Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Comrade #138672]

I often wonder how much we should fear weapons of mass destruction.

They are very dangerous, because they are, of course, intended to cause mass destruction. However, it seems to me that the more countries have such weapons of mass destruction, the less they can be used. If country A attacks country B with these weapons, then country B can immediately return the blow. That would mean that country A would only be destroying herself, so that would give rise to a tendency not to use these weapons. This tendency would become stronger and stronger, according to the number of countries with these weapons. After all, no matter how violent and brutal the bourgeoisie can be, the bourgeoisie does not want to commit suicide.

What do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't this also known as Mutually Assured Destruction? Well, it seems to have worked... so far.

But the temptation has always been present in WMD strategy to short-circuit that, because if you can knock out the enemy before they can retaliate, that's an advantage gained.

However, it seems that nuclear missile subs (SSBNs) are the ultimate trump card - they can retaliate even if the home territory has been completely wiped out, and it's not possible with current technology to hunt down all of the enemy's SSBNs before they can strike back.

Basically I can see two ways that this deadlock can be broken - either missile defence becomes reliable enough such that ballistic missiles, even in numbers, can no longer be depended on to incapacitate the enemy, or some advance in anti-submarine warfare adequately neutralises the SSBN threat.

Then there are confounding factors such as the use of WMDs by non-state actors, which leaves no obvious target to strike back at - indeed, they might be operating within one's own territory. That's more complicated, to say the least.