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

In other words, neither side will fight each other because each side knows the other can fight back just as hard.

Mutually Assured Destruction

The 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-Violence Gandhi'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-Violence Gandhi 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 Opinion M.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.