Obama in Prague echoes famous Cold War Speeches

[Mike Morin]

www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE5342FS20090405 (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE5342FS20090405)

No sane person wants nuclear weapons.

Of course, the ideal is no weapons at all, no violence, no aggression, no deceit, no dominance behavior, no exploitation, etc.

What is the meaning to you all about Obama's championing "the Velvet Revolution"? I qualify that as part of Reagan and the Capitalists stabbing Gorbachev and the Communists in the back as an outgrowth of Kissinger's "detente".

Do you think he is implying that Socialism is dead and that the world will gladly go on under US led and Militarily enforced Capitalism?

Could it be some poorly worded and/or partially and poorly reported olive branch?

Judging by Obama's actions thus far, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, his video to Iran, his misinformed posturing towards Korea, his domestic policy, one has to be very, very, very...skeptical about the intentions of the US Government and their Capitalist and Military bosses.

Glasnost lives?

When do we realize perestroika?


Mike Morin
peu

[Dimentio]

I think these terms have lost all significance and only has a ritualist symbology nowadays anyway.

[Sam_b]

I've just got back from a busy day in Prague. Today Wenceslas Square saw 2,000 people, of all backgrounds and ages, come togther to protest radar and missile base plans as part of Ne Zakladnam (www.nezakladnam.cz/en/ (http://www.nezakladnam.cz/en/)). There was a big rally before a march to Viserad in the south of the city, noisy and very political. The timing of this protest was intentionally meant to coincide with Obama's speech, and to put pressure on the American government to drop the base plans: especially since the last bill on the issue was voted down in the Czech Parliament and the government has lost a vote of no confidence. Surveys show that more than two-thirds of Czechs are against the plans for the radar.

Pictures to follow as soon as i've uploaded them!

[piet11111]

a world with no nuclear weapons what would that look like ?

well i imagine a world where country's are free to send their army's out to wage war because no serious immediate retaliation is possible.

yeah i can see why the american government would love that.

[Mike Morin]

I think these terms have lost all significance and only has a ritualist symbology nowadays anyway.

Please elaborate.

MM
peu

[Sam_b]

Here are a few snaps from today. Actually the first one is from the demo yesterday, also against NATO and the radars.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/DSCF0612.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/DSCF0634.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/DSCF0641.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/DSCF0644.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/DSCF0650.jpg

[Dimentio]

Please elaborate.

MM
peu

The ruling class uses such speeches to commemorate memes from times when they felt more self-assured in order to create a sense of unity in their ranks. In short, creating a myth.

Much like we are doing with past strikes, revolutions and so forth.

[Glorious Union]

Nuclear weapons are a threat to everybody, and is basicly a giant stoplight saying "nobody move!"

That is good in some ways, but bad in another. You can say that it stops major powers from going to war, but it walso makes imperialism much easier for those with nuclear weapons on their side.

[Patchd]

To be honest, I don't think any Liberal democracy would use nuclear weapons on another nuclear powerful nation, it simply would not be in their interests, if they too are struck with a nuclear weapon, it would ruin their economy, or at least large parts of it.

Are they still a threat? Yes, of course, any destructive tool is a threat, but not only is it a possible threat in the wrong hands, but also a waste of the taxpayers' money, now I'm not concerned much with where our tax monies should go to, we're exploited either way, however, in the case of Britain, one has to consider why the government is wasting our millions of our taxes on revamping the Trident programme, while schools are closing down, workers are laid off, university students now have to pay for their education, hospitals are understaffed and therefore services are not as good, and the amount of homeless people is increasing.

Tactically, it would be a good idea to bring up these issues when talking to others, simply highlights the inherent exploitation and lack of control we have in this supposed democracy.

[Diagoras]

university students now have to pay for their education

I wish we had a nostalgic time to look back to concerning this. $70,000 in debt and counting, and that isn't even counting graduate work costs :bored:.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That Obama speech pissed me off. Nuclear weapons are wonderful things in some ways. This idea that we're 'less safe' with them runs completely contrary to the historical record.

[LOLseph Stalin]

That Obama speech pissed me off. Nuclear weapons are wonderful things in some ways. This idea that we're 'less safe' with them runs completely contrary to the historical record.

I'll have to disagree. Nuclear Weapons have the capacity to destroy the world. Yes, this knowledge has stopped many countries from using them, but it doesn't stop them from building them(which alone uses up millions of dollars). Anyway, knowing these weapons exist manages to get alot of people paranoid. Something could happen and they could go off.

[Glorious Union]

I'll have to disagree. Nuclear Weapons have the capacity to destroy the world. Yes, this knowledge has stopped many countries from using them, but it doesn't stop them from building them(which alone uses up millions of dollars). Anyway, knowing these weapons exist manages to get alot of people paranoid. Something could happen and they could go off.

So you are suggesting that there is the possibility that nothing will happen when they go off?

And I highly doubt they will ever be used, not until one side of an armed conflict is just about to lose everything. And they wouldn't get into a conflict in the first place because they know of what would happen.

[Patchd]

Nuclear weapons are wonderful things in some ways. This idea that we're 'less safe' with them runs completely contrary to the historical record.

How is a destructive weapon that is clearly used to target the working masses of a region a wonderful thing? The vast majority of those affected by nuclear strikes will not be world leaders or business owners, it'll be those living in the cities, in the slums and ghettos who don't have the resources to be able to go down and hide in a bunker.

In addition, the idea that we are "less safe" with them does not contradict history. Their very existence is a threat to the working class, if one is used, it will cause tremendous damage, and for many years after too.


So you are suggesting that there is the possibility that nothing will happen when they go off?

Just a clarification, INH said:


Something could happen and they could go off.

... suggesting that something could spark them off or there could be a political situation whereby they are used. Didn't say nothing about what might happen if one went off.

[LOLseph Stalin]

So you are suggesting that there is the possibility that nothing will happen when they go off?

And I highly doubt they will ever be used, not until one side of an armed conflict is just about to lose everything. And they wouldn't get into a conflict in the first place because they know of what would happen.

No, things will happen if they were to go off. Serious things...

Also, I just don't see the point of building them. For one it costs millions and two nobody will use them because of the consequences.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How is a destructive weapon that is clearly used to target the working masses of a region a wonderful thing? The vast majority of those affected by nuclear strikes will not be world leaders or business owners, it'll be those living in the cities, in the slums and ghettos who don't have the resources to be able to go down and hide in a bunker

How, exactly, is that different from conventional weapons used for the same purpose?

Also, unlike those conventional weapons, nuclear bombs prevent the wars from happening, not assist it.


In addition, the idea that we are "less safe" with them does not contradict history. Their very existence is a threat to the working class, if one is used, it will cause tremendous damage, and for many years after too.


Really?

When did the last world war end?
When were nuclear bombs invented?

If there were no nuclear bombs, ideas like "We should invade the USSR after long bombing campaigns" or "We should invade West Germany because we have more tanks" would have been serious. There hasn't been a WW3 because of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Europe was going through one generation after another...until nuclear weapons liberated them from warfare.

[Patchd]

How, exactly, is that different from conventional weapons used for the same purpose?

There's no difference, and as you pointed out later on, conventional weapons may well be more disastrous than nuclear weapons. However, I never stated a liking for low level weaponry either.

Would I condone the production of guns than the production of nuclear weapons? Yes, simply because we, as members of the working class can use guns. Almost anyone can be taught to use one in a short amount of time, meaning that ability of use does not lie in the hands of the state.

In addition to that, the potential of nuclear weapons to create horrendous damage is greater than that of a gun, or of a number of guns. For example, they tend not to leave an area covered in radioactivity for a large amount of time after its use.

Nuclear weapons are held in the hands of the state, controlled by a few, we don't need a nuclear weapon for a successful revolution to be carried out, in fact they will most likely be used against us if ever one was used in a revolutionary situation. Guns on the other hand are still an effective way of killing, which although isn't a "good" thing, is still what we may need when it comes to working class resistance against the state and Capitalism.


When did the last world war end?
When were nuclear bombs invented?WWII, and it ended supposedly due to only the use of two nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Weapons which needn't of been tried out in the first place, due to peace talks between Japan and the USSR.


If there were no nuclear bombs, ideas like "We should invade the USSR after long bombing campaigns" or "We should invade West Germany because we have more tanks" would have been serious. There hasn't been a WW3 because of Mutually Assured Destruction. I doubt that, the USSR was too large a state to be simply "invaded" anyway, and at the time, it did still have a decent proportion of the population of Western nations supporting it, there would have been an uproar if the USSR was invaded on those grounds, not to mention as well, the economic destruction it may have caused the Imperialist powers.

In addition, nuclear weapons would be useless in a post-revolutionary society, if we are working towards the creation of a pro-worker society, then we should begin by doing so now, and that includes the abolition of nuclear weaponry in all countries.


Europe was going through one generation after another...until nuclear weapons liberated them from warfare.Yep, now Africa, the Middle East and Asia are suffering as a consequence ... happy now?

Not only that, but may I also add that the production of nuclear bombs have led to the technological development of artillery, ammunition and "conventional" weapons that are capable of producing the same effect as a nuclear warhead, but to a smaller extent.

There are now missiles capable of smashing through a tank, or a building, blowing up inside and causing radioactive damage on a smaller scale as a result, if you aint killed by the blast, you'll die of cancer.

[Glorious Union]

If everybody had nuclear bombs then there would either be no war at all, or a war to end all wars.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

There's no difference, and as you pointed out later on, conventional weapons may well be more disastrous than nuclear weapons. However, I never stated a liking for low level weaponry either.

Would I condone the production of guns than the production of nuclear weapons? Yes, simply because we, as members of the working class can use guns. Almost anyone can be taught to use one in a short amount of time, meaning that ability of use does not lie in the hands of the state.

In addition to that, the potential of nuclear weapons to create horrendous damage is greater than that of a gun, or of a number of guns. For example, they tend not to leave an area covered in radioactivity for a large amount of time after its use.

Nuclear weapons are held in the hands of the state, controlled by a few, we don't need a nuclear weapon for a successful revolution to be carried out, in fact they will most likely be used against us if ever one was used in a revolutionary situation. Guns on the other hand are still an effective way of killing, which although isn't a "good" thing, is still what we may need when it comes to working class resistance against the state and Capitalism.

I see your point.


WWII, and it ended supposedly due to only the use of two nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Weapons which needn't of been tried out in the first place, due to peace talks between Japan and the USSR.I wasn't suggesting this. What I was suggesting is that the way WWII ended has a lot to do with why WWIII never happened.

I doubt that, the USSR was too large a state to be simply "invaded" anyway, and at the time, it did still have a decent proportion of the population of Western nations supporting it, there would have been an uproar if the USSR was invaded on those grounds, not to mention as well, the economic destruction it may have caused the Imperialist powers.
Really? I'm afraid I do not hold our leaders in such high regard as you do, my friend. There were a lot of generals in the immediate post-war who got the impression we had been fighting the 'wrong people.'


In addition, nuclear weapons would be useless in a post-revolutionary society, if we are working towards the creation of a pro-worker society, then we should begin by doing so now, and that includes the abolition of nuclear weaponry in all countries.Yes, once the revolution has ended and all of them have been accounted for, sure.


Yep, now Africa, the Middle East and Asia are suffering as a consequence ... happy now?:confused: All those areas had been ruled by Euros since the 19th century, sometimes earlier. Sure, those areas are getting exploited but many have their independence, many times given in the early post-war period.


Not only that, but may I also add that the production of nuclear bombs have led to the technological development of artillery, ammunition and "conventional" weapons that are capable of producing the same effect as a nuclear warhead, but to a smaller extent.

There are now missiles capable of smashing through a tank, or a building, blowing up inside and causing radioactive damage on a smaller scale as a result, if you aint killed by the blast, you'll die of cancer.Eh I think those weapons would have been developed regardless of nuclear weapons. I don't really see the connection between the two.

Though I agree with your sentiment I think you're getting at. Nukes stop the major powers from going to war, but people have a tendency to regard conventionally-fought conflicts as something less because of it. There are also bombs used in both of the current conflicts that do more damage than some small tactical nukes, which will never be used simply because of the stigma attached (not that I want to see anything used mind you).

[Die Neue Zeit]

How, exactly, is that different from conventional weapons used for the same purpose?

Also, unlike those conventional weapons, nuclear bombs prevent the wars from happening, not assist it.

If there were no nuclear bombs, ideas like "We should invade the USSR after long bombing campaigns" or "We should invade West Germany because we have more tanks" would have been serious. There hasn't been a WW3 because of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Europe was going through one generation after another...until nuclear weapons liberated them from warfare.

I'm afraid of the "not-so-shock-and-awe" potential for weapons miniaturization and electromagnetic warfare compared to Tsar Bomba, truth be told. Methinks that MAD is intrinsically linked to "shock and awe" (not of the conventional blitzkrieg or air supremacy type).

[Patchd]

I wasn't suggesting this. What I was suggesting is that the way WWII ended has a lot to do with why WWIII never happened.

I agree that there weren't any major wars, but proxy wars were still fought out between the larger powers, Korea comes to mind very quickly, and may I add, a reason for this is because during the Korean war, MacArthur, the leading figure in the UN forces, actually proposed the nuclear bombing of China due to the war. Obviously, it was a no no for the government, however I do not see how a situation similar to this may get out of hand.

Wars still occurred nonetheless, it's inherent within Capitalism, the point of opposing nuclear armament is to reduce the risks of an extremely catastrophic war, one where those nukes may well be used.


Really? I'm afraid I do not hold our leaders in such high regard as you do, my friend. There were a lot of generals in the immediate post-war who got the impression we had been fighting the 'wrong people.'Neither do I, but many of those Generals would have seen no problem with using nuclear weapons on the USSR, or any other nation, too. Like I've said in a few posts back, I honestly don't think nuclear capable nations would use nuclear weapons against one another, however there is still that very dangerous risk that they may well do so.


:confused: All those areas had been ruled by Euros since the 19th century, sometimes earlier. Sure, those areas are getting exploited but many have their independence, many times given in the early post-war period. Point taken, however, what I meant was simply that the wars of the Western nations' ruling class continued to be fought in LEDC regions of the world, and in some cases, were exacerbated due to that reason.

The defence of nuclear armaments is a defence of the privilege of the ruling class in (semi-)advanced nations to deter other competing forces from attacking them, the third world population still live in hardship and suffer war on their doorsteps regularly, and the working class of the advanced nations suffer in economic terms, as well as the potential risk of having a nuclear weapon used on them.

[Dimentio]

Nuclear weapons are a threat to everybody, and is basicly a giant stoplight saying "nobody move!"

That is good in some ways, but bad in another. You can say that it stops major powers from going to war, but it walso makes imperialism much easier for those with nuclear weapons on their side.

Nothing significant will happen out of such speeches. They have talked about dismantling nukes since 1975. It will be fun when countries like Rwanda and Uganda have access to nukes.

[Mike Morin]

Nothing significant will happen out of such speeches. They have talked about dismantling nukes since 1975. It will be fun when countries like Rwanda and Uganda have access to nukes.

It's already "fun" because Nazions like the United States and Israel already have nukes, and more importantly all sorts of intermediate firepower...


Mike Morin
peu

[piet11111]

Neither do I, but many of those Generals would have seen no problem with using nuclear weapons on the USSR

that happened before the soviets developed nuclear weapons of their own and had them in sufficient numbers for M.A.D to take effect.

and if there is ever a revolution going to happen it would be great to have some nukes around to prevent the other country's from ganging up on our comrades like what happened after WW1 with the soviet union.

also with nukes in your arsenal you can do with a smaller standing army and that would probably be a lot cheaper (maintaining existing nuclear ICBM's in a working order that is)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree that there weren't any major wars, but proxy wars were still fought out between the larger powers, Korea comes to mind very quickly, and may I add, a reason for this is because during the Korean war, MacArthur, the leading figure in the UN forces, actually proposed the nuclear bombing of China due to the war. Obviously, it was a no no for the government, however I do not see how a situation similar to this may get out of hand.

Largely because, most likely, any power that we would feel the need to nuke most likely has nukes themselves. On the other hand, when dealing with 'smaller' conflicts nukes lose there effectiveness. It's not like they could be of much use to the US in either Iraq or Afghanistan even if the US did want to use them.


Wars still occurred nonetheless, it's inherent within Capitalism, the point of opposing nuclear armament is to reduce the risks of an extremely catastrophic war, one where those nukes may well be used.

I agree, wars are inherent in the current system. However, with the exception of India-Pakistan and maybe Israel, I still believe that nukes prevent that totally catastrophic war from happening.


Neither do I, but many of those Generals would have seen no problem with using nuclear weapons on the USSR, or any other nation, too. Like I've said in a few posts back, I honestly don't think nuclear capable nations would use nuclear weapons against one another, however there is still that very dangerous risk that they may well do so.

Piet covered this, and I would add that one theory given as to why Truman decided to use them on Japan was to show Stalin we had the "big stuff" and had no qualms about using it. Once the USSR got their own, however, the idea of attacking them became obsolete if not totally forgotten.


Point taken, however, what I meant was simply that the wars of the Western nations' ruling class continued to be fought in LEDC regions of the world, and in some cases, were exacerbated due to that reason.

The defence of nuclear armaments is a defence of the privilege of the ruling class in (semi-)advanced nations to deter other competing forces from attacking them, the third world population still live in hardship and suffer war on their doorsteps regularly, and the working class of the advanced nations suffer in economic terms, as well as the potential risk of having a nuclear weapon used on them.

Point taken, though possibly, as piet alluded to, it would be beneficial to first world workers if all military except nukes were abolished?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm afraid of the "not-so-shock-and-awe" potential for weapons miniaturization and electromagnetic warfare compared to Tsar Bomba, truth be told. Methinks that MAD is intrinsically linked to "shock and awe" (not of the conventional blitzkrieg or air supremacy type).

:confused: I don't follow. Can you elaborate on your meaning?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry for my language lapses again. I watched a show on electromagnetic warfare, and the point of that is to leave humans intact while destroying every last bit of machinery, from microwaves to TVs.

Weapons miniaturization might lift the taboo on using nukes, and electromagnetic warfare would certainly garner the excuse of "at least no humans will be killed."

[piet11111]

Sorry for my language lapses again. I watched a show on electromagnetic warfare, and the point of that is to leave humans intact while destroying every last bit of machinery, from microwaves to TVs.


Weapons miniaturization might lift the taboo on using nukes, and electromagnetic warfare would certainly garner the excuse of "at least no humans will be killed."

you mean the detonation at high altitude of a nuclear device with the intention of causing such a massive EM wave that all electronic stuff gets fried effectively throwing a large region (or even country's) into a pre-industrial state but since its not going to directly kill anyone such an act could be considered less bad and therefor is more likely to be done to an hostile country ?

yeah that would suck but it would be much preferable to having the nukes going off with the intent to incinerate city's.