-
This is not "creative".  Those are the dictionary definitions of the terms "insurance" and "ensurance" as properly applied to "destruction".  If you don't understand that, fine, legitimate criticism, I'll write up "three man cell" and "bounty hunter" and then it will be easy to understand why "ensured" and "insured" are different - and why both differ from "assured".

The sentence you quote is absolutely neutral.  You just aren't familiar with the underlying theory of strike-back (e.g. submarines as employed in nuclear warfare) guiding the insurance, nor likely the three man cell structure that kept the IRA from being broken by the British.  If that's my fault, fine, I can fix that to explain.  But ther'es nothing "personal" or "creative" about it.

I'm tired of arguing with you.  Re: the other article, "multi-party" turns up plenty, and there is more use of "mutually" than "mutual".  If I were to apply your standard I'd be moving "Mutual Assured Destruction" to "talk" for not appealing to a Reagan voter's biases about its effectiveness, and for dropping the "ly".

There is a double standard in your edits.  If it comes from some US history book, like "peace movement" or 'M.A.D.' as defined in 1950, you like it, even if the definition is totally useless in 2002 and only of historical interest.  

If it makes any even-obvious connection or implication from the language chosen in multiple profession-specific terms, you consider it somehow non-neutral...  Gandhi thinks "eye for an eye" describes riots, death penalty, and war all at once, but you don't.  What do you know that Gandhi doesn't?

Guess what:  reality is not neutral.  Current use of terms is slightly more controversial.  Neutrality requires negotiation, and some willingness to learn.

This is your problem not mine.  You may dislike the writing, fine, that can be fixed.  But disregarding fundamental axioms of philosphy with names that recur in multiple phrases, or failing to make critical distinctions like 'insurance' versus 'assurance' versus 'ensurance' (which are made in one quote by an Air Force general in an in-context quote), is just a disservice to the reader.

If someone comes here to research a topic like MAD, they want some context, beyond history.

If this is a history book, fine, it's a history book.  But that wasn't what it was claimed to be...