I don't understand this line of thought. You aren't going to talk authoritarian countries into disarming, and so liberal countries cannot afford to either. If you take the "mutually" out of MAD, all you're left with is assured destruction.
Marianne Williamson
 @marwilliamson
5 Oct 2022
When I was young we marched in “Ban the Bomb” protests. Over time the narrative of non-proliferation was drowned out by MAD. Not to worry, everyone was told, “Mutually Assured Destruction” was the policy that would keep all of us safe from a nuclear holocaust. That way…
1
2
That’s what non nuclear proliferation treaties are all about. It was never about unilateral disarmament.
1
NTP's require a degree of trust that cannot and should not be extended to authoritarian tyrants and the states they lead. If they keep even 10 they can decimate the entire world in a night. MAD is the only protection we have against those kinds of actors.
1
Replying to @azerailyt
5 nukes falling would obliterate human civilization as we know it; 10 would end the species for hundreds of thousands of years. What’s your explanation for the fact that we have 7,000 of them?

Oct 5, 2022 · 2:31 AM UTC

1
Replying to @marwilliamson
I don't really find the number to be relevant to the discussion. We have a big number because people like to wave their big sticks. As long as each country has a few, we'd still be having this same concern about nuclear war.