you see fit. I think that’s a reasonable guess but it’s definitely a guess.)
I think the second one is clearly worse. The idea that nuclear weapons are good because they’ve resulted in peace only makes sense if you think the chances of a nuclear world war are negligible. I don’t think that’s true but some people seem to.
But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.
> But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.
Compared to being ruled by something akin to the UN? (Not the security council, the full UN.) Absolutely, my nation is a good thing compared to that.
Compared to being ruled by the EU? Maybe even compared to that. (And you wouldn't get something as good as the EU, for the same reasons that the UN wasn't as good as the EU.)
Now, true, not every nation can say that. And we weren't talking about affairs within the nation, but affairs between nations. Still... I'd say that assuming the nation is a bad thing "assumes facts not in evidence", as they say in court.
I agree it would be the best way to prevent war, but a slide into autocracy there could hamstring humanity for centuries.
Even without autocracy, global views are already anti-LGBT, and otherwise do not reflect the progressive values of western democracies.