Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Mutually Assured Destruction

   
Author Topic: Mutually Assured Destruction
DangerIsMyMiddleName
New Member
Member # 4401

 - posted      Profile for DangerIsMyMiddleName   Email DangerIsMyMiddleName         Edit/Delete Post 
The title of this post refers to the state of the US and Russia during the Cold War. Both sides had (and still have) nuclear weapons both neither side really wanted to start a war because both sides realized that once the bombs started flying it would get pretty messy pretty fast. My question is this: Under what circumstances, in a similar circumstance, do you think one of the sides would actually start using nuclear weapons?

Its a thought provoking question, because the speed and size of the destruction provokes swift and terrible decisions. 90% of the time you can bet that the other side will retaliate and cause mass destruction to the provoker, so why would he risk attacking?

These are the assumptions - there are no ICBMs; all bombs/missiles are delivered by bomber, sub, or something similar.

There is no way to disable all of the enemy's bombers, bombs, subs, etc. Retaliation is a given.

Can you think of any reason why one of these superpowers would resort to nuclear attack under this kind of scenario?


Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
joelman42
Member
Member # 5226

 - posted      Profile for joelman42   Email joelman42         Edit/Delete Post 
One side mistakenly thinks the other side is about to attack. In that case, all bets are off. Suppose a computer malfunctions and reports a ballistic missile launch when none has occurred. Or a satellite launch or conventional missile launch is mistaken for a nuclear missile launch. Once one side believes a nuclear war has begun, they'll be fighting to win. Khruschev and Kennedy installed a direct phone line between their offices after the Cuban Missile Crisis to avoid that possibility.

Or, a third party launches a single nuclear attack on Russia or the United States, deliberately hoping to provoke a war between the two. That's been used quite a bit in fiction: The Sum of All Fears, and at least one James Bond movie, if memory serves.


Posts: 15 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
arriki
Member
Member # 3079

 - posted      Profile for arriki   Email arriki         Edit/Delete Post 
Toss in someone like that Iranian president who thinks it's his destiny to start one and doesn't care about the level of destruction (kill them all and let God sort it out).
Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trousercuit
Member
Member # 3235

 - posted      Profile for trousercuit   Email trousercuit         Edit/Delete Post 
Exactly. Threat of MAD being a deterrent depends on the rationality of the two sides.

Barack Obama said:

quote:
With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

I'm not enamored with the guy, but he makes a very good point.

Speaking of game theory, threat of MAD keeping things in check is an example of Nash equilibrium. Look under "Occurrence" on that page, and specifically pay attention to the first subsection there: "Where the conditions are not met".


Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DangerIsMyMiddleName
New Member
Member # 4401

 - posted      Profile for DangerIsMyMiddleName   Email DangerIsMyMiddleName         Edit/Delete Post 
Mmmmm, Trousercuit, thanks for the good link! And thanks for the input from the rest of you. The game theory ideas are precisely the direction I needed!
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
In your scenario I can think of a couple things. First is after a conventional struggle where one side is on the verge of winning and the megalomaniacs on the losing side decide they'd prefer to kill everyone rather than give up their power. The other would be some sort of rogue military person (pilot, submarine commander, etc.) decides to use his/her weapons without authorization. Another is one of the superpowers decides to use the weapons on an enemy that can't retaliate in kind and triggers an unexpected response from the other superpower.


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mfreivald
Member
Member # 3413

 - posted      Profile for mfreivald   Email mfreivald         Edit/Delete Post 
An interesting note (at least to me) - Based upon his observations of game theory, Bertrand Russell favored a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. That was not a MAD scenario, though, since Russia had not yet gotten the bomb. But it just goes to show you what kind of madness you can get when "theory" or ideology objectifies human life and operates out of screwy values. (If someone can justify the one-sided nuclear scale destruction of an adversary, I hardly see it being much of a stretch to justify MAD.)

The game theory is interesting stuff. _Prisoner's_Dilemna_, by Poundstone was a good read. (Part Game Theory and part biographical of John von Neumann.)

One interesting thing would be to investigate the different ways in which just war is determined. Just War Theory that emerged from Christianity, for example, is very restrictive in nature. It tries to prevent you from heading into war if you haven't fulfilled a strict set of criteria, and it attempts to curtail leaders from disproportionate responses. It's emphasis is prevention. (It unfortunately seems to have less traction these days.) Some ideologies, on the other hand, seek affirming reasons for warring and other killing. They often hide behind the ever amorphous concept of "rights."

Enough hot air from me, though. I am coming dangerously close to tediousness if I'm not already there. But for the sake of a story, I would definitely look into those areas.


Posts: 394 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mfreivald
Member
Member # 3413

 - posted      Profile for mfreivald   Email mfreivald         Edit/Delete Post 
dee_boncci makes a good point, and I think game theory would bear this out: the execution of a MAD scenario would almost never favor the stronger of the two (or more) adversaries.

Then again, an ideology that was insane enough might find a reason.

[This message has been edited by mfreivald (edited April 11, 2007).]


Posts: 394 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Massive computer/technology breakdown. The movie War Games illustrated one bizarre version (AI engine in the war computer thought they were playing Global Thermonuclear War and wouldn't stop until the game was done.)

But having worked in technology for years and years, I can say I can honestly see scenarios where the systems we put into place to protect us, and the layers upon layers upon layers of backups and failsafes and whatever...FAIL. More likely due to things like negligence, lack of understanding of the core architecture of the systems, lack of maintenance on the computer systems over time, etc.


Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rstegman
Member
Member # 3233

 - posted      Profile for rstegman   Email rstegman         Edit/Delete Post 
Keep in mind that both sides must care about their populations. Our governmental officials do everything they can to not even lose a soldier, let alone a city. The soviet Union was not quite as caring about their people, which sort of made MAD a bit laughable. The soviets killed millions of their own people because they simply disagreed with the leadership.

MAD would never work with Iran, since if they die in battle, they go to heaven and are served by 72 virginians.
The solution to having a nation that has no care for their population, is to know where the leadership is at all times, and they be the only target. the general population is not going to go to war on their own, especially if they fear the leadership and the leadership is suddenly gone.



Posts: 1008 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
arriki
Member
Member # 3079

 - posted      Profile for arriki   Email arriki         Edit/Delete Post 
The solution to having a nation that has no care for their population, is to know where the leadership is at all times, and they be the only target. the general population is not going to go to war on their own, especially if they fear the leadership and the leadership is suddenly gone.


Wasn't that sort of what was intended with Saddam Hussein? Once you got hold of him -- through the barrier of his armies and guards -- then game over? But it didn't work. Something perhaps worse filled the vacuum too fast.

[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 12, 2007).]


Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
The scenario suggests that the situation is not what it was back here in the real world, where there were a number of times the sides were ready to use nuclear weapons, but did not do so. (For instance, the Russians in Cuba during the Missile Crisis of 1962 had tactical nuclear weapons on hand as well as the missiles themselves, and permission to use them in the event of an invasion---something the USA did not learn till maybe twenty years later.)

There's the "Madman" theory---that one leader of one side is crazy enough to risk it all by using the bomb, betting he has more chips left at the end of the game then at the beginning.

There's the "No Prior Use" scenario---A-tests, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki didn't happen, the sides are involved in a conventional war, and nobody appreciates just how powerful these weapons are.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
oliverhouse
Member
Member # 3432

 - posted      Profile for oliverhouse   Email oliverhouse         Edit/Delete Post 
Rstegman, I'm not sure that this would be sufficient to make radical Muslims set off a world-destroying nuclear war:
quote:
MAD would never work with Iran, since if they die in battle, they go to heaven and are served by 72 virginians.

...although I'm sure it would be deeply satisfying for them to have the likes of George Washington serving them. And those Southerners do display superior hospitality.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here, so forgive the ramble. For some reason, this question tweaked my brain this morning.

The breakdown of MAD assumes the breakdown of our ability to make rational decisions. We seem to be presenting multiple categories for how that can happen.

MFreivald's comments about Bertrand Russell, of all people, show one way rationality can break down -- strict adherence to a faulty ideology or model. The religious leader who would start a nuclear war, whether a third party or not, may be a rational thinker with faulty ideology. (That's the thing that scares me most about Ahmadinejad: I think he's sane, but his worldview is radically wrong.)

Pure error is another. Technically, it's not a breakdown of rationality, but it's an error in perception that causes people to make choices that they would never otherwise make. Computer error and mistaken intelligence could do that. Robert's "No Prior Use" scenario also fits here.

A third is more psychological. This would be an actual breakdown in rational or moral sense. Some types of religious leaders might fit this bill: people who ostensibly fight for their religion, but have actually gotten caught up in their ability to indulge sadistic or other immoral tendencies.

To sum up: defective worldview, defective knowledge, or defective mind. Can anyone think of any other categories?

So the challenge is to think up a scenario that's somewhat original, but believable, that falls into one or more of those categories.

Here's one from the "defective mind" category. Maybe a fascist leader -- think Stalin more than Hitler, because Hitler actually cared about the German people, whereas I'm not sure Stalin cared about Russians -- nearing the end of his life realizes that his control is all going to end. (Maybe he's not dying of old age, but of something terminal, fast-acting, and untreatable, so enemy leaders wouldn't expect this type of breakdown.) After years of living under MAD, he's convinced that the other side won't be ready for it, so he'll try a first strike. If it fails, and both sides are destroyed, so be it; if he can't rule the world in toto, no one will. If it succeeds, it's the greatest legacy he could possibly leave to the world.

Defective mind again: a totalitarian leader becomes clinically paranoid.

In both cases, you'd need to show why people would go along with him. Perhaps he engages in one of the purges that characterize a totalitarian regime; as he's purging, he emphasizes loyalty above everything. People think he's testing their loyalty with his crazy schemes, but he'd never really do it, right? Or maybe he takes closer and closer personal control over "the button".

Defective worldview: ecoterrorist thinks that humans are a scourge on the earth, and thinks that even if the earth is harmed by a series of nuclear strikes -- he doesn't want everything blown up, just a couple of major cities -- there will be less harm overall than if the current crop of humans continues to destroy the world. Plus nuclear winter will counter the effects of global warming. (Okay, maybe this one's not that great -- but I'm sure people have believed stupider things before.)

It's an interesting question. I'm going to have to chew on it some more.

Regards,
Oliver


Posts: 671 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
arriki
Member
Member # 3079

 - posted      Profile for arriki   Email arriki         Edit/Delete Post 
I think an ecoterrorist would go for plague rather than nuclear. Less harm to the environment.

Suppose gov #1 truly accidentally released some plague. I think one in published novels right now was a virus that killed all grasses. Gov. #2 might go all out to prevent the spread. Panic rises. Decisions become less rational.


Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DangerIsMyMiddleName
New Member
Member # 4401

 - posted      Profile for DangerIsMyMiddleName   Email DangerIsMyMiddleName         Edit/Delete Post 
So is it more interesting to explore the possible reasons for a breakdown in a MAD scenario, or is it more realistic and dramatic to portray one side being more powerful than the other and somehow they manage to blow up the other side and get themselves blown up too? It could be saboteurs, on the other side or domestic terrorists from within, that steal their own warheads and detonate them within their own country, or something like this.

And yes, biological weapons could also be employed, but big bad nuclear bombs are so much sexier... :P


Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trousercuit
Member
Member # 3235

 - posted      Profile for trousercuit   Email trousercuit         Edit/Delete Post 
Let's look at the necessary conditions for the existence of a Nash equilibrium and build story ideas from them.

quote:
1. The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game.

2. The players are flawless in execution.

3. The players have sufficient intelligence to deduce the solution.

4. There is common knowledge that all players meet these conditions, including this one. So, not only must each player know the other players meet the conditions, but also they must know that they all know that they meet them, and know that they know that they know that they meet them, and so on.


5. (not listed in the "Occurrence" section of the article) The game is finite in length.

Here's how things might break down because reality might not fit the conditions:

1a. What if the game cannot describe expected payoff (or cost)? For example, if death holds no terrors, which has been brought up.

1b. What if the game does not describe the situation (or cost)? If one side, for example, not known to the other, has some kind of quick evacuation plan (develops teleporter technology - even if it works only half the time), or sufficient backup in human capital off-earth, they may be inclined to strike.

Remember, MAD as a Nash equilibrium requires that all sides know all the information that describes the abstract game.

2. We've talked about flawed execution, specifically technological breakdown. IMHO, I think a communication breakdown is the likeliest type. IMNSHO, this has been way overdone, and if I were writing a story, I'd avoid it.

3. One side is stupid. Heh. Not a good story. Maybe a comedy?

4. This is the most interesting to me. What if both sides are utterly rational, but one side believes the other isn't? They might try something that would otherwise be irrational in order to elicit an irrational (and weak) response from the other side. Or they may strike early, having calculated that the other side is likely to strike soon.

5. Realizing that the game is potentially infinite, both sides may agree just to disband their nuclear programs. (Not likely, IMO.) Or a side that believes it has a slight edge may institute an attack.


Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tara
Member
Member # 4638

 - posted      Profile for Tara   Email Tara         Edit/Delete Post 
6. Sunlight glinting on a cloud, mistaken for a missle.

That's my favorite.


Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NoTimeToThink
Member
Member # 5174

 - posted      Profile for NoTimeToThink   Email NoTimeToThink         Edit/Delete Post 
MAD was mad; thankfully, the Soviets collapsed.

Both sides need to value human life for it to work; the loss of life is the cost.

The simplest way for me to envision MAD failing is for one side to perceive the other side as weaker (either in weaponry or in will); one side has to believe that the other side can't (or won't) retaliate against a first strike. But this does not meet the terms of your question, Danger; you are positting equal sides, so for your story my notion won't work.

Go with paranoia, or some other loss of rationality; it is MAD, after all...

[This message has been edited by NoTimeToThink (edited April 12, 2007).]


Posts: 406 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rstegman
Member
Member # 3233

 - posted      Profile for rstegman   Email rstegman         Edit/Delete Post 
Trousercut

4. This is the most interesting to me. What if both sides are utterly rational, but one side believes the other isn't? They might try something that would otherwise be irrational in order to elicit an irrational (and weak) response from the other side. Or they may strike early, having calculated that the other side is likely to strike soon.


This is really the situation we had with the soviets. We were positive they would strike first.

The space programs with eyes beyond the reach of missles, was what kept things quiet. They could find out anything about us by reading a newspaper, while we had to have spies in their country to find out if it had rained in the grain belt. The eyes in the sky allowed us to verify what they were up to, and they us, so we both knew if the other was esculating or just blustering.

Knowledge is always the most effective weapon.


Posts: 1008 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2