Why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Is No Longer Reassuring

<p>Central to America's strategy in the Cold War was the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was to make nuclear warfare a lose-lose proposition — a game you just can't win. Whichever side was attacked would retain the capability to counterattack. Both sides would end up devastated, if not annihilated.</p> <p>But MAD works only if both sides are equally averse to mass death and destruction.</p> <p>When it comes to Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, and Kim Jong-un, can we be confident of that?</p> <p>If not, what replaces MAD? Perhaps robust deterrence and comprehensive missile defense systems — neither of which can be achieved easily, cheaply, or quickly. And we've really not yet begun to pursue such goals.</p> <p>To unpack these issues, <a href='https://www.fdd.org/category/analysis/podcasts/foreign-podicy'>Foreign Podicy</a> host <a href='https://www.fdd.org/team/clifford-d-may/'>Cliff May</a> is joined by Rob Soofer. Formerly the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, Rob is now a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University's Center for Strategic Studies. He also previously served as a professor at the National War College and as a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve.</p> <p>Also with us: <a href='https://www.fdd.org/team/bradley-bowman/'>Bradley Bowman</a>, a West Point Graduate, who served as an active-duty U.S. Army officer, Black Hawk pilot, and top advisor to two U.S. Senators. Brad is now the senior director of <a href='https://www.fdd.org/projects/center-on-military-and-political-power/'>FDD's Center on Military and Political Power</a>.</p>