MAD - OC vs CC, the nuclear option

This is a discussion on MAD - OC vs CC, the nuclear option within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Under the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction the United States attempted to deter Soviet attack by visibly and openly being well armed, particularly with ...

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: MAD - OC vs CC, the nuclear option

  1. #1
    Member Array Fenris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    124

    MAD - OC vs CC, the nuclear option

    Under the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction the United States attempted to deter Soviet attack by visibly and openly being well armed, particularly with nuclear weapons. The prevailing wisdom was that no one would launch a nuclear strike if they knew the other side had the ability to respond in force.

    Even the "appearance" of weakness was viewed as inviting attack. The idea of deliberately appearing to be disarmed while secretly being armed to the teeth would have been considered insanely reckless.

    You can neither "win" a nuclear war nor a gun fight. At best you can survive. I would rather avoid either one.

    Smarter men than I, thought open deterrence was vastly superior to tactical surprise. It kept millions safe for many decades and defeated an Evil Empire.

    Who am I to argue with that kind of success.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    While I will have to disagree with you that stockpiling nuclear weapons was a good idea, I like the parallel that MAD gives regarding citizen carry.

    I have long believed that there would ultimately be much less crime (and possibly no terrorism) in a society where the vast majority of people were known by everyone to be armed.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  4. #3
    me
    me is offline
    Senior Member Array me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Shanandoah Valley VA
    Posts
    1,015
    I see a different distinction here. Those controlling the nuclear weapons would not have initially injured by those of the other country.

    If you are talking about OC in a Large Quantity of friends and family who will defend each other this ministration works. However, I do not see it as working in a One on One, reactive situation because you and I don't have 30 min-1 hr to get the shot off after the initial shot from our enemy.
    Mark

    "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

    -James Earl Jones

  5. #4
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,237
    Open Carry Issues & Discussions Discussion regarding open carry in those States where it is legal to do so. This is not a place to debate the virtues of open vs concealed carry.
    From the header of this sub-forum, pay attention to the bold text above...




    *Note I'm leaving this thread "In the open" to deter any such further posts....

    Hey, it's not a bad idea after all.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nuclear warfare in ancient India?
    By JOHNSMITH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 4th, 2010, 12:45 AM
  2. Nuclear Handgun?
    By DrLewall in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 08:18 AM
  3. Surviving a Nuclear Attack on Washinton DC
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 5th, 2005, 05:01 PM