BalefireX your description of MAD is dead wrong...look I will give you a flame pass because you are not a pro and likely too young to remember the cold war but at least learn the truth.
1. Robert McNamara former Secretary of Defense theorized MAD
2. Read the definition below
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons.
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.
The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail deadly) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.
The primary application of this doctrine occurred during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) between the United States and Soviet Union, in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the two nations while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world.
Proponents of MAD as part of US and USSR strategic doctrine that believed nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange. The credibility of the threat being critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile bunkers, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
This MAD scenario was often known by the euphemism "nuclear deterrence." (The term 'deterrence' was first used in this context after World War II. Prior to that time, its use was limited to juridical terminology.) In France, "deterrence" was translated as "dissuasion," and in Russia, it was translated as "terrorization" -- a linguistic difference which highlights two particular interpretations of deterrence: one which is basically an extrapolation of rational politics, another which is based on pure emotional fear. These two notions of deterrence, and MAD, were often used interchangeably by both fans and foes of the doctrine, despite their apparent paradoxical intent.
...these basic definitions should never be an issue in the information age, don’t be lazy
