It's an interesting look into the philosophy of America vs the USSR: distributed and resilient decision-making vs extreme centralization.

The proto-internet was conceived in no small part as a nuke-tolerant command and control system allowing communication to continue even if, say, Chicago or Seattle (with its nearby ICBM-submarine pens) got glassed by thermonuclear weapons (route around damage). Responsibility and operational capability distributed to survive a number of locations removed from a command and control network. If you squint in a certain way, you can see a touch of democracy there.

On the other hand, the Soviet fail-deadly doctrine represents extreme totalitarian centralization where no external node is trusted: if the center goes down, that is considered complete failure and zero-sum "make sure the other side gets fully torched if we do" is the standing order.

I know this is an excessive interpretation of the sensibilities of the west vs the USSR, but I've always felt the two sides broader ideologies are encapsulated in their respective approaches to the impact of nuclear warfare.

However, thank goodness calmer heads prevailed in the USSR among the rank and file. See:

(Avoided triggering WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

(Avoided triggering WWIII during the height of the Cold War in the 80s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov