The concept of mutually assured destruction is one of the things that the Cold War has left the world. Following this military doctrine, the use of weapons of mass destruction by one of the warring parties inevitably leads to the destruction of both sides. This doctrine appeared as a result of the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The opponents in this war were precisely the United States and the USSR since the United States defended the interests of Europe, which was in the zone of attention of the Soviet Union (Jones 2016). However, the simultaneous possession of such powerful weapons restrained both sides from its use, since it was impossible to strike at the enemy without receiving a strike in response.
Risk and Desire
Awareness of the risk and the desire to restrain the enemy led to the creation of this doctrine. The experience of the first test of such weapons in Hiroshima showed humanity how terrible it is. Hersey (1946) writes about the stories of eyewitnesses of this explosion, who saw burning and bloodied people roaming the streets. Although this policy has successfully acted as part of the Cold War, it is hopelessly outdated, immoral, and requires rethinking. In the modern world, not only do two nations have nuclear weapons, moreover, because of their proliferation, weapons of mass destruction can fall into the hands of terrorists. The very fact of the presence of such armaments can put any group in the world on a par with the most powerful countries in the world and allow them to dictate terms.
Therefore, it is necessary to abandon this deterrence policy of mutually increasing the number of weapons. One of how a similar effect can be achieved is a policy of mutually guaranteed stability. According to this concept, such balance is a state in which none of the parties to the conflict has the ability, or, most importantly, the desire and intention to use a specific one-sided advantage. Following this concept, no country in the world should possess powerful weapons that it could use against another state. In this case, all nations must work together to preserve and establish peace on the entire planet, not by the military but by political means. This concept is an effective alternative to deterrent policy; however, it is necessary to carry out a vast political work before its implementation in real life.
Hersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. The New Yorker.
Jones, M. (2016). To kill nations: American strategy in the air-atomic age and the rise of mutually assured destruction. By Edward Kaplan. [Review of the book American strategy in the air-atomic age and the rise of mutually assured destruction by E. Kaplan]. International Affairs, 92(3), 719–721. Web.