I have a pretty important presentation to make for school with the title:"The MAD-Doctrine - Preventer of a 3rd World War?"
I started reading "Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, it´s Origins and Practice" Edited by Henry D.Sokolski to get into the topic but it is over 300 pages and I don´t know how much it will actually help me for my presentation. I also have read Wikipedia articels to get a better overview of the topic. Additionally I have seen "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser in the recommended books of this sub and consider buying it or finding it at a local library.
My understanding so far is that it is definetly a factor because the caused damage by a nuclear war would heavily outweigh any benefits of a war. Some argue that this would hold true without nuclear weapons but this claim seems to be only supported by vew for various reasons. I also read some critics that MAD could very easily be the start of a 3rd WW (rogue attacks , system failures etc.).
As a small bonus question: Where there any other conflicts since 1945 that could have escalated into a 3rd WW besides the Cold War?
For this presentation we are forced to dig a bit deeper than normally so I can´t use Wikipedia or the like and I also can´t just state my opinion as the presentation so I hope r/AskHistorians could help me find some good sources and information on this topic.
Edit:grammar
Hello there. Your question seems to be related to school work, so we just want to remind you, and any potential respondents, that our rules DO permit people to ask for help with their homework, so long as they are seeking clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself. This policy is further explained in this META Thread.
Additionally, while our users may be able to help you out here, we hope that you also will take the time to check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which should hopefully prove to be helpful for you as you continue in your research.
Wow, a lot to unpack there.
1.MAD came to be for a few reasons. The first is that the US entered the come war with nuclear weapons. The Russians had none, but they had the Red Army poised to strike Western Europe should the need arise. The only effective tool for smashing the Red Army was their abity to vaporize cities. Imagine someone holding a knife to your friends throat while you have a gun pointed at his head should he make a move. It was tense.
The Russians tested their first a-bomb in 1949. Before that the USSR could flex it's muscles and make threats, but the US still held the trump card and threatened to drop the bomb if its demands weren't met.
Once Russia has nukes either side could threaten to use them, but bombs were still on the small side and had to be dropped from a plane. It was around this time that the Korean War started. MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons.
As an aside, this whole time the US has a very small number of weapons. There are generals saying the US sbould strike now since we have the advantage and better delivery systems.
In 1960 both sides have ICBMs. Both sides can wipe out the other side with that bigger badder a hydrogen bomb. Those weapons wouldn't destroy a city, they would practicsally raze the damn thing and make it uninhabitable.
So now both the US and USSR are capable of destroying one another using a surprise attack. By the time they knew the missiles were coming it would be too late. Realizing this, both sides made it abundantly clear that even if side realized they were done they would still retaliate with their own missiles. This is what became known as MAD.
MAD meant that there was point in attacking, since no target was valuable enough to risk total annihilatoin. This meant that any conflict would need to be low intensity. Vietnam was messy, but it was not vital to the survival of either superpower.
If course both sides were prepared for a sneak attack. There were some close calls but cooler heads prevailed.
And fwiw, I believe MAD was the only real way to prevent a war between the two superpowers without disarmament.
But no event is truly inevitable. The Cuban missile Crisis saw a few men making choices that prevented a nuclear exchange.
Sources: Lewis, John. The Cold War, A New History.
Kozak, Warren. LeMay