Talk:Nuclear warfare/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nuclear warfare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Have major problems with this statement.
- During the Cold War, Civil defense efforts in Russia and China were effective, or at least present, while programs in the United States were notably ineffective and unfunded. This is because for much of this period the United States unilaterally pursued MAD. Under MAD, civil defense was actually consdered destabilizing (bad) because it indicated that one could hope to win the war.
Since they were never used, what is the criteria for effective and ineffective civil defense? Also, I have serious questions about the assertion that the United States unilaterally pursued MAD. In the case of the Soviet Union, I don't know of any cold war document that suggests that they didn't take MAD seriously. In the case of China, up until the mid-1970's, there was no way for China to respond to a US nuclear attack.
- I agree that the statement as given is problematic. Some professionals believe that civil defense against nuclear war is a delusional fantasy; for example, Physicians for Social Responsibility. Others believe that simple civil defense measures taken in advance can save millions of lives and are therefore inherently moral. NPOV would require citing both.
- Civil defense measures intended for use in conventional warfare saved many lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the "ineffective" vs. "effective" issue is not really relevant to the article.
- Russia publicly embraced MAD in the late 1970s and 1980s as part of its propaganda strategy. However, this is a different question from whether Russian policymakers genuinely believed in MAD. Given the extensive investment in civil defense measures for the survival of the Russian leadership (ranging from a dedicated Moscow Metro escape tunnel to the installation under the granite monolith at Zhiguli in Central Asia), clearly as individuals the Central Committee expected to survive a nuclear war.
- The fact remains that the United States only paid lip service to civil defense, when both China and Russia made extensive contingency plans for civil defense -- which neither nation could easily afford. These plans included the testing and construction of nuclear shelters, training for both military personnel and the general population, and stockpiling of supplies and equipment. I think this is what the writer of the paragraph was attempting to get at.
clarka 5 Mar 2003