MAD or “mutually-assured destruction” is truly mad. The idea that a nuclear strike by one nation must result in worldwide Armageddon is insane. This theory of the Cold War, which cost untold billions in expenditures on weapons that have never been used, posits that the United States had to respond to any launch of then-Soviet nuclear weapons with a massive retaliatory strike. Surely a policy that guarantees absolute annihilation is without any merit.

Except for the fact that it worked.

The period from 1945 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the longest period of peace between great powers since the advent of the concept of “great powers.” If you substitute the successor state, Russia, the world is at 78 years and counting. Until Russia invaded Ukraine, peace in Europe lasted from 77 years, with only the relatively contained Yugoslav civil war breaking the peace. (READ MORE from Keith Naughton: Another GOP Fail: The Free Ride for Ukraine Nobody Will Take)

Yes, there was a “Cold War” of hostility, espionage, and occasional proxy conflicts but there was no “hot war.” Besides, such conflicts and proxy wars punctuated times of peace for centuries. The world has experienced a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity — due in no small part to the deterrent effect of MAD. In sum, MAD was not so mad after all.

But the doctrine was detested by many, sometimes based on reasonable concerns over breakdowns in communication, conflicting goals, technological problems, etc. But more often on the superficial analysis in the above paragraph. Emanating mostly from the left, the only way forward was unilateral disarmament in the hope that the authoritarian, imperialist, human rights-abusing Soviets would respond in-kind. As Vladimir Lenin might say, useful idiots gotta useful idiot.

The collapse of the Soviet Union during the hawkish Reagan-Bush years was a humiliation for the nuclear freeze peaceniks. It turned out that unilateral disarmament does not work, and peace really does come through strength — even The Simpsons agreed. With the threat of nuclear war receding and MAD less relevant, the left had to come up with a new doctrine. While their new doctrine is not as absurd as capitulation, it is close.

The Fallacy of  ‘Proportional Response’

The new thinking in Democratic foreign policy circles is the so-very-sophisticated “proportional response.” The idea is to apply principles of criminal justice and ethics to international relations by making punishment fit the crime. It should be easy and civilized, right? Taking over 200 years of American jurisprudence, founded in traditions of the Enlightenment, generally accepted by the wider society, and enforced by the coercive power of the American federal system.

Forget that the American context is very different from most of the world. Forget that the nations that engage in genocide, sponsor terrorism, abuse human rights, and attack other countries are the ones that reject American principles and the premise of the legitimacy of American intervention. Forget that there is no consistent set of punishments. And forget that the elites in the offending countries have an entirely different set of incentives and values. (READ MORE: Ignoring Russian History Is Costly)

And these are the smart people in the Democratic Party?

But the fabulism of the left is just the tip of the iceberg. The foundational problem is a combination of proportional punishment’s inefficacy and its counterproductivity. Yes, this supposedly sophisticated, just policy makes things worse.

Proportional punishment only works when the target of the punishment recognizes the penalty as real punishment. To put it more prosaically, no parent would ever punish an errant child denying that child lima beans and brussels sprouts for dinner. This fact is utterly lost on the foreign policy establishment in the United States and Europe. 

Case in point: After the Russian seizure of Crimea and eastern parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama Administration and the European Union imposed a “proportional response” of limited sanctions against Russia. By 2015, Team Obama was doing handsprings over the drop in Russian GDP, crowing about how effective sanctions were. Too bad Putin could not care less. Authoritarians like Putin simply push the costs of sanctions onto the rest of society. And this is a consistent pattern. None of the “proportional” economic sanctions against Venezuela, Syria, Russia, or Iran have altered their reckless and anti-American behavior in any way. 

Despite the claims of multicultural thinking, Western leaders remain incredibly narrow-minded and parochial when dealing with authoritarians. Liberal Western leadership imposes sanctions that would be difficult, if not impossible, in Western democracies but are of little consequence to police states where public opinion is neutered through force or reduced via buying off key parts of the population.

In addition, such regimes by their very nature do not and will not conform to Western norms of international behavior — and that means smuggling, bribery, front companies, money laundering, and theft. While sanctions can be costly and inconvenient, that cost has clearly been worth it to nations sanctioned by the West. 

Not a single sanctioned nation has come to the negotiating table and cut a legitimate deal with the West. Iran cut a deal — which was mostly a giveaway by the Obama Administration — but promptly cheated. And authoritarian nations have shown a remarkable willingness to absorb poverty to pursue their political goals. The West fails to understand that impoverishment can be a political benefit to these regimes. Poor, desperate people have few ambitions beyond food. If the government controls the security services, any rebellion can be suppressed. North Korea is a prime example — Kim Jon Un is willing to accept famine for his nuclear program.

Proportional Response Empowers Your Opponent

Worse than ineffective, proportional response hands the initiative to your enemies. To understand this fact, you do not have to understand geopolitics or spend ten years in the State Department, you just need to know basic human nature and a bit of game theory.

When a nation announces a policy of proportional response, its enemies only need to figure out what that nation thinks is proportional and then whether they are willing to accept that price. As a result, the enemies now have the initiative. They can control the tempo of hostilities based on the losses they are willing to absorb. (READ MORE: Israel Fights, Too Many Democrats Rage)

We have seen this pattern starting with the Obama Administration. Aggressive, violent regimes in Russia, Syria, and Iran all have pursued their political goals at their own pace. Their aggression goes through phases of activity and passivity, gauging the American response, absorbing and counteracting each proportional response and then moving forward. Even today, Iran is using its proxies to stage sporadic attacks on American troops in Iraq. The “proportional response” is similar sporadic attacks on these proxies. This is a price the Iranians are more than willing to pay — as a result, the proportional response only ensures that such attacks will not end.

The principle of proportional response is like most ideas from the left. They are all good sound bites and make for snarky bumper stickers, but never work in practice. The ascendancy of proportional response under Obama made the world less safe and its practice under Biden has directly led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Ukraine, Russia, and Israel. But never mind for the left, what matters is appearances, bad results are for others to clean up.