Font size:
Print
MAD Doctrine
Context:
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent revision of Russia’s nuclear doctrine marks a troubling escalation in rhetoric surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict.As the world confronts potential escalation in West Asia, the spectre of a return to Cold War scenarios, marked by mutually assured destruction, looms large.
About Putin’s revised strategy:
- He declared that any conventional attack on Russia supported by a nuclear power would be viewed as a “joint attack,” justifying a potential nuclear response to protect Russia’s sovereignty.
About MAD Doctrine:
- Origin of MAD doctrine:The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine emerged after World War II, following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which highlighted the devastating power of nuclear weapons.
- Nuclear Deterrence Between Adversaries: States that when two adversaries possess nuclear weapons, neither of them is likely to use them.
- This is because both sides are likely to suffer severe losses from a nuclear attack, irrespective of who attacks first.
- Principle of Rational Deterrence: Built on the principle of deterrence, MAD assumes that rational actors will refrain from initiating a nuclear attack, knowing that such an action would trigger a devastating counterattack, resulting in the destruction of both parties.
- The Cuban Missile Crisis:One iconic example of MAD’s influence is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war as the U.S. and the Soviet Union faced off over Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Initial U.S. and Soviet strategies regarding nuclear capabilities
- Post-War Arms Race:A nuclear arms race began between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with the Soviets developing their own nuclear capabilities by 1949. Both nations rapidly expanded their arsenals, including thermonuclear weapons.
- Shift to Deterrence:Initially, the U.S. followed a “first use” policy, but both sides soon recognized that a nuclear strike would lead to mutual annihilation, shifting their strategies to deterrence.
- Formalisation of MADBy the 1960s, MAD became the formal strategy of both superpowers, ensuring neither would launch a nuclear attack due to the certainty of total destruction.
- Global Impact:MAD also influenced smaller nuclear powers, who adopted similar deterrence strategies to ensure their own security.
Modern Nuclear Strategies
- Evolution from MAD to Limited Nuclear War:The MAD doctrine has shifted in response to the changing global nuclear landscape.
- Modern strategies now consider limited nuclear engagements, using tactical nuclear weapons for specific military objectives without escalating to full-scale war.
- This raises concerns about miscalculations and conflict escalation.
Counterforce Strategies
- Counterforce strategies target an adversary’s military assets rather than civilian populations, aiming to minimise collateral damage and maintain credible deterrents.
Impact of Missile Defense Systems on MAD
- Missile defence systems challenge the credibility of MAD by enabling interception of incoming nuclear missiles. This may erode deterrence, prompting adversaries to question the effectiveness of their nuclear capabilities and potentially leading to preemptive strikes.
Concerns About MAD:
- Risk of Accidental Nuclear War: A significant concern with MAD is the potential for accidental nuclear war. Events such as the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, underscore this risk.
- Criticism of Retaliatory Assumptions in MAD: The doctrine has been criticised for assuming that the victim of the first attack will possess sufficient capabilities after the attack to retaliate strongly.
Moral Implications of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD):
- Ethical Dilemma of Threatening Annihilation:The moral implications of MAD revolve around the ethical dilemma of threatening entire populations with annihilation to deter war, raising concerns about the value placed on human life.
- Global Extortion and Civilian Casualties: Critics argue it amounts to global extortion, especially given the potential for catastrophic civilian casualties in a nuclear conflict, which would overwhelm disaster response systems.
Current Relevance of MAD:
- MAD’s Influence in the Post-Cold War Era:Even in the post-Cold War era, MAD’s influence remains significant. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling, the potential for mutual destruction deterred any nuclear escalation.
- Challenges to MAD in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape: The changing geopolitical landscape, with nuclear proliferation in nations like North Korea and rising tensions between India and Pakistan, challenges MAD’s effectiveness.
- Emerging technologies and the risks of destabilisation —hypersonic missiles, AI, and cyberwarfare—add complexity, increasing the risk of miscalculation and destabilising traditional nuclear deterrence strategies.
MAD in South Asia: India-Pakistan Rivalry
The nuclear landscape between India and Pakistan is precarious, with MAD concepts being largely inapplicable. The Stability-Instability Paradox (SIP)—which depends on rational actors, clear red lines, and effective communication—only partially applies.
While both nations act rationally, the absence of clear red lines and poor communication, coupled with the involvement of non-state actors, complicates the situation. Unlike the Cold War, where the U.S. and USSR engaged in proxy conflicts without direct confrontation, these factors increase the risk of miscalculation in South Asia.
