60 likes | 186 Vues
M.A.D. Vs. Non-Violence. By: Grant Christensen. Mutually Assured Destruction. Mutually Assured Destruction – A military theory of nuclear deterrence holding that neither side will attack the other if both sides are guaranteed to be totally destroyed in the conflict.
E N D
M.A.D. Vs. Non-Violence By: Grant Christensen
Mutually Assured Destruction • Mutually Assured Destruction – A military theory of nuclear deterrence holding that neither side will attack the other if both sides are guaranteed to be totally destroyed in the conflict. • In other words, neither side will fight each other because each side knows the other can fight back just as hard.
Mutually Assured Destruction • The Cold War is perfect example of M.A.D. • Both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. demonstrated M.A.D. • Each nation had Weapons of Mass Destruction which could be used against each other. • The fear of MAD was the best way to secure peace, rather than threatening a limited nuclear exchange from which one side might hope to survive with an advantage.
Non-Violence • Gandhi's great achievement was to evolve and practice a non-violent method for conflict resolution. • Although Gandhi strived for this his efforts were not always sucessful.
Non-Violence • Gandhi eventually believed that by recruiting local people to defend the Empire he could impress the British with Indians’ loyalty (by having an “army”) and thus earn independence. • By his actions in doing this he used a form of M.A.D.
My Opinion • M.A.D. is a more logical choice. • Although Gandhi wanted Non-Violent protests, his efforts were sometimes unsuccessful. • In a M.A.D. scenario each side knows the other and can fight back just as hard. • So each side agrees to not fight each other.