The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the nuclear arms race has always fascinated me at a macabre level. What blows my mind is that politically, there were all these “rules” that were created to determine the potential end of the world. At some point the rule book was written, mutually assured destruction was a deterrent but it’s just so bizarre that these things were decided upon. At first it was bombers, then missile silos and submarines all at the ready to unleash a world ending strike. But how did we get to that point? How did the world leaders get to the point where nuclear strike was a option that was, at least logically at some level, “reasonable”? Big ticket incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis are somewhat easy to understand, but what about Stanislav Petrov preventing a full scale war? Out of seeming nowhere the Soviets thought the US launched missiles and that it would just happen that particular day with no significant reason why, just that one day the US thought “well boys today is the day let’s go ahead and launch” and that seemed reasonable to the Soviets...it is just so unbelievable that this thinking was more or less normalized. So my long winded explanation done, is there a book, or multiple books, that investigates that concept? I’m not sure Command and Control delves into that aspect, I have a copy of that book but haven’t read it yet. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated, thank you!
If you're looking for a comprehensive approach to how nuclear strategy and warfighting thinking evolved, the answer is, Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. It charts how official doctrines went from "the bomb is just another weapon to destroy cities" through many different phases (including but not limited to Mutual Assured Destruction, which was, surprisingly to most people, just a blip in the 1960s). Along with it I would recommend Nina Tannenwald's The Nuclear Taboo, which is about why American presidents in particular rejected nuclear weapons use after World War II — even though many of their doctrines were in favor of using them, and there were situations in which they could be used against non-nuclear powers without imagining similar reprisals (the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc.).
Daniel Ellsberg’s “The Doomsday Machine” is excellent. It’s something of a tell-all from the perspective of somebody who asked many of your questions in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. As a member of the RAND corporation, he investigated the nature of America’s nuclear policy from within the establishment of the military-industrial complex
I would like to add to the list of suggestions:
"Arsenals of Folly" by Richard Rhodes is a well-written, accessible book on the Cold War nuclear arms race, drawing on perspectives and declassified documents from both sides. He takes the angle of political history though, but focussed on the nuclear policies.
The second work that I found useful was "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" by Lawrence Freedman. This is a more specialized publication, focussing entirely on the emergence and development of mainly Western nuclear military strategy and how nuclear weapons impacted Western military doctrine. I read the third edition though, which came from 2003. Earlier editions were published in the 1980's so these may be outdated.
I’d also recommend The Second Nuclear Age, which talks a lot about how orthodox nuclear doctrine emerged, and the dangers of not revisiting these questions more now that nuclear weapons have proliferated to many smaller countries.