MAD - It's going to happen this century isn't it?

[Craig_J]

MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. All this crimea stuff just reminds me of how often and how easily a few turn of events can lead you to heated tensions and the possiblity of war.

Under capitalism this is especially the case. Every nation tries to put their stamp down, take charge and let everyone know that they're the boss, whether that's through economic means, war means or stock pilling enough nuclear weapons to take down a continent overnight.

I was born in 1993 and am grateful to say that I missed out on the cold war. I can't imagine what it must have been like living in those constantly hot times, especially after the missile crisis and during the war games being played out in Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. I guess you get used to it after a while?

There's something about this century though where economic collpases seem to be getting harder and harder, the floating rock in space which we call home is deteriorating and suffering a slow cancerous death in the name of profit, oil is running low and it's starting to count for a awful lot in terms of wars. And nuclear bombs are probably more powerful than they have ever been.

Again, I'm 20 years old but I am convinced that mutually assured destruction will take place in my lifetime, if not certainly in my childrens lifetime.

It's a sad state of affairs when we're doing almost everything to survive except assuring our survival.

Most of us really are glorified apes aren't we?

[Ele'ill]

I don't know if 'a final destruction' will take place in that time period or at all the way you seem to be describing it but I think we are probably going to see more and more unbelievable stuff happen especially ecologically

[tallguy]

MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. All this crimea stuff just reminds me of how often and how easily a few turn of events can lead you to heated tensions and the possiblity of war.

Under capitalism this is especially the case. Every nation tries to put their stamp down, take charge and let everyone know that they're the boss, whether that's through economic means, war means or stock pilling enough nuclear weapons to take down a continent overnight.

I was born in 1993 and am grateful to say that I missed out on the cold war. I can't imagine what it must have been like living in those constantly hot times, especially after the missile crisis and during the war games being played out in Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. I guess you get used to it after a while?

There's something about this century though where economic collpases seem to be getting harder and harder, the floating rock in space which we call home is deteriorating and suffering a slow cancerous death in the name of profit, oil is running low and it's starting to count for a awful lot in terms of wars. And nuclear bombs are probably more powerful than they have ever been.

Again, I'm 20 years old but I am convinced that mutually assured destruction will take place in my lifetime, if not certainly in my childrens lifetime.

It's a sad state of affairs when we're doing almost everything to survive except assuring our survival.

Most of us really are glorified apes aren't we?
War, famine, pestilence and disease, coming to a civilisation near you.

Yes, it's coming.

By the end of this century, we humans will be lucky to be still around.

[The Jay]

You're not wrong to worry about those things happening but you're trying to play the prophet when things could change. When people in the first world experience hunger they will freak out much more than those that are more used to it and they themselves shake foundations in their countries.

[ARomanCandle]

I don't think there will be the destruction of humanity within this century.

There will, however, be another large economic crisis in the coming years. They are struggling to realize profit. Papering over debt with more debt may stabilize the situation temporarily, but we will see another crisis. I just pray to god something more than occupy and the tea party results.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

MAD refers to a cold war doctrine whereby the USSR and USA stockpiled enough WMDs to destroy the world several times over, the theory being that if either country launched a nuke, then the chain of responses would lead to the definite destruction of the world and thus both superpowers (hence 'mutually assured destruction').

So no, to talk of MAD in the context of the post-cold war world isn't really correct. I also think that there has been a paradigm shift from the 20th century, where wars were largely fought directly between countries, to the 21st century, where most violence perpetrated against countries is done by proxy; cyber-terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, terrorism non-aligned to a state etc.

If there were to be a grave WMD threat to the world it would probably not come from a country per se (since the cold war did, at least, prove that no country is prepared to press the red button, even though we did come close), but from some rogue element. However, even that i'm doubtful of. I'm sure that al-qaeda networks, if they had wanted, could have gotten their hands on WMDs and done some terrible things that would make 9/11, Madrid, 7/7, Bali etc. pale in comparison. But they haven't. Why not? Probably because it's not in their actual interests to totally destroy the world, whatever they say. I don't believe that there is anybody, or any group, sadist enough to actually go through with such an act.

[Slavic]

MAD refers to a cold war doctrine whereby the USSR and USA stockpiled enough WMDs to destroy the world several times over, the theory being that if either country launched a nuke, then the chain of responses would lead to the definite destruction of the world and thus both superpowers (hence 'mutually assured destruction').

So no, to talk of MAD in the context of the post-cold war world isn't really correct. I also think that there has been a paradigm shift from the 20th century, where wars were largely fought directly between countries, to the 21st century, where most violence perpetrated against countries is done by proxy; cyber-terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, terrorism non-aligned to a state etc.

If there were to be a grave WMD threat to the world it would probably not come from a country per se (since the cold war did, at least, prove that no country is prepared to press the red button, even though we did come close), but from some rogue element. However, even that i'm doubtful of. I'm sure that al-qaeda networks, if they had wanted, could have gotten their hands on WMDs and done some terrible things that would make 9/11, Madrid, 7/7, Bali etc. pale in comparison. But they haven't. Why not? Probably because it's not in their actual interests to totally destroy the world, whatever they say. I don't believe that there is anybody, or any group, sadist enough to actually go through with such an act.


In addition, Mutual Assured Destruction was actualy a strategy to prevent war, not strategy that would destroy the world. The strategy follows that if the USSR and the USA both had the capacity to destroy each other with nuclear bombartment, then both powers would refrain from attacking one another.

Its a very high risk strategy, not an analysis of how world events will lead to the end of the world.