# Ponder the Unthinkable (p30) The New M.A.D.



## Winston (Nov 5, 2016)

Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss.

For decades during the Cold War, N.A.T.O. and The Warsaw Pact amassed an unimaginable stockpile of nuclear weapons.  The chief protagonists, The United States and the U.S.S.R. each had an arsenal that could destroy the enemy many times over.  They used terms like "Overkill" and "Megadeath".  But the reason these weapons were never used was the M.A.D. doctrine.  This acronym stands for Mutually Assured Destruction.

The theory was simple, and it did work.  Any use of nuclear weapons would escalate.  Both sides would hurry to deploy as many weapons as quickly as possible, in a "use it or lose it" scramble.  Knowing that their opponent would thoroughly destroy them, neither could not initiate the use of nukes.  

Since the collapse of the USSR, the world had momentarily become somewhat safer.  There has been the concern that a WMD such as a nuke could fall into the hands of extremists, but this has not yet come to pass.  And if / when it does, the loss of life will be massive, but localized and recoverable.  The world has been in peril since "The Genie" was let out of the bottle.  But we've been managing the danger for over seven decades now.

Ironically, a portion of the peril we now face can be traced back the facetious "peace dividend" of the 1990's.  During that time, US policy dictated that we help The Russians dismantle their old nuclear arsenal.  The State Department saw a political opportunity.  The Russian military saw an opportunity to get rid of old, inaccurate and unreliable weapons.  And, of course, the entire time Russians planned on building much better ones.  And they have.

Both sides now posses numerically fewer weapons.  But they are also much better.  It is no small irony that Vladimir Putin has a stronger "deterrent" than Brezhnev could dream of.  And the US "sold them the rope".  The world is no safer from the threat of nuclear Armageddon now than it was in 1960.  "Peace dividend".  Right.

And now for the bad news.

Let's temporarily forget China nuking India, or India nuking Pakistan, or Israel nuking Iran...  The regional conflicts may or may not escalate.  Sure, the radiation released would poison the entire planet for decades, but only a few hundred million would probably perish.  That's just small potatoes.  

Just when you think things could not get any worse, we have a new MAD.  Only this time we're talking about a cyber apocalypse.  

For those of you ignorant about this looming catastrophe, here's a quick bit to get you up to speed.  We live in an interconnected world.  Most of us only see this through the lens of Facebook or Twitter.  But under the everyday internet is another internet.  That one controls everything from banks, grocery stores, gas stations and even our military.   There are numerous players now on the world stage that can, and may, eventually drop a "Cyber Bomb" on the whole thing.  You may or may not miss your Instagram.  But you will miss gasoline, electricity and food.  

The trite question always is "Who would do such a thing?".  Well, ask yourself "Who would drop a ten megaton nuke on a civilian target?"  It is the same game.  The same MAD rules.  Only now it is more complex, and harder to control.

The results of a cyber bomb would be just as deadly as an atomic war.  It would just take a lot longer for half the world's population to die from starvation than to be instantly incinerated.  
Of course, they are not mutually exclusive either.  A cyber attack would make an excellent prelude to a full shooting war.  As a matter of fact, a madman could see a strategy where use of a cyber attack, and maybe a few EMP's could make a nuclear war "winnable".  Not so much of a MAD scenario as simply Assured Destruction.

A recent policy statement was released in the western press (meant to be seen by the Russians and every other adversary).  The US Defense Department touted it's prowess at cyber attacks, and said that any attack on US systems would be met with a "Massive counter strike."

Does this sound familiar?  At all?    

The Mushroom Cloud scared an entire generation.  This should be viewed with equal fear and loathing.  The "stockpile" now are a mass of skilled, underpaid hackers that freelance for fun and profit, or work dutifully for a government.  It's just hard to sell to the average citizen.  They think that they will just lose e Bay or Amazon for a few days.  The internet is at the center of a "single point failure".  We would eventually recover.  But the world would be forever changed.

In my Ponder the Unthinkable series, I have admonished, and pleaded with everyone to be ready when this, or other scenarios unfold.  Full disclosure:  I live across from and work at a major Naval facility.  If a full scale nuclear war breaks out, I'll be one of the lucky ones and evaporate first.  But it's all that messy grey space below that extreme I'm addressing. Maybe the North Koreans will screw our stuff up for a few days so they can attempt a reunification.  Or the Chinese might launch a massive DDOS prior to invading Taiwan.  Or, the Russians may just decide to mess with our election... because they can.  And they want to see our reaction (that's called a Reconnaissance-In Force).

Regardless of who, or when, here's the "what".  You need to plan on taking care of yourself, and your family not days, but weeks or months.   Will there be a government plan for recovery?  Of course.  Will it get to you in time?  Maybe.  Wanna bet your life on a maybe?

If I'm wrong, you end up buying some supplies and learn some skills that you can eventually use later.  If I'm right, at least you have a shot a surviving.  You may never be able to use your Amazon Prime account again, but there are more important things in life.  Like, living?


----------



## TKent (Nov 8, 2016)

Hello there,

Great piece! 

- For starters, the writing was so clean that I became totally immersed in the article and forgot that I was going to critique. So I didn't focus on the details the first time, which means there were no major speed bumps for me. Further, I liked your pace and general style. This is an article that I'd stop to read.

- I happened to have been up late reviewing edits last night, and interestingly enough, there were a ton of Cold War related acronyms, including M.A.D. I subscribe to Chicago Manual of Style so I was referencing the acronym section, in fact. The manuscript I was reviewing used the CMS method of "no periods," for acronyms except for M.A.D. I am pretty sure that the reason was that the editor wanted MAD to be read as three separate letters vs. read as the word MAD. But I was wondering if AP or some other style (I realize that CMS is used primarily with fiction) says to use the periods the first time an acronym is used such as you did with NATO and USSR? If not, then I'd suggest you remove them.

- For this sentence, since it is a complete sentence, would you have four periods (a full stop and the ellipsis to denote a pause)?  I always overthink this decision, I admit.



> Let's temporarily forget China nuking India, or India nuking Pakistan, or Israel nuking Iran...



- Is "stockpile" used as a singular noun? If so, should it be "is" instead of "are"?



> The "stockpile" now are a mass of skilled



- Period inside quotes (assuming this is American punctuation). Even if British, I think these would use single quotes and you'd need to be consistent



> "single point failure". & "winnable". &  "what". vs. "Massive counter strike."



- Also, why is "Massive" capitalized above? 

Thanks for sharing your writing!


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Nov 12, 2016)

Very interesting and engaging stuff, Winston. You've really got me thinking here and that's a definite win when it comes to writing and speaks of its effectiveness.

Thanks for sharing this. It was good.


----------



## sas (Nov 17, 2016)

deleted as I got carried away responding to content and forgot a workshop


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 29, 2016)

Winston, probably the cleanest example of your writing to date,  Flows well, captivates, and demonstrates the art of Critical Thinking and it's application in making a point that sways a reader.  Well done!


----------

