Austin Miceli

INR 4115

4/19/2019

Mutually Assured Destruction

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the doctrine that the US followed during the

cold war. This doctrine would define US military strategy and national security. The doctrine

describes what would occur if there was full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more actors

that would eventually lead to complete and destruction. MAD is derived from the idea of

deterrence which is the idea that having powerful weapons or ability to retaliate will deter an

aggressor from using force. 1

Theory of MAD

The theory of MAD is the first part that needs to be understood. The theory states that

both sides will have access to enough nuclear weapons that their use would lead to the

destruction of anyone involved. Once a weapon is used, it will lead to a chain of destruction that

cannot be reversed. It is interesting to note that the building of too many missile defenses can

have a negative impact on the idea of MAD.2 If one actor has more missile defense than the

other, they have less to fear in terms of retaliation. This is a very simple concept but explains

why the use of deterrence has many factors involved. Using the idea of deterrence, the belief

under MAD is that no one will even think to launch an attack because the retaliation would be

quick and result in equal or greater amounts of damage. The goal of MAD was to keep the world

1
Col. Alan J. Parrington
2
Castella, Tom de
a stable place for all who inhabited it. The doctrine would be successful thus far and even though

it would make for a tense peace, it was peace, nonetheless.3

The two largest actors of the Cold War that believed in the theory of MAD were the US

and the USSR. The approach of the theory by both actors would lead to the success it currently

had. Both actors believed that nuclear war would not occur if both sides had many weapons at

their disposal and if they were used, would not be a survivable war. Both sides strongly believed

in this and invested large amounts of money to make sure that their nuclear arsenal.4 Another

part of the idea was that both actors did not believe and invest in the use of any defensive

weapons which would make one actor more comfortable attacking than the other. Due to the lack

of defensive systems, both actors invested heavily in the strengthening and ways that the

weapons could reach each other country such as the use of missile submarines.5

It is important to understand nuclear weapons and where the ideas from each began. In

August 1945 the US would deploy and detonate nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the only use of nuclear weapons in war time in history thus far,

showing that MAD has been successful. Four years after the US nuclear weapons were dropped,

the Soviet Union tested and successfully detonated its own nuclear weapon. While these

weapons were successfully tested and the US successfully deployed the weapon, there was still

not a truly effective way to get the payload to each country. The development of long-range

bombers would make the usage of the weapons plausible and further improvements such as

ICBM’s would also allow for greater deployment.

3
Castella, Tom de
4
Weapons and Hope, Freeman Dyson
5
Ibid
 Massive Retaliation

MAD would first begin under the name of massive retaliation which was first named by

Secretary of Stare John Foster Dulles under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Dulles would give a speech

where the term would be described. In the speech which was given on January 12, 1954 Dulles

stated that there was the need for allies and collective security. The goal is to make sure that this

work will lead to much more effective defensive relations and would not cost all the countries

involved any more money or less than what was already being spent. The way to achieve this

goal is to focus on the theory of deterrence and not worry as much about the defensive weapons

that each country had access to. This did not state that a country must not have any defense

capability at all, as this was still important, rather there was the belief that just defense alone

would not be enough to stop communist powers. It is important to have the defense backed up by

deterrence so that any potential aggressor understands what they would be attacking and loss

they might face.6 The idea behind this was simply that if an actor aggresses another state, would

use an even large amount of force, great than the aggressors which would lead to far more loss

for the first attacker. This also had the goal of deterrence in that no state would wish to attack for

fear of even more loss. The US believed that for this plan to truly work, it would need to be

understood by any and all aggressors and there was much work done to make sure that this

information was public. It was also important that any state that would announce their

willingness to follow this plan would need to be possess the power strong enough to follow

through with the idea. This would also need to be evident to aggressor so that it would not seem

6
"The Evolution of Foreign Policy"
as a false promise. If a state makes the announcement but does not seem capable of following

through, it may lead to even more forces being used by the aggressor to prevent a second strike.7

Massive retaliation was accepted and based on fear that continued to rise by the US and

some of its allies. The western powers feared that the communist forces had a larger amount of

forces which led the west to believe that it could not attack or protect itself successfully.

Eisenhower put an emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons and how these could be an effective

form of deterrence. He believed that with enough nuclear weapons, there could be reduction of

conventional forces that would still show power and ability to defend. Eisenhower was also very

confident of the US and west economies. He believed that the strong economies that the West

had access to allowed for a much better defense. The large cost of nuclear weapons was as

believed to be an advantage that the West had over the Soviet Union as it was believed the west

could afford to have a much larger arsenal. The US would be able to keep up with the Soviet

Union or surpass their conventional forces.8

The idea of massive retaliation was met with large amounts of negative feedback and this

would eventually lead to the adoption of MAD. The first problem that arose with massive

retaliation was the idea that this was simply too aggressive of an idea. The belief was that the

first attack would be even larger due to this idea and the retaliation would simply be the same as

a first attack due to the large scale of forces that would be used. It was also compared to what

was done in Korea. It was believed that if something like the Korea war occurred again, the use

of nuclear weapons would be the beginning step and that there would be even more than just the

7
Ibid
8
Patros, Gabriel
bombing being done. Overall the idea just seemed too aggressive and would probably lead to

even more damage if an attack was carried out.9

Switch to MAD and Procedures

After this the switch to MAD made more sense and was much more plausible. By 1962

when the Cuban Missile Crisis was occurring both the US and USSR had the ability to launch

weapons from submarines.10 With this it was important to understand that now both sides had the

ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, air and sea. It was important to note because this

meant that the both sides showed that they could react to an initial attack if need be an that they

had the capability to do so.11 The US would completely switch to the idea of MAD when then

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated that this would be the method for US deterrence.

McNamara was under the impression that the use of nuclear weapons was a very real danger. He

believed that actors with nuclear weapons would be able to focus on the destruction of other

actors’ forces. This would prevent successful retaliation and open the affected actor to even more

attack. For a country to truly back up and believe in the MAD it would need to guarantee that the

country would have the forces and ability to survive the first attack and have enough force to

carry out the retaliation. The US achieved this guarantee early in the form of Strategic Air

Command.12

Strategic Air Command played an important role in the effectiveness and readiness of the

US second strike capability. Starting in the late 1950’s the US had a third of its bombers ready to

go within a 15-minute period where the bombers would be prepared and ready to head straight

9
Ibid
10
Office for the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters
11
Freeman Dyson Disturbing the Universe
12
Castella, Tom de
for areas in the Soviet Union. These bombers would be tasked with destroying the targets with

nuclear weapons.13 By 1961 Kennedy, with guidance from McNamara, would increase the

amount of money being used for this process. The large influx of money now pushed he number

of bombers to over half of all bombers in the US. In the 1960’s SAC had most of its B-52 aircraft

ready to strike quickly in the case of a nuclear aggression. This impressive program to have

aircraft ready to go would continue until 1969.14 While bombers played a larger role in the

preparation for retaliation, these were not the only aircraft that would be used. The SAC also had

mobile command always posts ready to go. The aircraft used, the EC-135, would be airborne for

24 hours ready to coordinate force in the event of nuclear strikes. There would always be at least

one of these aircraft in the air from 1961 all the way till the year 1990.15

While bombers were constantly in the air there was still worry about the bombers. The

first problem was always the simple cost of keeping the aircraft in the air. This was costly and

required a lot of man power to maintain. There was also the fear of aircraft being lost due to

Soviet air defenses and the aircraft being destroyed before reaching the target. This would lead to

more worries for the US and the fear was only compounded by the believed problem and of the

US not having sophisticated missile delivery systems. The increase research was put into

understanding a building superior missile to that of the Soviet Union.16 With missile research

came the advent of the ballistic missile submarines. The submarines were excellent for the

guarantee of a second strike that most actors wanted to possess. The submarines were difficult to

find and the large amount that would later be deployed would make it almost impossible for each

13
Castella, Tom de
14
Ibid
15
Ibid
16
John Barry
one to be found and destroyed at the same time. This was much better as opposed to bombers

and land-based missiles which could be located and targeted. The submarines are so effective

that the US is still using them for this idea to this day.17

Countervailing Strategy

The MAD doctrine would later be changed and modified by US president Jimmy Carter.

The main part of this update was the idea of countervailing strategy. Again, the Secretary of

Defense Harold Brown, would define the idea of countervailing strategy. This was the idea that

there would need to be a shift from the way the US retaliated a strike. The initial response of a

Soviet attack would be to use nuclear weapons on the main areas of the Soviet Union with high

populations. The countervailing strategy changed this belief to focus on attacking the main

leaders in the Soviet Union. After the leaders were taken care of, the focus would then be to

attack and destroy military targets and make sure these were render useless. The goal of the

targeted attacks was to hope for the Soviet Union to surrender instead of complete destroying the

country itself. The change was made because this approach was an effective method for allowing

the US to achieve victory. This change did not eliminate the complete destruction of at least one

party involved with also increased the idea of deterrence. The MAD idea would only continue

for the US and would be further improved upon by president Reagan’s Star Wars which had the

goal of using technology in space to destroy Soviet weapons before they could reach their

targets.

Again, these changes face negative reactions as there was the belief that this simply was

too much and went against everything that had been set up under the idea of the original MAD.

17
John Barry
The power and ability for that the US had to give it an edge of the Soviet Union was troubling as

many saw this to be first strike capability rather than being the retaliation for an attack. If the US

could successfully survive an attack and then carry on to destroying important military targets, it

would be simply be a first strike. This was dangerous and made the peace seem not as guaranteed

as it was in the past. There was also the worry of what Star Wars would lead to and the weapons

that would be involved. The use of space technology could lead to new research and production

of weapons that could be used in space. There would also be weapons designed to counter these

weapons in space leading each country to having access to even more weapons. Further backlash

from the Soviet Union were complaints that an arms race in space as well would force the USSR

to invest more money into this research which would have a negative effect.

Overall there was backlash on MAD because it only gave one viable option when a

country was attacked. If a nuclear attack was carried out, MAD only gave one option for this and

it was full, destructive responses. There were also other aspects to consider when looking at the

use of nuclear weapons. With all the talk of nuclear war and using these weapons to deter other

actors, more and more countries had access to weapons. There was also fear that in some of the

more unstable countries a person could come to power that steals or uses the weapons for

personal gain and main use these weapons without using sane regard for its people. A way to fix

this issue was the belief that there should be greater research done and emphasis on the use of the

Ballistic missile defenses.18 This is an excellent idea because countries can defend themselves

from an aggressor and do not need to use nuclear weapons to destroy the actor. While this does

sound like a valid fix for the nature of MAD, it was not accepted by all peoples. Russia sees the

18
Strategy in the Missile Age
defense program as a negative from the west for a few reasons.19 The first reasons would be

simply the cost and the possibly that Russia could not keep up with the US and its NATO allies.

This would make Russia feel less secure and made lead to different results. Russia has declined

working with NATO to create missile defense programs it is believed that currently the only

method for defense that Russia has is what was defined in MAD.

After the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the tension began to lessen between the

US and Russia. The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it was believed

that this did not change anything in nuclear landscape between the US and Russia.20 The

relationship between the US and Russia continued to improve after this and MAD is still viable.

It is believed that that it is still viable because of Russia’s nuclear weapons no longer being

effective as they had before. There was the belief that a US strike would severely cripple Russia

and its ability to react. This was in part due to the lower number of nuclear weapons that were

available to Russia. This reason was believed to be the reason for the end of MAD as the US

simply had more nuclear superiority than the Russians.21 While this does make interesting points,

it seems unwise to believe that Russia didn’t have as many weapons and therefore were not a

threat. There is an unbalance with the US and Russia which is believed to make the situation

even more dire. There is less balance than there was in the past and it is believed that now even

slighter actions could lead to accidental conflict. Both sides are in fear of each other which could

lead to mobilizations that main result in a strike occurring leading to accidental nuclear war that

was never meant to be.22

19
Strategy in the Missile Age
20
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
21
Ibid
22
Ibid
 While MAD may have not been a perfect system, and it may not have even been the only

plan the US followed. Some have stated that there were many different plans in place, and it was

not simply just to follow MAD. There were also those that did not feel limited by MAD and

believed felt that attacking cities was unnecessary. There was also the belief by some Soviets that

they could win a nuclear war and absorb any damage taken. Whether these statements are true or

not one can be sure that whichever policy that has been followed in the world has been

successful for now. The constant fear of mutual destruction seems to be enough for the leaders of

the world to approach the situations with more caution for fear of what could happen.
 Bibliography

Castella, Tom de (2012-02-15). "How did we forget about mutually assured destruction?". BBC

News.

Col. Alan J. Parrington, USAF, Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, Strategic Doctrine in

Question Wayback Machine, Airpower Journal, Winter 1997.

Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, Chapter 13, The Ethics of Defense, Basic Books, 1981.

John Barry (2009-12-12). "Do We Still Need a Nuclear 'Triad'?". Newsweek.

John Foster Dulles (12 January 1954). "The Evolution of Foreign Policy". Department of State,

Press Release No. 81. Archived from the original on 2008-05-14. Retrieved 4 September 2008.

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy," Foreign Affairs,

March/April 2006

Office for the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters. "Nuclear

Stockpile". US Department of Defense.

Patros, Gabriel (1993). The World that came in from the Cold. London, United Kingdom: Royal

Institute of International Affairs.

Strategy in the Missile Age, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959)

Weapons and Hope, Freeman Dyson, Harper Collins, 1985