According to this theory, country can avoid nuclear way by being armed heavily enough that
on other country would dare attack it. Country 1 makes it clear to Country 2 that if 2
attacks 1, 1 will respond with a counterattack that will utterly destroy 2, and kill
millions of its citizens. That deters, scares off, Country 2. Country 2 is so anxious to
avoid such devastation that it does everything it can to avoid war.
Country 1 would not
attack either if Countries 1 & 2 have about the same number of nuclear weapons. This
weapons equality is called "Parity". But if Country 1 has more weapons, it may
be compelled to make the 1st attack and conquer 2. Or 2 might become so scared about
Country 1's attack, it may attack first. When Countries are not in parity, it is a
dangerous situation. Parity may also cause MAD.
Deterrence is an extremely unattractive idea. Mutual Assured Destruction is indeed MAD.
To the Conference of American Bishops, deterrence can be vengeful, immoral, and
unchristian. It is a doctrine that requires a nation to acquiesce in the possible killing
of millions of its people. Yet in a world that has uncovered the secrets of the bomb,
deterrence also seems essential.
That is because nuclear war will always be possible. It would still be true if
all the nations of the world agreed to rid themselves of nuclear arms and halt every
bit of military nuclear research tomorrow. Even if that happened - which is highly
unlikely - nuclear knowledge would remain. That knowledge could always be turned into a
new weapon.
One weapon might be enough. The United States won the world's first - so far, the
world's only nuclear war with just 2 bombs.
The only way to stop the madness of the nuclear arms race was a freeze that would halt
testing, deployment and production of new nuclear weapons. The theory of deterrence would
and did keep the 2 sides in check.
|
|
