Answer:
U.S.-Soviet arms race
Step-by-step explanation:
Historians refer to the nuclear arms race of the Cold War as an example of Mutual Assured Destruction since it was clear to both the United States and the Soviet Union that if attacked the other, then it would ultimately lead to total destruction for both.
By the early 1950s both the Soviet Union and the West were making impressive technological strides in what American futurist Herman Kahn called “the Model T era” of atomic warfare.
To many Western strategists, the development of the hydrogen bomb with its incredible killing potential spelled the end of conventional ground warfare.
Despite the example of Korea, the next war, they reasoned, would be fought by the thermonuclear giants, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
Such a holocaust could only be avoided by a strategy of nuclear deterrence, and the development of a sizable nuclear arsenal would provide the cornerstone of U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” defense policy.
Of the massive stockpiles of weapons that the U.S. and the Soviet Union would go on to acquire, Winston Churchill famously quipped, “If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.”
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.