Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) fails to prevent war. That ends that debate. Pro-armament loons loose!

For you youngbloods out there, one of the theories in the debate on armaments used to be that nuclear proliferation was a good thing because of MAD.

MAD means mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nuclear powers will never go to war because doing so means that both sides are pretty much guaranteed to be annihilated. Since MAD means no major power will go to war with another major power, MAD means an era of relative peace.

Russia, for example, has a doomsday device. It is a multi-nuke bomb wrapped in phosphate, I think, that is rigged to detect a catastrophic explosion in Moscow. When Moscow gets bombed, the doomsday device gets triggered, and umpteen gazillion tons of radioactive salt gets blasted into the ionosphere to later rain down on all the nations of the northern hemisphere, basically leading to the deaths of every damn thing that breathes on the planet eventually.

And its not their only dead-man switch nuke solution.

Mutually Assured Destruction, baby.

Now, what we're seeing going on in the Ukraine ends that debate. Nukes did not stop the war from happening and from continuing.

Turns out what MAD means is that nobody will ever use nukes in war. That's all. The NWO is a green hippie. It doesn't want a nuclear wasteland. So its minions and flunkies won't use nukes. They'll posture and sabre rattle. But that's apparently it. And so Russia can invade, drive tanks in, hit cities with missiles, the works, and, well, no MAD.

So debate over, bitches. Nukes fail to prevent war.

Any questions?