In Defence of a ‘No First Use’ Nuclear Doctrine
Somewhat related, I&#x27;ve never believed the conventional doctrine of mutual assured destruction.<p>The way I see it, the only rational thing to do once you have been hit hard by nuclear weapons is to forget your original plan of retaliation and to surrender immediately. Retaliating would only kill more people and potentially render the planet uninhabitable, but would give you no gain.<p>MAD only works if you tie your own hands. If you make the retaliation absolutely automatic and unstoppable. As far as I know, the only such system that was built was the Soviet &quot;Perimetr&quot; or &quot;Dead Hand&quot; system, which was never completely activated. As long as there is a human component, you will be able to, and rationally have to, turn around once you have taken the hit.<p>I think the naive story about MAD comes from applying game theory but assuming your strategy is static throughout the whole &quot;game&quot;.<p>Likewise, the main reason we (US, NATO) have not used another nuclear bomb is that we have not been in a &quot;real&quot; war against an opponent where it would make sense. I mean for example an all out land war against Russia on Russian or European territory and&#x2F;or where US territory is under danger. Where it would make sense to use a nuclear bomb to quickly destroy a huge tank unit or weapons factories, or to bomb the enemy into submission (if you have given up on sparing civilian lives). Once we would be stuck in such a horrible war, a &quot;no first use&quot; doctrine like any peacetime strategy would be up for discussion immediately, IMO.