Mutually Assured Destruction is not MAD/insane enough

The following applies to many things including military actions, economic actions, the building of new tech, and gametheory in general.

All military actions should be done equally to 2 targets:
* The chosen target, for a well thought out reason.
* A random target, for purely gametheory reason, which is proven to everyone to be random.

Math theory and its tech implementation can prove to large groups that numbers they generate together could not have been chosen or predicted by any subset of those groups, so it is practical that the world could trust a certain way of together generating a number results in randomness we can trust with our lives. And that is what we should trust it with more than we trust MAD with our lives.

I trust MAD to do what is logical at each moment, but since everyone knows so much about what is logical, it allows them to only act to prevent bad things happening to themself and certain others, which contradicts the theory of MAD that it is Mutual between everyone that we would all be destroyed, depending on the size of the military action which may be just a bullet all the way up to extinction.

I do not see the madness. It is not insane. Its logical. The problem is Humans are not entirely logical. We do things for insane reasons sometimes. MAD should be a gametheory which they understand. MAD should have true madness, and nothing is more mad than acting for no reason at all. A madman may kill anyone without warning, so we are all motivated to keep madmen in the madhouses or other forms of control.

If every military action was equally on 2 targets of the same type, 1 chosen and 1 random target as proven random to the world through near lightspeed internet, then there is no such thing as a neutral country or "not my problem" because under the rules of the provably higher MADNESS, an attack on 1 of us is literally statistically an attack on all of us, the very definition of MAD.

MAD is what protects us, that we are mutually assured of all being destroyed if we allow anyone to start such a process that escalates. So the question we should ask is, is MAD still the major influence in military actions around the world? If not, then isnt it likely that Locally Assured Destruction (LAD) could escalate after some time without the world noticing, especially with new abilities being invented so often these days?

The true madness of violence is what protects us from it. I dont feel safe in a world where violence makes logical sense as the permanent model of how things work. Please, learn to be truly mad in reactions to other madness. The insane side of people cant be countered with a well thought out plan that isnt itself at least in part truly insane.

It would also be good if guns and other tools of violence could be replaced for the most part with things which have the same effect of temporary neutralizing of a target's actions or movements, without actually harming them. For example, why do we allow police to carry guns and shoot people for running away? They work for us. Have them shoot a net or some kind of foam that hardens around a person. But thats a different subject. You're either MAD or you're less than MAD.

Also on the subject of madness, I have a question for those who are considering killing others for not believing a certain religion. The purpose of this question is to help them maximize the longterm number of those nonbelievers killed and minimize the need to kill people right now. The question is: Does your god want those of the believing descendants of nonbelievers to also be killed or prevented from ever being born? For example, if you had a time machine would you go back and kill your grandfather for being a nonbeliever, then in effect do you believe that nothing you have done or will do in the world should happen and that you should have never been born? At each moment, you have the same choice to kill nonbelievers before any of their believer descendants exist. If your religion is as great as you believe, then isnt it likely that many such descendants of nonbelievers would see it the same way, as it is common around the world to rebel against your parents or think on your own? Have you killed as many nonbelievers as you could? If someone had killed your nonbeliever grandfather, then wouldnt you not be here at all to kill todays nonbelievers? So isnt killing nonbelievers that are still young enough to have kids reducing the number of nonbelievers who could be killed later by their believer descendants?