On May 26 1972, that dastardly American President Richard Nixon signed a treaty with General Secretary of the Communist Party (USSR) called the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty. The treaty in essence stated that neither of the two nuclear super powers, who were at the time locked into the Cold War, would build defenses against the other nation's missiles. This at first glance seems like one of the most bizarre concepts in international affairs and warfare. 'I agree to let you attack me, as long as you agree to let me attack you.' This on the surface seems to be a counter productive treaty designed to draw the Cold War on, and put innocent lives at risk. However the treaty was designed around an incredibly perverse rule of logic that has become a mainstay of international affairs.This is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
After the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the final feud of the Second World War, it became apparent that Homo Sapiens had finally become the bearers of the tools for their own annihilation. This realization was best verbalized by the lead scientist of the Manhattan Project (the atomic bomb development project) J. Robert Oppenheimer when he quoted hindu scripture stating "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" to which his colleague replied "Now we are all sons of bitches." The creators of the bomb understood far better than anyone else the incredible reprecussions of opening the Pandora's Box that was atomic warfare. (The I am become death line is one of the most chilling quotes I have ever heard, though it is unclear if he said it at the time of the testing or if he thought it and mentioned it later).
back on point now... with the apocalyptic power of nuclear weaponry came an entirely new kind of warfare, and an entirely new set of logic with which to wage war. MAD became a point of stability and safety in the least likely place. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is that both superpowers have enough nuclear weaponry to completely destroy the other state. COMPLETELY as in lay waste to the entire territory and all of its inhabitants, and the hapless nations nearby. Also both nations had the quick launch ability to respond to this attack before the aggressors attack had actually reached its targets. This means that one of the only reasons Nuclear bombs were not launched is beacuse each country knew that if they launched their arsenal of weapons, the other would respond in kind, destroying both states. Hence Mutually Assured Destruction.
The ABMT was signed to ensure that this function would continue to operate. If one nation were to build a missile defense, then that nation would be able to comfortably launch their weapons with the knowledge that they were safe from any reprisal, negating M.A.D.. While it seems bizarre, this notion of MAD helps to prevent war. A sort of anti-arms build up.
In 2002 George W. Bush withdrew from the ABMT and began preparations for the construction of a missile defence program. At the time, Canada was invited/asked to participate in the program so that the defence stations could be built in Canada's northern territories. Then Prime Minister Paul Martin reluctantly declined under public pressure, and saved Canada from becoming a participant in the reintroduction of Nuclear buildup. Not long after the demise of the ABMT and Mutually Assured Destruction, North Korea withdrew from its obligations of non proliferation, and has since become a nuclear power. While two other nations have begun their own not-so-covert research into nuclear weaponry.
So that wasn't a short post, or a post with an end or argument. I have just found the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to be an astounding example of how complex and difficult international politics can be.
2 comments:
MAD is certainly an interesting concept and appears to be fairly rational when dealing with conventional people.
I wonder what motivated Bush to withdraw from the ABMT. I can see how MAD would not work with when dealing with terrorists in Iraq. As it appears with the multiple suicide bombings, having their country laid to waste may not be a huge issue. They may even be located somewhere else and we may not even know (Bin Laden?)! On the other hand, we also have countries with the power to destroy another nation like the U.S. but will not for political, economical, or humane reasons. I'm sure the U.S. wanted to bomb the heck out of Iraq but could not for political reasons. Could they have withdrawn from the ABMT with Russia due to fears that Russia would gladly obliterate them and not fear a retaliation?
In WWII Germany overan many countries before meeting any resistance. Currently Russia overan parts of Georgia and is meeting minimal international resistance. Granted that there are seperatists in Georgia that want to amalgamate with Russia. It seems Russia may be gaining ground and could probably push harder before meeting resistance.
At what point would they run into real resistance from the rest of the world? How long would they persist? Judging by the war in Iraq: not long.
MAD is not effective today. Countries are able to do as they wish. North Korea continues nuclear development and Russia began their buildup of nuclear arms. What authority is there to stop this? From a political point of view, what can be done? Over to you Mr. Kenzie.
Some good points Daniel.
As far as terrorists go, the functions of MAD do not operate on a small scale such as this. The terrorists do not have large scale nuclear attack capabilities. I do understand what you are saying about Suicide bombers and reverence of martyrdom. However I suspect that even the most fundamentalist of aggressors would understand the logic whole in dying for their country or beliefs if there were no one around to hear those beliefs.
As far as legal authority against a new nuclear buildup? There is very little that the international community can do to prevent buildups. One of the unique characteristics about international affairs is that it is Anarchic, lacking no central authority. Most of the treaties which control issues such as arms buildup have provisions for withdrawl from the treaty (usually something like a 6 month notice) This is why the primary factor governing state behavior is fear of reprisal. A nation like North Korea has very little to fear from the western world because they are already excluded from almost all economic dealings, and have heavy support from China. The issue with Russia and Georgia is a little tricky, I am less familiar with the governing treaties at work, however the principals of international intervention are at work here. A third party is always hesitant to intervene in a situation such as this for fear of creating precedents which could haunt them later. Bush's America is a prime example. as far as I know as well the Russia/Georgia thing has begun to cool into a limited occupation at the moment, so we will have to wait and see.
Bush's withdrawl from the ABMT is a function of his policy of isolationism (America? isolationist? what?) Bush has created a Me against the world situation and his assessment of best protection is actual protection. The fact that Russia's nuclear capabilities were severely reduced after the fall of the Soviet Union helps to reassure Bush that he is not risking too much. But was it a dumb idea. From my perspective ABSOLUTELY. but then again a lot of his policy is a dumb idea from my perspective.
Post a Comment