[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

M.A.D functions always where the relative strengths of opponents are comparable and a fight would very likely result in the destruction of both.

Would you ever fight with a knife against somebody else with a knife? Unless you had superior fighting abilities and you knew your opponent did not than maybe you would not take that chance if you knew nothing of your opponent or knew him to be comparatively strong this applies to any weapon and even unarmed combat as the even there the chance of getting killed or mortaly wounded is high.

That is why animal predators rarely fight against each other(even when they have the odds on their side) because it's not worth an injury that will likely kill them in the long run.

[–] 7e62ce85 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I get what you are saying, but nukes allow small countries to threaten a much much larger empire.

It is also somewhat different from threatening normal retribution because a war can be stopped and deescalated, but launching all your nukes is a singular all-ending action.

Your example would work and qualify as M.A.D. policy, but only if a third force was waiting for any opportunity to attack either country if their army was weakened.

[–] TheAmerican 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There is plenty of battles fought where one group was annihilated. There are many many many examples of this throughout history.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes, the loser did not have the M.A.D card!

[–] TheAmerican 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

M.A.D works great in current times but it has never applied to the past before nuclear weapons, not whatsoever.