Missile Defense

A third definition is "a rule or principle of law, esp. when established by precedent." Which are you? Dogmatic? Doctrinaire? Or are you just a lawyer?

I picked one that best fit my perspective into your narrow boxed point of view. I then provided you in detail the reason I view that term as better then say the first or the last. I explained to you that my views and my supporting evidence demonstrate that MAD evolved and is a principle view As I told you earlier today, I believe in my point of view and feel that I need not express this in anyway different. Thus below is the exact material I posted for you last week.

Second your "American Heritage Dictionary" quote

"a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a political, scientific, or philosophical group; dogma."

Recall what I wrote:” MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence. Its evolution came into being due to the insecurity of the Soviets and Americans. The race of insecurity. The arms race. " So that view is indeed what I wrote and fits within your narrow Dictionary view.

Why does he say this Vic? Because in 45 America was the only nation to have the bomb. From 1945 till 1949 America went about the world and threatened just about everyone with it, and more then anything intimidates the Russians. This policy, later coined Massive Retaliation made America’s military as well as civilian leadership view the atomic bomb as a stick that could be threatened at anytime. No ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ existed. Why? because the Soviets did not have the bomb-yet. In 1949 this changed-and the Soviets entered the international situation with the bomb. Yet MAD still did not exist because no parity of assured destruction existed between the two countries.

Thus looking back at bqs view: :”MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence. Its evolution came into being due to the insecurity of the Soviets and Americans. The race of insecurity. The arms race. "

As this race evolved the parity for assured destruction slowly began to appear. In particular after the launching of Sputnik-which demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the Soviets could hit America and destroy America with warheads. Massive Retaliation hit its first wall: the evolution of technology by the Soviets and the possible equal destruction of the United States if America continued this policy. Thus again this support bqs view that MAD evolved

A) Who lost China? B) The missile gap.

The view of (B) was important because it threat Eisenhower’s administration of Massive Retaliation. Why? Because such an action now could well mean the destruction of the United States. Everything about Einsowers view of nuclear weapons (New Look) all indicate that the evolution of MAD would be the nail in the coffin of the policy of Massive Retaliation, A policy that could end in failure not because of the policy of MAD but because of the evolution of MAD. Thus American strategy was off course because of the evolution of MAD. America soon came to the conclusion that it was off course and initiated a set of concepts that would strengthen the principles of MAD.

beckq - 12:27pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#256 of 11863)

Those being a second strike capability. The actually policy of Massive Revelation caved in and was replaced by Flexible Response under the Kennedy Administration. Thus what you really had was America initially taking a position that highlighted that America had the bomb and nobody else did. The policy of that period was very brash because it ‘could be’. When the Soviets got the bomb and later demonstrated they could hit America with the development of ICBM technology America could not longer be as bold.

With the increase of the arms race the United States changed its view to that of Brodie in terms of nuclear strategy. My fellow vic take a look for Bernard Brodie (sp).Excellent introduction to American nuclear concepts-in particular the reasoning for second strike capabilities. All done to reinforce the principle of MAD . A principle I argue because it evolved

My fellow vic take a look for Bernard Brodie (sp).Excellent introduction to American nuclear concepts-in particular the reasoning for second strike capabilities. All done to reinforce the principle of MAD . A principle I argue because it evolved with the incremental parity between America and the Soviets. America only abaoned a policy that did not consider the principles of MAD and fixed on ways of strengthening this principle-this byproduct of the arms race.

Anyways MAD described the superpowers essential military stalemate as mutual deterrence.

Ahhh and what did Becq say:” MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence"

Thus MAD is a principle view of nuclear deterrence that evolved as the Soviets began to reach nuclear parity with America. When America realized it they began to consider Brodie and the ideas he suggested that would strengthen MAD, that being a second strike capability. The Soviets did the same. That is why one cannot really conclude that MAD is a policy. It is not. It is the byproduct of the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union. That is why its far more exciteing and interesting to know an issue instead of going by simplistic views that indicate that one day Kennedy woke up and made MAD a policy. That’s far from correct. If we accept MAD as a policy as you so want

And that brings us back to the entire focus of the initial argument. SALT I continued to strengthen the principles of MAD-it continued to strengthen MAD by maintaining that both sides continue to hold each others civilians nuclear hostage.

(11607 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense