I think so. The premise of MAD states that in the event that one nation becomes aggressive and launches a nuclear ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missile), the victim nation can retaliate by launching nuclear munitions of their own at the aggressor. In layman's terms, both Russia and the United States would be utterly flattened and enter into a state of nuclear Holocaust.
Well the general idea was a thing called "MAD" which was an acronym for mutually assured destruction. The idea, as crazy as it sounds, was that if either country launched an attack both would proceed to completely destroy the other. Sometime in the 1960's the think tanks came up with the idea that they could replace MAD with a program that linked every countries money to everyone else. Thus started the free trade agreements. The idea being that if we were all linked by economics we'd be better neighbors and work things out together. It replaced MAD but many scholars today, especially with the world economy as it is, believe it was naive and hasn't worked.
bonne id'ee means good idea
Public Castration Is a Good Idea was created in 1986.
As with today, many the younger generation that it was a good idea, the old guard (the older generation) thought it was a bad idea.
The atomic bomb was used in the Cold War as a deterrent, no actual bombs were exploded in military action, only in tests to prove they worked. The idea being that the enemy would be so scared of your ability to wipe it out that it wouldn't use its bombs on you.
If you bomb us we'll bomb you so nobody wins
Answer this question… It promoted peace by preventing either country from attacking first because of the certainty of an immediate counterattack.
Answer this question… The idea of mutually assured destruction prevented the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.
Mutually Assured Destruction is the concept that if someone attacks another they would respond by totally destroying the aggressor, but in the process of doing the destruction the original aggressor would be forced to totally destroy their original victim. Its acronym of MAD is very appropriate as it is mad to be the first aggressor as it would result in their own destruction. It is appropriate with respect to nuclear weapons as superpowers have enough of such weapons to totally destroy the others, and so none would start a nuclear war (to destroy someone) because the other side could/would respond in an equally destructive manner (destroying them).
Yes. MAD is derived from the idea that when one side does something, the other side will attempt to do something at least as bad in return. Thus this escalating series of revenge will eventually destroy both sides.
Answer this question… It promoted peace by preventing either country from attacking first because of the certainty of an immediate counterattack.
Think about it this way; you're President of the USA, and you've hear of the mutally assured destruction. If you want to destroy your country along with another one, the use your weapons against another country. That is the idea of mutually assured destruction. There has not been one bomb dropped onto any other country since 1945; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tests have been carried out many times since then, especially during the Cold War. But there has been no nuclear explosions know to the public since then. Nicolas Dupont
nuclear deterrence - the idea that if you attack me with nuclear weapons then I will attack you back with nuclear weaponsmutual assured destruction - the idea that if you attack me with nuclear weapons then I will totally destroy you with nuclear weapons and if I attack you with nuclear weapons then you will totally destroy me with nuclear weapons - thus any nuclear attack by either party will result in the certain destruction of both parties
Neither superpower would start a nuclear war because the other side could respond in an equally destructive manner. Nova Net
Answer this question… The idea of mutually assured destruction prevented the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.
This meant that if the Soviets had attacked the US with nuclear-based weapons, the US would not be hesitant to retaliate and strike back with their own nuclear bombs. This idea is what characterises the Cold War, because if one power struck another power with similar capabilities (using such devastating weaponry), then it would mean mutually assured destruction for all participants.
I think the term you are looking for is Mutually Assured Destruction or deterrence but I'll list some other cold war/nuclear war termonolgy that you might find useful as well. -Brinkmanship: The idea that one never backs down causing the other side to back down first. -Massive Retaliation: This was an American ideal that if America got attacked they would retaliate with massive amounts of bombs. -Mutual Deterence: Its the idea that your country has enough nuclear weapons to defeat the opposing country, and this should act as a deterrence against them acting you. -MAD (Mutually Assure Destruction): A theory that two countries could use its ability to launch a nuclear counterattack to stop the other side from striking. As a result, both side's counties are blown apart.