1584871725 Very Good Condition. Has some wear. Five star seller - Buy with confidence!. Bookseller Inventory # Z1584871725Z2
Synopsis: Nearly 40 years after the concept of finite deterrence was popularized by the Johnson administration, nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) thinking appears to be in decline. The United States has rejected the notion that threatening population centers with nuclear attacks is a legitimate way to assure deterrence. Most recently, it withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an agreement based on MAD. American opposition to MAD also is reflected in the Bush administration’s desire to develop smaller, more accurate nuclear weapons that would reduce the number of innocent civilians killed in a nuclear strike. Still, MAD is influential in a number of ways. First, other countries, like China, have not abandoned the idea that holding their adversaries’ cities at risk is necessary to assure their own strategic security. Nor have U.S. and allied security officials and experts fully abandoned the idea. At a minimum, acquiring nuclear weapons is still viewed as being sensible to face off a hostile neighbor that might strike one’s own cities. Thus, our diplomats have been warning China that Japan would be under tremendous pressure to go nuclear if North Korea persisted in acquiring a few crude weapons of its own. Similarly, Israeli officials have long argued, without criticism, that they would not be second in acquiring nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Indeed, given that Israel is surrounded by enemies that would not hesitate to destroy its population if they could, Washington finds Israel’s retention of a significant nuclear capability totally “understandable.” Then, there is the case of India and Pakistan, two countries allied with the United States in its war against terror. Regarding these countries’ nuclear arsenals, U.S. experts argue, is to help these nations secure their nuclear capabilities against theft. To help “stabilize” the delicate nuclear balance between India and Pakistan, they argue, it might be useful for the United States to help enhance each country’s nuclear command and control systems. Yet, U.S. officials have opposed these two nations’ efforts to perfect their arsenals for battlefield applications and nuclear war-fighting use. Instead, U.S. officials have urged both India and Pakistan to keep their forces to the lowest possible levels and develop them only for deterrent purposes. This is understood to mean only targeting each others’ major cities. Implicit to all this talk is the assumption that a nation’s security is, in fact, enhanced by acquiring a relatively modest but secure nuclear arsenal (i.e., one most likely to be used only to strike large, soft targets, such as cities). Certainly, the underlying premise of MAD thinking, that small nuclear states can deter aggression by large nuclear states, is still popular. Iraq, we are told, might have held America off in 1991 or 2001 had it actually possessed nuclear arms. Similarly, the contrast between U.S. and allied generosity toward North Korea and the harsh treatment doled out to Saddam is usually explained by referring to the likelihood of North Korea having nuclear weapons and of Iraq clearly not. Why should we care about such MAD-inspired notions? They make U.S. and allied efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons much more difficult. If, as MAD thinking contends, nations can deter aggression by having the ability to successfully launch a nuclear attack against a significant number of innocent civilians, acquiring a nuclear arsenal will increasingly be seen as the best way for states to protect themselves.
Title: Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured ...
Publication Date: 2004
Book Condition: Very Good
Book Description SSI. Paperback. Book Condition: Good. Book has some visible wear on the binding, cover, pages. Bookseller Inventory # G1584871725I3N00
Book Description Strategic Studies Institute, U. S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA, 2004. Wraps. Presumed first edition/first printing. vii, 361,  p. Includes illustrations. Endnotes. From Wikipedia: "Henry D. Sokolski is the Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars and the media. He was appointed by the U.S. Congress to serve on the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and terrorism, which filed its final report in December 2008. Sokolski served from 1989 to 1993 as the Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and later received the Secretary of Defense's Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Prior to this, he worked in the Secretary's Office of Net Assessment on proliferation issues. In addition to his Executive Branch service, Sokolski served from 1984 through 1988 as Senior Military Legislative Aide to Senator Dan Quayle, and as Special Assistant on Nuclear Energy Matters to Senator Gordon J. Humphrey from 1982 through 1983. Sokolski also served as a consultant on proliferation issues to the intelligence community's National Intelligence Council. After his work in the Pentagon, he received a Congressional appointment to the Deutch Proliferation Commission, which completed its report in July 1999. He also served as a member of the Central Intelligence Agency's Senior Advisory Panel from 1995 to 1996. Sokolski has authored and edited a number of works on proliferation related issues including, Best of Intentions: America's Campaign Against Strategic Weapons Proliferation (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), "Falling Behind: International Scrutiny of the Peaceful Atom"(Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2008); Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2006), Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2005), and Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction Its Origins and Practice (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2004). Sokolski has been a resident fellow at the National Institute for Public Policy, the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. He currently serves as an adjunct professor at The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., and has taught courses at the University of Chicago, Rosary College, and Loyola University. Sokolski attended the University of Southern California and Pomona College, and received his graduate education at the University of Chicago." Good. Cover has some wear and soilng. Bookseller Inventory # 68758
Book Description SSI. PAPERBACK. Book Condition: Very Good. 1584871725 Very Good Condition. Has some wear. Five star seller - Buy with confidence!. Bookseller Inventory # SKU-F36995