The Cold War- Gandhi vs M.A.D

May 26, 2011

Shaking hands or arm wrestling? America vs Soviet Union. Cold War.

Peace is one of the most difficult topics to debate; whether non-violence is the way to go or not. That is the million dollar question; in hard situations should you go Gandhi or M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction). It’s so hard to pick a side because you have different perspectives and there are good reasons to support them both. The time period was a difficult with the Cold War going on. I’m on the fence on whether Gandhi or M.A.D is the best way to go in any situation.

Gandhi was a very influential person, he was very strong mentally and it was like no one or nothing could break him down. His philosophy of nonviolence was the most influential and insanely great

Gandhi as a child from India

way to fight back. Mohandas K. Gandhi showed just how powerful that by not fighting back is the best way to go, I mean, he helped India get out of British control. Gandhi’s way was so powerful, if you were to even put a gun up to his family or him, he wouldn’t bulge, you couldn’t break him. Some wonder about what Gandhi was thinking when he was going through this, if he was trying to stay cool-headed or if he was biting his tongue through all of this. No one can be positive, but in my perspective he was trying to keep himself cooled down and thinking of new ideas. He

Gandhi as a young man

studied law and different types of literature; he has faced a lot of different types of discrimination in his life but he has always just stood as the little guy not doing anything. Gandhi’s act does prove even by not fighting, you can win.

Mutually Assured Destruction is one of the most famous and used way since the beginning of man. To begin, what does M.A.D mean? Mutually Assured Destruction basically is a type of military strategy that is simply ‘I won’t attack you if you don’t attack me.’ The biggest way that this strategy was used was when the United States and Soviet Union were in the Cold War. Humans like to feel superior and dominant, and mostly clash with each other when in a disagreement. This strategy has proved to work, especially in countries that are at the same level with production, technology, education, etc. It helps with the invention rate because the countries are in an ‘armed race’ to be the most superior. It also helps the smaller or less superior countries become stronger and more on the map because they don’t want to be messed with. It brings new cultures, ideas, and even policies to a country. It may be risky, but it doesn’t sound bad; like when two football players are fighting over the same position, but are trying to

Drawing made to represent the cold war

be civil about it, not bad. It is the only way to take out psychotic people like Hitler who are so radical to where you can’t come into an agreement with,

            Even though both serve strong back up facts, don’t they both have a few flaws in them? For starters, Gandhi’s nonviolence act is pretty broad, but isn’t it a fighting strategy? Gandhi didn’t care as long as the country rose from domination of Britain. So isn’t what he argued and stood against a form of mental abuse or verbal abuse. Someone like Gandhi had to be confident, so his ways still hurt people; even if his family member was being tortured. He wouldn’t use a violent act to stop it, but wouldn’t that make him apart or the cause of the violence, and by not doing anything to stop it, you’re just as guilty as the murderer.  Now with the M.A.D way; you could basically classify that as a type of bullying. You are ‘fighting’ to be more superior than somebody or everybody, so how could

Gandhi at the time in his life where he started the most famous nonviolence movements

that be peaceful? M.A.D creates so much tension around the world and makes the little countries scared to be the weakest. M.A.D is also a very risky thing to do, not only are you having to put some trust into a country that is against and wants to beat you, it also endangers the citizens.

            Both strategies are strong ways to fight the power. Gandhi’s way would be classified as more of a humane and safe way; M.A.D way would be classified as the most general way that you can handle things with humans. This discussion would be one of the hardest to argue; something that I’d love to be on the side that not a lot of people are on. There are so many arguments and perspectives to which one is the better way to handle situations, that’s why I cannot decide the ‘better way.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: