4th Quarter USH Research- Mutual Assured Destruction

Mutual Assured Destruction, its Efficacy, and its Flaws: A Discussion of Global Safety

Unlike the thrilling, apocalyptic scenarios popularized by recent fiction, there is nothing redeemable in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Since the end of World War II and the detonation of the atomic bomb, we have possessed the technology to end ourselves in one sweeping campaign, but conflicts have yet to escalate to this point. Policy makers have taken note of this horrific possibility, trying to prolong nuclear disaster through the sinister doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), but as long as nuclear weapons remain stockpiled in military arsenals, this bleak future is a likely reality.

Mutual Assured Destruction aims to keep the peace by removing any gain from war. If both sides have the retaliatory capability to obliterate each other, there is not reason to initiate a conflict. War becomes suicidal and meaningless. But Mutual Assured Destruction is a policy lost in good intentions, and, furthermore, it "is not a long term, sustainable solution," as historian Michael Shermer points out. There is always the looming possibility that a conventional war will escalate to nuclear deployment despite diplomatic efforts, or that an insane leader will launch nuclear weapons, indifferent to the consequences. Nations like North Korea can be unpredictable and fanatic, and terrorist organizations too will most certainly use nuclear weapons if they obtain them. Fissile material can be purchased through black markets, and building the weapon is now widely understood information. Entire warheads can even be found in Russian Cold War ammunition dumps. MAD fails to account for all of these variables.

Unlike chemical and biological weapons, there is no official ban on the use of nuclear weapons. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all recognized as weapons of mass destruction, but nuclear arms are treated differently. In 1970, the Proliferation Treaty was signed into international law, requiring the five recognized nuclear weapon states- France, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia- to make efforts to reduce their stockpiles. Instead of outright banning nuclear weapons, the United Nations requested their removal. All other signatories of the NPT agreed to cease their acquisition efforts of nuclear weapons, but Israel, Pakistan, and India refused to sign the NPT. North Korea continued its nuclear agenda sighting its advancements as a move towards "peaceful" technology. Currently, 95% of the world's nations do not have nuclear weapons, but thanks to the MAD doctrine, more and more nations are seeing nuclear weapons as a tool of diplomacy and global influence. If more nations become nuclear states, the probability of a nuclear conflict will exponentially increase.

The widely accepted alternative to the fear tactics imposed by MAD is nuclear disarmament. Global stockpiles have reportedly shrunk from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 17,300 as of summer 2014. Only 4,200 warheads are active today, but thousands more still remain in waiting. Former vice chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General James E. Cartwright claimed that the U.S. and Russian could maintain their deterrence policy with just 900 weapons each, but progress is slow to reduce stockpiles.  In his 1984 State of the Union, Ronald Reagan stated: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?" Reagan further regarded nuclear weapons as irrational, inhumane, and destructive to life and civilization. Besides nuclear disarmament, experts call for increased security around fissile materials, discouragement of nuclear development programs in new nations, and the construction of missile shields. However, the best course of action to rid the world of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be complete nuclear disarmament and the ban of their use.

Proponents of Mutual Assured Destruction may argue that nuclear weapons prevent war and increase global safety, but it is illogical to think that this deterrence peace will last forever. While nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, every US president since Truman has threatened nuclear war for some geopolitical gain. It is only a matter of time before the policy fails to work. Author Stephen M. Younger points out that Mutual Assured Destruction "involved some of the best strategic thinkers of the 20th century," including John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, but it is paradoxical in nature and hard to implement. Nuclear states claim that nukes will only we launched if absolutely necessary, with the hope that their catastrophic power will never be unleashed. Younger reflects: "To say that you would 'never' use a weapon renders its ineffective as a deterrent to aggression- the adversary knows in advance that you will not shoot and acts accordingly." However, if a nation were to explicitly "plan" to use nuclear force, their enemy may initiate the conflict with the hopes of removing retaliatory capabilities. Mutual Assured Destruction appears to be counterproductive through the tension and anxiety it creates.

In addition, the principles of MAD are increasingly undermined by advancing technology. What leaders are now calling "modernization" seeks to create the next generation of weapons and delivery systems. Even today, cruise missiles have the capability to fly underneath enemy radar for hundreds of miles, and fast-attack Pershing missiles can preemptively strike a target from above. Missiles flying and high altitudes are oftentimes lost by radar systems. During the Cold War a "Grand, Decapitating First Strike" was seriously considered by the White House in which the United States would initiate the attack, taking out Soviet retaliatory and command assets. Underground missiles silos, airstrips and bomber bases, submarines and naval bases would all be targeted, but the strike would begin with the Moscow Kremlin. What this means is that a nuclear war could actually be won. Mutual Assured Destruction is supposed to eliminate the risk of nuclear war and promote peace, but terrifyingly enough there is a way around the 'mutual' ramifications.

Mutual Assured Destruction was so engrained in American culture during the height of the Cold War that it was extremely common to read about combat scenarios and missiles flying over the Atlantic, but what would the world actually be like if MAD failed to deter a nuclear war? Using the same computer models that scientists use to determine the effects of global warming, a team of four researchers at Rutgers University studied the effects of a limited, regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

From just 100 15 kiloton weapons, each equivalent to the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, there would be devastating effects. Not only would the two warring nations be obliterated- global security and stability would be threatened as well. Eleven billion pounds of black carbon and soil particles would rise 40 miles into the stratosphere and lower mesosphere and gradually spread across the globe, absorb sunlight, and drop surface temperatures.  Even though a 15 kiloton weapon is dwarfed by modern warhead yields, nuclear weapons tend to release energy many times their yield as subsequent firestorms burn through buildings, vegetation, fuel stations, roads, and other infrastructure. As the debris in the atmosphere absorbed light, it would heat up, and the researchers estimate that the ozone layer would thin anywhere from 20%-50% due to an increase in nitrogen content in the stratosphere. As a result, surface exposure to UV rays would increase 30%-80%, ruining agriculture and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

The computer models predict global cooling of 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit, which would generate the coldest temperatures the Earth has endured in 1,000 years. The world would be trapped in a decade long 'nuclear winter', but with a 9% drop in annual precipitation, snowfall would be unlikely. Temperatures would fall so low that growing seasons would be reduced by 10-40 days per year for the first 5 years after the war. Food supplies would dwindle and global famine would set in, killing an estimated 2 billion people. Unprepared nations would dissolve into chaos, governments would fall, economies would fail, trade would cease, and the hope for continued civilization would be bleak.

In an earlier study conducted by the U.S. Congress's Office of Technology (OTA), 4 different nuclear war scenarios between Russia and the United States were examined, the most notable of which were the limited and full-scale exchanges. In a limited exchange with 10 high yield, airburst weapons, industry would likely be the primary targets. The OTA estimates that 64% of US oil refineries would be destroyed while 73% of the Soviets' refining capability would be lost. There would be 5 million American casualties and 1 million Soviet casualties. Soviet refining stations are much more rural than U.S. refineries, which tend to be centered in or near population centers. At the time of the report in May 1979, the Soviets also possessed more powerful weapons, including the 50 megaton Tsar Bomb detonated in 1961. In a full-scale nuclear war, the objective would be to inflict as much damage as possible. Military bases, cities, infrastructure, command centers, and industrial sectors would all be targeted, and it is estimated that 160 million American would die along with 57 million Russians. Another 30 million civilians would die within the first 30 days after the attack due to fallout and radiation poisoning. Undoubtedly, the US and Russian economies would collapse, communication and planning would struggle, transportation would be dangerous if not impossible, and a centralized government would cease to exist. Whatever food remained would quick be exhausted as the environmental affects unraveled and survival of all life on Earth would exponentially become more difficult. For those lucky enough to survive, paper money would be more useful as fuel for a fire than for exchanging value.

It is hard to imagine how nuclear weapons can make the world a safer place when they have the destructive potential to bring an end to civilization. At its very best, Mutual Assured Destruction prolongs nuclear war. As missile technology advances, nuclear war may become more plausible, and MAD will simply be an irrelevant doctrine of the past. Thomas Stipe reflects: "The only way to escape Mutual Assured Destruction is to attack the pathological forces of hatred and fear and intolerance that feed the vicious circle we call the arms race. Our only hope lies in the human spirit. [...] Those who place all their hopes in weapons are truly hopeless." I feel like I challenged myself to explore both sides of MAD debate and my own interests in the policy. It was very difficult to find primary sources for this topic, but I eventually found two useful sources by filtering my search and exploring google archives. There were many academic sources that I found to be useful, but media sources also proved to be helpful in researching opinionated views. Learning about the death toll and hopelessness for survival after a nuclear war was incredibly surprising and disillusioning.

A political cartoon depicts the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. PixGood

The aftermath of the Hiroshima bomb. Daily Mail

The above chart depicts the relative yields of nuclear weapons, and was originally printed in Popular Mechanics. The 50 Mt Tsar Bomb is the largest man-made explosion ever created. Tsar Bomba

Eight multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV) pass through the upper atmosphere on the way to their targets. Wikipedia

 

The 1956 Apache nuclear test. Space Telescope Science Institute 

SOURCES:

   1. Primary- U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology (May 1979)- The Effects of Nuclear War

Annotation: The Effects of Nuclear War was an official report commissioned and released by the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology. I found substantial, detailed research on the economic and social effects of both limited and full-scale exchanges.

   2. Primary- Bangor Daily News- What will replace Mutual Assured Destruction

Annotation: This article was extremely useful for getting quotes.  The author of this article, Thomas E. Stipe, voiced his opinion against Mutual Assured Destruction, calling for a change in policy making to avoid such a disaster that it entails. The news article was printed in Bangor Daily News on January 10, 1985 and accessed through a Google database.

   3. Secondary- Military History Magazine- MADness by Stephen M. Younger

Annotation: Stephen M. Younger is the president of Nation Security Technologies, a faculty member at the University of Hawaii, a former nuclear weapons designer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and published writer of more than 70 papers in physics, public policy, and anthropology. This article was published in Military History Magazine. I used this source mainly as a narrative of the development of the nuclear bomb and the tensions of the Cold War.

   4. Secondary- Rutgers University Department of Environmental Sciences- Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict

Annotation: This research article was written by four environmental researchers at Rutgers University and published by AGU Publications in Earth’s Future. I used this source to find factual information and data on the environmental and agricultural effects of a limited nuclear exchange. This article helped me put into perspective the horrible effects of a much larger exchange, possibly between the United States and Russia. This source was perfect for giving me a sense of the condition of the world after a nuclear war.

   5. Secondary- New York Times- MAD isn’t crazy

Annotation: This article was published on the New York Times and written by Thomas L. Friedman, a three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and a well-regarded journalist, columnist, and author. Friedman studied at Saint Antony’s College in the University of Oxford. I used this source to gain an insight on the proponents’ perspective of MAD. This article reflected on how MAD can work against terrorist vendettas and criticized the adoption of missile shields.

   6. Secondary- World Beyond War- Phase Out Weapons of Mass Destuction

Annotation: Although this source is clearly biased, it provided me with invaluable information on the illogical thinking of MAD and terrifying ways around it. This article explored the risks of advancing nuclear technology and the risks nuclear weapons pose. This article was research based, taken from the site’s Executive Summary, and written by Alice Slater. Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an international coordinator on the Global Council of Abolition 2000, a UN NGO representative, and an author of several published articles and op-eds.

   7. Secondary- The Scientific American- Will Mutual Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?

Annotation: This article was published on Scientific American and written by Michael Shermer a historian of science, published author of numerous books, and the Editor in Chief of the magazine Skeptic. I used this source to learn about the flaws and impracticalities in Mutual Assured Destruction, and alternate solutions to its practices. This source contained many useful facts and observations.