> Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the ONLY reason for protracted peace at the global scale
you seem to derive that I think something along the line of "Equilibrium in nuclear abilities played no role in global stability during the cold war."
The answers to your rhetorical questions are of course all no. But do you truly think the huge size of our nuclear arsenals are a necessary feature for global stability nowadays ? If yes, could you explain to me why a smaller arsenal could not do the trick ?
I think a big enough nuclear fleet on bath sides has led to the first half-century in the history of europe without a major war.
I think it's also odd how politicians 'claim' that Iran/Korea/Belgium mustn't be allowed to get nuclear weapons because then they would be unstoppable. So MAD works against the USSR but not against Iran?
> Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the ONLY reason for protracted peace at the global scale
you seem to derive that I think something along the line of "Equilibrium in nuclear abilities played no role in global stability during the cold war."
The answers to your rhetorical questions are of course all no. But do you truly think the huge size of our nuclear arsenals are a necessary feature for global stability nowadays ? If yes, could you explain to me why a smaller arsenal could not do the trick ?