An Argument Against the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction

        Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is an argument that is used to explain why they has never been a nuclear war. This theory states that because nuclear weapons are so destructive, no rational leader will use them because of the consequences that will result in a nuclear ware of almost certain destruction to both sides. This is a result of many countries having second strike ability (the ability to launch an attack after already having been attacked), which means that a country launching a nuclear weapon would also likely be destroyed as well. However, despite the rationale behind the MAD theory, I will argue that there are many other explanations more effectively show why there has never been nuclear war.

        To begin, one must consider who in the world has nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the eight main holders of nuclear weapons. Looking at this list, most of these countries are democracies, if nothing else than in name (such as China and Russia). Therefore, one could contend that rather than MAD, one reason that there has never been a nuclear war is because only democracies have nuclear weapons. Thus, the lack of a nuclear war could be explained by the democratic peace theory, which states that democracies never fight each other.

        Another effective explanation of why there has never been a nuclear war aside from MAD is international institutions. The age of nuclear weapons has existed only since WWII, and this is a time period of large scale international cooperation through institutions such as the United Nations. I would argue that the reason that there has not been a nuclear war would be that there have been no large scale military conflicts in this period due to international intuitions that are present in this period. For example, the UN is an organization that helps facilitate cooperation and prevent wars through the collective security it creates among members. Additionally, the UN gives countries in conflict a chance to have their conflicts mediated in a neutral location which can help prevent wars. Considering nuclear weapons have only existed in this period, the prevention of a nuclear war could be attributed to international institutions in the post WWII period.

        Another issue with the MAD theory is that it counts on actors to be rational. This means that since a state that begins a nuclear conflict will also likely be destroyed as well, no rational actor will engage in nuclear warfare with a country with second strike capability. However, we cannot count on all actors who have access to nuclear weapons to be rational actors. For example, if North Korea gains access to nuclear weapons, we cannot assume they will not use them irrationally. We cannot count on them to be a rational actor, considering that we view a large portion of their actions dealing with other nations as irrational. For example, their hatred for South Korea could push them to act irrationally and engage in nuclear warfare.

        To conclude, I believe that there are many other explanations for why there has never been an all-out nuclear war aside from the theory of mutually assured destruction. However, all of the alternate explanations that I have cited still point to a nuclear war never happening, so I would conclude that regardless of what explanations or theories you believe in, it is hard to believe that a nuclear war will ever happen.