If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby status.
My point is just that the concept of deterrence is ultimately based on the self-interest of the many many people who make up a nation and its military forces. Not just a few leaders.
A soldier disobeying a direct order from a Russian dictator has a pretty grim life expectancy. Soldiers generally have a very limited and distorted view of whatever broader situation they are in, and any first strike would likely be couched in a lot of optimism and/or desperation.
An officer saying "You need to launch this missile immediately to save your homeland, and if you don't do it you'll be shot in the head as a traitor", is not a trivial thing to say no to.
Sure but the officer has to be willing too. And just like the soldier, they have friends and family sitting under the threat of retaliation. A suicidal leader can’t personally threaten to shoot everyone in the head to get their way.
People don’t usually need training to want to protect their friends and family.
If you think the military successfully trains that out of people, you’re not very familiar with the military. Defending friends and family is one of strongest motivations for conformance to military discipline.
MAD works because no one wants to be the first to push the button. And as long as no one pushes it first, no one needs to push it second either.
I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.