0
What was the reason for superpowers to engage in an arms race with a strategy of mutualky assured destruction?
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the two superpowers never fire a shot?
Based on weapons stockpiles, there was mutually assured destruction if the two superpowers went to war
What is the idea of mutually assured destruction?
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).
What does MAD represent in World War 2?
Mutually Assured Destruction
What was MAD mutually assured destruction?
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome-nuclear annihilation. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Who is going to drop the nuke first?
The nation with nothing to lose. Where M.A.D. ( mutually assured destruction) dose not apply.
What was the reason for superpowers to engage in an arms race with a strategy of mutually assured destruction?
Both countries felt that they were safe from attack if they were powerful enough to destroy the other.
What was the reason for superpowers to engage in an arms race with strategy of mutually assured destruction?
Both countries felt that they were safe from attack if they were powerful enough to destroy the other.
Why did the two superpowers never fire a shot?
Based on weapons stockpiles, there was mutually assured destruction if the two superpowers went to war
How do you know Mutually Assured Destruction really worked?
Because if it didnt, the two superpowers would have started a nuclear war which would have begun world war 3
What was the reason for superpowers to engage in an arms race with a stragety of mutually assured destruction?
Both countries felt that they were safe from attack if they were powerful enough to destroy each other.
What was the cold war strategy where by the US was prepared to engage in massive nuclear retaliation at anytime?
MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction
What was the cold war strategy whereby the us was prepared to engage in massive nuclear retaliation at any time?
MAD, which stands for Mutually Assured Destruction
Cold war strategy whereby the us was prepared to engage in massive nuclear retaliation at any time?
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Brinkmanship
What is The defense strategy predicated on the assumption that if no one stood a chance of surviving a nuclear war then no one would start one?
Mutually assured destruction.
What did the acronym MAD stand for?
Mutually Assured Destruction
Mutually assured destruction and its policies were developed around what weapon?
Mutually assured destruction and its policies were developed around high yield H-bombs that were usually carried by missiles.
What is the idea of mutually assured destruction?
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).
