MAD (Mutual assured destruction)

[Xzylvador]

For those who don't know what it means, from wikipedia:

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome, in this case, nuclear annihilation.

Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't really apply to Civ, but it should?

In real life, MAD comes down to: if Russian satellites notice American ICBM's being prepped for launch, they prep theirs. If Russia notices America launching ICBM's and their trajectory seems to be their nation, they have plenty of time to launch their own. Once launched, they do their job indepentantly. This is possible because it takes some hours for a missile to fly across the globe.
(Oversimplification, I know; subs and bombers make this a lot trickier, but you understand the point.)

In Civ this isn't the case. I'm aware that a turn in the game is a year or so (depending on the age and speed setting). But I do not have the option of launcing my nukes in response to someone elses.
Anyone else think that instead of immediately exploding, there should be a 1 turn delay on nukes? So when A launches their bombs, B gets the message "Sir, our military advisors have detected A's nukes heading towards us! Hopefuly, our missile defense system will take them down, but we should retaliate with our own nuclear weapons now we still can!"
--Maybe, for the real peaceloving guys, an option that if B decides not to launch their own nukes in retaliation, Civ A gets the message at the beginning of their turn saying "Sire, B has decided not to launch their nuclear weapons at our cities. It's not too late to abort these bombardments and self-destruct our nuclear weapons!"

 

[Rexflex]

Someday I would like to see Civ step away from the turn system altogether, and each and every action you put in place takes a certain amount of time, and so that there can be responses and counter resposes, etc.

But MAD has another significant problem in the game. And that problem is with the player rather than the AI.

It is easy enough to program in an aversion to an AI from using its nukes against an opponent if they know the opponent also has enough nukes that it can let fly before it's own cities gets hit, to give the AI a really bad day.

But the human player is removed from the effects of a nuclear war. They don't really lose anything like they would in reality. In effect, a human player in Civ is potentially and quite often the nightmare equivalent of a sociopathic leader in reality that is willing to dispose of human lives on a scale that makes all the wars we have seen in reality pale in significance. MAD is nothing to that human player. Unlike the computer in the movie "Wargames", a player doesn't end a Civ session involving nukes saying "it's a strange game. the only winning move is not to play."

And there may lie the complete solution: that not only would a nuclear attack allow the other player to respond in kind before getting hit, but if enough nukes hit the player then the player loses the game outright, and the same with the AI. This would also require the AI to care about winning, but I understand we are getting that in Civ V.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

The AI doesn't seem to have any interest in taking into account Mutually Assured Destruction, but I know I certainly do...once nuclear weapons are in play I very rarely make war on other superpowers. I'd rather not have nearly 6,000 years worth of civ-building be destroyed by some nukes.

 

[KMRblue1027]

The problem with implementing a true MAD system is it would completely kill warfare after nuclear fission. Only the insane declare war on another nuclear power unless they can kill them within one or two turns preventing them from making an effective nuclear strike. If there was a MAD system you would have to win before the modern era or win a peaceful victory. The current system you can prevent destruction by winning before they can react.

 

[Schuesseled]

Just to point out, MAD isn't restricted just to nuclear weapons, it is just that is simply what the Cold war came down too. And that was the weaponary used in the "MAD" strategum of late last century. I believe we still have Nukes in all major world powers and still use "MAD" to ensure none of the major world powers go to war with each other. Sort of peace, lovely.

But MAD can be achieved with things other than nukes, Bio-Chemical Warfare for example was around slightly before the Nukes and well... we could have used the arsenals we had to wipe the world out 12 times over. For some reason fortunately during the World Wars when these indeed existed they weren't used to End the World.

But other weapons... could end a world. Some sci-fi ones for sure, not that they exist but I'm sure someone has tried to make them lol. Like an earth-quake weapon, or something.

But anyway, as others have said, if this comes into practice... well yeah it could work, but it could also lead to less wars in the late period of the game. Perhaps it could exist like so.

If you have a nuclear arsenal and an enemy has a nuclear arsenal when you enter diplomacy with them you can threaten them with Mutually Assured Distruction or visa versa, at which point they will enter into permenant peace with you upon accepting, if however the MAD policy is refused all Nukes on both sides launch and war is started (all cities on both empires get hit with a nuke), the AI for example would do this is they don't like you, and well the AI will offer MAD to anyone who they aren't massively friendly with to ensure peace or war either way, and well a human can accept it if thier a nut ball .

Would be an easy way to implement MAD without risking permanent peace with everybody from everybody.

And I'd say the MAD option doesn't even come up unless both empires have built a national wonder say called, "M.A.D Device" which is basically an array on nuclear launch silo's that will launch to fully nuke an enemy if they also have a M.A.D device. Otherwise it does nothing.

Note : With this you could still declare normal wars and use nukes within them. M.A.D is simply an option for the INSANE!. Whereby you threaten it against anybody who will talk to you, so if someone declares war on you and refuses to talk to you, you cant M.A.D them till they will talk to you again, whereby they will declare peace or youll both be severly crippled. Till then... normal nuke warfare. Note : You can also M.A.D someone whos not at war with you, not a permant ally though. That wouldnt make sense. , Put simply if you have the option to declare war or declare peace you will have a new option if applicable to declare MAD and you'd have to be to do it.

Lol at the Wargames reference btw, perhaps that little quote could be used in the Civipedia on the M.A.D device.

 

[DonQuigleone]

You should also be able to build a doomsday device a la Dr. Strangelove.

 

[tom2050]

Perhaps they should add MAED in also (Mutually Assured Economic Destruction).

If they had both of these in, the endgame would be horrible. Get involved in a major war, and the world economy collapses, along with everything else.

 

[LDiCesare]

MAD was already implemented in Call to Power 2. It works, Civ could reuse that if Firaxis (or a modder) wanted to.

 

[bite]

Just to point out, MAD isn't restricted just to nuclear weapons, it is just that is simply what the Cold war came down too. And that was the weaponary used in the "MAD" strategum of late last century. I believe we still have Nukes in all major world powers and still use "MAD" to ensure none of the major world powers go to war with each other. Sort of peace, lovely.

But MAD can be achieved with things other than nukes, Bio-Chemical Warfare for example was around slightly before the Nukes and well... we could have used the arsenals we had to wipe the world out 12 times over. For some reason fortunately during the World Wars when these indeed existed they weren't used to End the World.

As someone whom works in the tertiary field of International Relations let me just indulge a quick interruption to the discussion.

While you are correct that the term MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is not just in regards to Nuclear Weapons, you were incorrect in your assertion that any other weapon/s that have or do exist can be considered dangerous enough to be classed as causing MAD.

For sheer destructive power, nothing beats nuclear weapons, for lasting degrading effects on people and the environment, nothing beats nuclear weapons, for the limited number needed to cause worldwide destruction nothing beats nuclear weapons (it is theorised even a relativity small nuclear exchange, say between India and Pakistan for example, would cause widespread environmental degradation across the world, by their influence on weather patterns).

For MAD to exist you need unquestionable deterrence (i.e. a guarantee that even if you can strike your opponent first in secret, they will have enough remaining weapons remaining to destroy your civilisation) this just simply dose not exist at the moment for Biological or Chemical weapons.

This is not to say that Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons are not devastating because they are, there is a reason we have banned them, but are they MAD, no.


Now back on topic, I don;t think Civ has ever done the nuke justice but I am okay with Gameplay > Realism

 

[Ahriman]

The problem with implementing a true MAD system is it would completely kill warfare after nuclear fission.

This. Cold wars get boring fast.

 

[globalempire]

here is the problem when i nuke in game, i dont care.

no one is actually going to die, the world is not actually going to be inhospitable to higher organisms for 100 000 years, im not actually killing every living being on the planet, adn destroying the only known source of life in the universe.

in diplomacy you should eb able to tell other civs that tehy should not be able to build certain untis, so you could say, we demand that you dont build ICBM's, that si basically what nuclear powers do, they say you dont get to build Nuke plants or nuke weapons cause if you do we kill you.

basically i think if there is a nuclear war it should be more devastating.

realistically, it should blight the land, spread fallout causing immense unhealthiness and making terrain basically wothless, destroy improvements in a tile, tiles affected should be blown up, make blast radius bigger,, huge diplo hit adn on and on.

really it should turn the world into a wasteland if you fire enough, then you should be able to load a post-apocalytic mod

 

[muxec]

MAD is just a hypothesis. Fortunately it was never proven nor rejected empirically.

P.S: Realism is overrated.

 

[Schuesseled]

@ bite

Well I didnt say that the Nukes weren't the best weapons currently made for MAD. But if a virus was engineered and sent into a population, which im sure their have been such virus's made. Which would than wipe out 99% of the population, that kind of bio weaponary would be sufficient to be used in MAD. But you are right that a nuke is more devestating.

 

[Gliese 581]

They could implement espionage where you have the option of trying to locate and if possible destroy the enemies' nuclear arsenal.
Also if a successfull nuclear counterattack hit you they could make it devastating enough that any nonaffected world power might take advantage of it and wipe you out.
At the very least I like the idea of a 1 turn delay to allow for a counterattack for icbms. For tactical nukes via subs or planes you'd need to keep track of the enemy fleet and navy. Also you could get bonus diplo leverage out of having your own subs and planes as a potential threat even if your landbased armies are wiped.

 

[Craxymaxy]

You should also be able to build a doomsday device a la Dr. Strangelove.

creepily enough the Russian's actually built something similar, its called dead hand and has only recently been openly talked about

 

[Craxymaxy]

Oh, and i like the one turn delay, but i think that the nukes should completely wipe out cities when they hit them and cause refugee flows to the nearest cities, but that gets a little over-complicated

 

[Provost Martin]

Not a bad idea. Sometimes I felt that nuclear warfare in Civ4 was too frequent once warheads had been acquired. As soon as someone attacked mayhem ensued. That's not how it's supposed to work.

 

[deanej]

The reason we had MAD was because in the cold war there were two powers on a relatively even footing militarily. We actually live in a far more dangerous world today, since there are many more competing powers with nukes.

 

[Schuesseled]

For those who don't know what it means, from wikipedia:


Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't really apply to Civ, but it should?

In real life, MAD comes down to: if Russian satellites notice American ICBM's being prepped for launch, they prep theirs. If Russia notices America launching ICBM's and their trajectory seems to be their nation, they have plenty of time to launch their own. Once launched, they do their job indepentantly. This is possible because it takes some hours for a missile to fly across the globe.
(Oversimplification, I know; subs and bombers make this a lot trickier, but you understand the point.)

In Civ this isn't the case. I'm aware that a turn in the game is a year or so (depending on the age and speed setting). But I do not have the option of launcing my nukes in response to someone elses.
Anyone else think that instead of immediately exploding, there should be a 1 turn delay on nukes? So when A launches their bombs, B gets the message "Sir, our military advisors have detected A's nukes heading towards us! Hopefuly, our missile defense system will take them down, but we should retaliate with our own nuclear weapons now we still can!"
--Maybe, for the real peaceloving guys, an option that if B decides not to launch their own nukes in retaliation, Civ A gets the message at the beginning of their turn saying "Sire, B has decided not to launch their nuclear weapons at our cities. It's not too late to abort these bombardments and self-destruct our nuclear weapons!"

I can't be entirely sure but i don't think nukes get destroyed by other nukes, therefore you can still counterattack, if i m wrong then yeah that shouldnt happen.

 

[deanej]

Despite the propaganda spread by the US military, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop a missile attack, weather they be nukes or otherwise.