M.A.D. Vs. Non-Violence

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    22-Feb-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    29
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of M.A.D. Vs. Non-Violence

M.A.D. Vs. Non-Violence

M.A.D. Vs. Non-ViolenceBy: Grant Christensen

Mutually Assured DestructionMutually 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 DestructionThe 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-ViolenceGandhi'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-ViolenceGandhi 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 OpinionM.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.