″ but it demonstrably did not prevent circumstances that could lead to a nuclear war.”
Do you mean “it didn’t eliminate all circumstances”, or do you mean “there were no circumstances that it prevented”?
I think you’ve pointed out a flaw in my argument. The statement “MAD made nuclear war impossible” is demonstrably false—nuclear war could still happen with MAD. The statement “MAD prevented nuclear war” could still be true—nuclear war may have taken place (and probably would have been more likely) in the absence of MAD, and therefore MAD did prevent a nuclear war.
″ but it demonstrably did not prevent circumstances that could lead to a nuclear war.” Do you mean “it didn’t eliminate all circumstances”, or do you mean “there were no circumstances that it prevented”?
I meant it didn’t eliminate all circumstances.
I think you’ve pointed out a flaw in my argument. The statement “MAD made nuclear war impossible” is demonstrably false—nuclear war could still happen with MAD. The statement “MAD prevented nuclear war” could still be true—nuclear war may have taken place (and probably would have been more likely) in the absence of MAD, and therefore MAD did prevent a nuclear war.