Nuclear war?

[Verix]

Do you think there will ever be a Nuclear war?

[redSHARP]

nuclear exchange will happen at some point. india and pakistan are very likely, especially with the instability in the region.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The biggest players (America, Russia and China) in a potential nuclear war find peace waaay too profitable to risk exchanging their current cosy situation with a bunch of radioactive glassy craters.

As for regional squabbles like Pakistan vs India, I think it depends who's finger is on the trigger.

[Dust Bunnies]

The superpowers won't do it, but Pakistan may.

[piet11111]

on a small scale probably especially seeing how america has been making an effort to build smaller "tactical" nukes under bush.
just think about the nuclear bunkerbuster they wanted to make.

israel or pakistan and india might be nuts enough to use their nukes when cornered.

[ev]

I believe nuclear proliferation at the hands of terrorists are more probable, with large stockpiles of nuclear weapons in various countries I think it's only a matter of time until we have a nuclear terrorist attack, hopefully if it's against the US they won't assume it's the Russians and retaliate triggering a short WWIII.

[Il Medico]

I doubt it. If it does happen perhaps I am over estimating humanity in general.:(

[Bitter Ashes]

If a nuclear power had been forced into a convential war and had no signs of winning then I dont doubt that they'd use thier nuclear stockpile as a final partisan shot. For that reason, it's highly unlikely that anyone would even attempt to engade these places in a conviential war without adequete countermeasures and a very determined leader.

Also, as pointed out already, there may be diplomatic repercussions of using strategic nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state, mutualy assured destruction may be avoided.The diplomatic repercussions would be enough to convince them to not take that path though as all the nuclear countries are heavily dependant upon foreign trade to finance thier huge defence budget and raiding and pillaging just doesnt have the advantages it once did. So, unlikely, but possible I suppose.

Terrorists? Forget it. There is no way that anyone, whether they're a mighty superpower, or a single group could ever lift the dragon to get to the hoarde beneath without realising how tasty and well with ketchp they go.

There is one thing that's possible though and that's the use of tactical nuclear arms. These are not weapons like ICBMs or submarine launched missiles designed to attack strategic targets such as civilian targets, but closer to a convential weapon that's intended to destroy large numbers of enemy forces in one swoop. True that Davy Crocketts and the nuclear cannon may have been removed from service for diplomatic reasons, but could easily be cobbled together again if the situation of large scale convential warfare ever came about again, especially given the time involved for such a force to be organised. If the US ever decieded to move a million army and marines to the West Coast and mass all thier fleets there, there'd be weeks for the Chinese to dust off those nuclear cannons and place them on thier coastline and flood the skies with MIGs. There'd be none of the downsides and much to gain from such a stategy. As stated earlier though, if either side got forced into a corner, the ICBMs would be launched and MAD would be the result.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think its just short-sighted and ignorant to think that the superpowers won't use their nukes while the developing countries will. Does anyone remember Hiroshima-Nagasaki?

Wasn't the US the only nuclear-armed power at the time? I hardly think they would have nuked Russia's next-door neighbour if Russia had any kind of nuclear arsenal at the time.

Plus they were using the weapons as a show of strength against a nation-state that was close to surrendering, if it hadn't already.


As long as nukes exist, there is an equal chance of their being used by any country in possession of them in the face of inter-imperialist conflicts.This is simply not true. What was the Cold War but a "inter-imperialist conflict"? As history demonstrates, imperialists find fighting proxy wars much more profitable than nuking everyone. You can't sell weapons to and exploit people who are dead or too sick to work.


As long capitalism exists, imperialism will exist and there is a good chance of nukes being used for the sake of imperialist victory.Repeating something does not make it true. What kind of "victory" is occupying a blasted nuclear wasteland?


As Chomsky documents in Hegemony or Survival, the western superpowers, especially the US, has invested heavily in the nuclearization of space as well as the space race. It is not for the sake of a "nuclear peace" that they maintain this program. As soon as any country (Iran comes to mind here) begins to deviate from the Western imperialist line, there is every chance that the US-NATO will use their nuclear capabilities to quash such threats. This is in addition to the threat of nuke-use by India or Pakistan as well.Iran is all but thumbing it's nose at the US on the nuclear issue. While some of the more foolish members of the Iranian ruling class have made some threatening noises in the direction of Israel, Iran as a whole hasn't actually done anything yet. The US can't touch Iran at the moment because they're still tied up elsewhere, it would cost a fortune while money's tight and besides, it would make the Russians cross.


So the solution seems clear: smash capitalism, abolish nuclear weapons and bring about socialism.The only problem I have with your statement is the central clause; those who beat their swords into ploughshares get killed and enslaved by those who kept their swords.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats debatable as Russia was a US ally at that time. I don't know if Russia protested the nuking of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, but its unlikely that they would have responded with nukes on the US since they were allies.

Just how firm do you think such an alliance was? Germany was crushed, Japan had all but surrendered. It was all over apart from the mopping up.


You may say that, but will the imperialist governments think the same way? Their actions have frequently proved to be stupider than imaginable. Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770They've only used 2 nuclear weapons in anger in over 60 years. Call me an optimist. On the other hand, nation-states of all kinds have had a long history including famines. Whether maliciously brought about or otherwise, it makes no difference - either way is reason enough to be rid of them.


Of course as long as capitalism exists, there is every chance that a "peaceful" country can be made to bend to imperialism.

But do you think nuclear weapons will always be necessary? Is there any practical use for them for the working class?Unless the whole world becomes communist at once (which I consider unlikely), then yes to both questions.

[piet11111]

the only reason america or russia never got to use nukes was because they would have been nuked even if they did not nuke one another but some other client-state.

however when some backwater country in africa nukes another african country i doubt the western country's really give enough of a damn to respond militarily against such an action.
as such the proliferation of nuclear weapons increase the probability that they will be used.

[Psy]

This is simply not true. What was the Cold War but a "inter-imperialist conflict"? As history demonstrates, imperialists find fighting proxy wars much more profitable than nuking everyone. You can't sell weapons to and exploit people who are dead or too sick to work.

And during the Cold War you had the theory of limited nuclear war. The idea that you could use tactical nuclear weapons on the battle field and MAD would prevent escalation. You also have this theory resurfacing in the US as the US once again embraces doctrine of limited nuclear war with its pre-war battle plans with China and Russia, as military annalists believe if they drop a tactical nuke on say part of the Russian army that at worse Russia would just respond in kind and not escalate. Both the Russian and US Navy also embraces tactical nuclear weapons, both of their game plans for is simply lobbing nukes at each others fleets.

[Coggeh]

Not unless Israel get their hands on one (which they may have )

[Verix]

israel has more nukes then every other middle eastern country put togather..

[Klaatu]

Consider that capitalists profit by building nuclear weapons and all of the parts
and materials necessary to maintain the arsenals of imperialist nations.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Will there be one in my life time? No i dont particularly think so... not on a large scale... but will there EVER be one... of course there will be, they get more greedier and violent by the day...

[Comrade Anarchist]

i dont think that it is likely

[Bitter Ashes]

i dont think that it is likely
Is there a reason you hold this view in particular, or is that it? :confused:

[Comrade B]

It depends on how long right wing leadership lasts. If we can bring it to an end, there will never be a large scale war, however if we cannot stop the cappies, they will kill each other and the rest of us will all die as a result of collateral damage.

[dog_jones]

I believe nuclear proliferation at the hands of terrorists are more probable, with large stockpiles of nuclear weapons in various countries I think it's only a matter of time until we have a nuclear terrorist attack.

Agreed.

It seems to me that with Nuclear proliferation, the chances of some radical group getting their hands on a nuclear weapon become quite likely, so I think a small scale Nuclear catastrophe will probably go down.

[NecroCommie]

Hell yeah! Nuclear warheads for everyone!!!

Lets look at the bright side: Western style nuclear families will increase in numbers. :thumbup1: Also, the greenhouse effect will be reversed in the nuclear winter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECXvmDmxVaM

[Klaatu]

"Also, the greenhouse effect will be reversed in the nuclear winter."

Actually, they were talking about that back in the 1970s. (Not greenhouse effect, the cold nuclear winter.)

I give credit to American President Nixon for achieving a stop to the nuclear arms race, which had been escalating since the early 1960s. Yet all he is remembered for was Watergate. What a shame.

[Rusty Shackleford]

then reagan killed it for the lot of us. at least for a while. fucking prick.

Apparently Medvedev said the russians are willing to get rid of nukes if everyone else does. it almost sounds like childs talk, or a line out of a bad action movie where theres a huge standoff. but one can only hope.

to be on topic though, i wouldnt doubt some type of nuclear incident within half a century.

[jake williams]

I just want to inject something that is semi-on topic. While part of me thinks nuclear weapons are so dangerous as to be totally unacceptable, there's something very disturbing in the underside of the Obama mission to abolish nuclear weapons - in that it suggests the US military establishment believes it finally has sufficient non-nuclear capacity to make nuclear weapons unnecessary for themselves, and rather than bleeding its heart out for world peace, it's an attempt to eliminate what little military strength (deterence, effectively) other countries might have.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I just want to inject something that is semi-on topic. While part of me thinks nuclear weapons are so dangerous as to be totally unacceptable, there's something very disturbing in the underside of the Obama mission to abolish nuclear weapons - in that it suggests the US military establishment believes it finally has sufficient non-nuclear capacity to make nuclear weapons unnecessary for themselves, and rather than bleeding its heart out for world peace, it's an attempt to eliminate what little military strength (deterence, effectively) other countries might have.

Sounds like reason enough for paranoid countries (and we have no shortage of those it seems) to keep their nuclear weapons if they've already got them, or to obtain them if they haven't.

In the wake of things like the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, I honestly don't blame them. If North Korea's recent boldness and games of nuclear brinkmanship pay off for them, then that would provide a greater incentive for countries wishing to either protect their own interests or start their own imperialist adventures.

[Tomhet]

I would say so (voted the third option). Initial protagonists perhaps being India VS. Pakistan.

[ComradeOm]

I thought I'd posted in this thread before but it was actually another one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chances-nuclear-holocausti-t107330/index.html?t=107330). Long story short, inter-imperialist competition eventually forces capitalist powers into conflict, and theories of MAD are bullshit


This is simply not true. What was the Cold War but a "inter-imperialist conflict"?Ummm, not an "inter-imperialist conflict". Unless there was a shooting war between the two that I'm unaware of. What you had during the Cold War was fifty years of inter-imperialist competition. This itself is hardly unsurprising - it took a similar length of time (of uneasy peace) for the European blocs to prepare their own destruction prior to WWI


As history demonstrates, imperialists find fighting proxy wars much more profitable than nuking everyone. You can't sell weapons to and exploit people who are dead or too sick to workSure, tell that to the Hapsburgs. Imperialism creates the conditions whereby imperial regimes are almost forced into conflict


Not unless Israel get their hands on one (which they may have ) IIRC the latest estimate is 100-200 tactical nukes

[Manxboz]

This is the problem to many people have access to nukes all it takes is one misunderstanding and BOOM bye bye world.

[Bitter Ashes]

This is the problem to many people have access to nukes all it takes is one misunderstanding and BOOM bye bye world.
Indeed. There are some crazy people out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

[TheBellJar]

israel or pakistan and india might be nuts enough to use their nukes when cornered.

Your understanding of India is very limited and severely flawed If that statement is anything to go by. Putting India in the same bracket as Israel and Pakistan is very ridiculous.

India has been one of the most vocal Countries when it comes to Nuclear disarmament. If someone is going to quote India's stand on the NPT, that too is a flawed argument and the reasons of which have more to do with the dominance of the developed countries and their control over the world order. India has already pledged "No first use".

Rest assured, I'm informed enough about Indian politics to claim that India will NOT be firing Nukes anytime soon. Even when another inevitable armed conflict with Pakistan does arise.

If anything, the only Country that I personally feel is capable of such an amount of fucktardedness coupled with vested interests to do so is ofcourse the Yanks. Just imagine all the rebuilding contracts they can get.:unsure:

[JammyDodger]

I voted no more out of wishes than any grasp on reality, but I feel in my heart there will be atleast one detonation in anger before we get around to doing away with them.

Britain should axe the replacement for Trident and phase out, try and set and example, I mean if these little islands get nuked any payback will not achieve much.
And we dont even technically own the nukes when we have spent the money.

We can never lead the world again in any might pomp and splendour type way but we could step up to the plate and lead the world on this.
And better still we can go on about the fact we did it first from now to eternity:lol:

Lets bin em, they are worthless to us.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I think its obvious that something will happen between America and North Korea.Wether or not its a nuclear war is just something that will be revealed in time

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

NecroCommie,if you like Sodom then you have great taste in music :thumbup1:

[CommunityBeliever]

I voted no because I think that a capitalist would not do it because as other people have said before "what good is it to occupy a desolate wasteland" if anything they will make some sort of biological weapon that kills every single living person in the area and then after everybody is dead they will occupy the area.

The greatest risk is that religious nutcases who literally believe in killing everyone who is a non-believer will get their hands on nukes and use them senselessly. Even if that occurs I think that it will occur on a small scale. Maybe the middle east will indeed turn into a crater.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe the middle east will indeed turn into a crater.

Really? I'm more worried about the Christian Zionists in the good ol' US of A. :rolleyes: