This would allow direct communication between both administrations. During the crisis, tension had been intensified by continued US nuclear tests. These had made America appear more aggressive. The desire to reduce that pressure resulted in the Test Ban Treaty. Most of the USA fell within the range of missiles sited in Cuba Safety measures implemented The Cuban Missile Crisis emphasised to both sides the risk of not cooperating with each other.
Some of the streets in this part of the town have seen large scale-destruction. Bound together by mutual distrust, both sides end up lashing themselves to the mast of rigid law. They assured him that should this happen, many problems would be resolved.
A Yankee, whose face had been mauled in a pot-house brawl, assured General Jackson that he had received his scars in battle. And with some expressions of mutual good-will and interest, master and man separated. Yet, for all these efforts, it is highly probable that a conventional war in Europe or, even more likely, the limited use of nuclear weapons would have prompted a full-scale nuclear war that would have resulted in mutual destruction.
In response, U. Most dramatically, President Ronald Reagan called for missile defense, declaring in that "to look down to an endless future with both of us sitting here with these horrible missiles aimed at each other and the only thing preventing a holocaust is just so long as no one pulls this trigger — this is unthinkable.
When the United States emerged as the dominant military power, defense became a much more attractive option than deterrence. Why threaten to punish another country for an attack when you can beat it back?
According to MAD, trying to protect yourself is destabilizing because it threatens the other side. In a world where the United States faces no peer competitor that could threaten it with complete annihilation, thinking in these terms makes no sense. Indeed, even the simplest missiles are difficult to intercept. Ironically, primitive warheads that tumble in flight — the very types of missiles that might be launched by low-tech U.
And adversaries could deliver nuclear weapons in a variety of other ways, such as by airplanes, ships, and cargo containers. The threat of terrorism also makes defense preferable to deterrence. How do you deter a suicide bomber? In theory, the U. But these options are politically unpalatable. Defense, however, may not work either. Warding off 99 terrorist attacks does little good if the th succeeds, especially if weapons of mass destruction WMD are used. A defensive strategy that could achieve even 99 percent efficiency is hard to imagine short of incredible worldwide cooperation, expense, and sacrifice of civil liberties.
Confronted with these dilemmas, the Bush administration has turned to what it calls preemption, but what is actually prevention. The difference between the two is in the timescale: The former means an attack against an adversary that is about to strike; the latter is a move to prevent a threat from fully emerging. An adversary who cannot be deterred and whose attacks cannot be defended against must be stopped before it gains the capability to do great harm. This strategy makes more sense in theory than in practice, however.
Moving before the threat fully materializes is rational only if the government is quite certain that failing to do so will lead to a disastrous attack by an adversary. But predicting the future accurately is quite difficult. The other side of this coin is that an adversary who believes the United States is certain to attack will have nothing to lose by resorting to WMD. This doctrine of prevention has brought the United States full circle, with the Bush administration now echoing the refrain of early MAD critics who said that nuclear weapons were not qualitatively different from other kinds.
As such, the White House has rejected one of the central precepts of MAD: Nuclear weapons are good for deterrence only.
0コメント