USA to reduce its nuclear stockpile

[Q]

The BBC reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8543897.stm) that the Obama administration is planning to reduce its nuclear warhead stockpile with "thousands", also plans to develop a "bunker buster" have been scrapped. The article also reports that an updated disarmament treaty with Russia is in the phase of "discussing nuances". This is all in a move towards a "nuclear free world", according to Obama in Prague last year.

I don't think anyone here would (or should) object to nuclear disarmament efforts, even if they are done on imperialist terms. The question we should ask ourselves however is what are the possible considerations behind it? Are the capitalists genuine in their efforts, are they simply trying to cut down on expensive hardware that isn't really needed, are they updating their hardware for more tactical (precise) weapons, which need a smaller arsenal?

More importantly perhaps, what can we do to speed up the process of nuclear disarmament? What is a communist strategy in this regard: is it a matter for the here and now or should it be postponed until after the revolution and in fact embrace "proletarian nukes" as a legitimate weapon in our arms?

I'm aware there is some overlap with the Iranian nukes thread, but this is a development shedding light on the subject from a different angle, so I opened a new thread.

Also interesting, this little picture from the same article, which gives an estimated overview.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47398000/gif/_47398962_world_nuc_warhds_466.gif

- All numbers are estimates because exact numbers are top secret.
- Strategic nuclear warheads are designed to target cities, missile locations and military headquarters as part of a strategic plan.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem here is that this has the unintended effect of making conventional warfare more likely between the imperialist powers.

There is a certain threshold of nuclear weapons that tilts the balance towards conventional warfare.

Also, there should be discussion in this thread on electromagnetic warfare, since it is the most likely candidate to replace nuclear weapons in the future.

[Dr. Fish]

The problem here is that this has the unintended effect of making conventional warfare more likely between the imperialist powers. There are also other non-conventional means, such as electromagnetic warfare, which will benefit from this.

There is a certain threshold of nuclear weapons that tilts the balance towards conventional warfare.

So you mean to say that without the threat of mutually assured destruction, conventional warfare will be more likely to break out. I don't think so, because two hegemonist 'conventional' (drones?) wars were waged by America, and Pakistan and India (if they agree to non-proliferation, not sure if that was addressed in the article) would calm down toward each other if they are disarming their nukes. Besides, since America is weaker than other countries when it comes to sheer number, and nuclear power was the deterrent of conventional warfare, a more peaceful policy might take shape (unlikely or surprising) if taken seriously. Israel is a different question though. Largely, I see nuclear disarmament as a step towards peace, which makes me wonder as to the nation's or the article's legitimacy.

I think that it would be very good to get rid of nukes in the here and now, because during revolution, should a fascist get a hold of a nuclear station horrors could await. And the idea of a revolutionary nuke or a proletarian nuke, let alone being self-contradictory is totally unjust and wrong. Also a bit humorous. I don't think a nuke could ever be considered a legitimate weapon, considering the massive non-combatant casualty that is inflicted.

[Q]

The problem here is that this has the unintended effect of making conventional warfare more likely between the imperialist powers.

There is a certain threshold of nuclear weapons that tilts the balance towards conventional warfare.
The last 65 years have been one of the bloodiest in human history, despite the existence of nukes. But there has been a shift since nukes came around, since direct inter-imperialist wars are no longer a viable option many wars have been fought by proxy.


Also, there should be discussion in this thread on electromagnetic warfare, since it is the most likely candidate to replace nuclear weapons in the future.
What kind of weapons specifically? Most of us here are aware of the disastrous effects of the electro-magnetic pulse on electronic hardware, which is inherent with nuclear detonations, but what kind of non-nuke EMP weapons are there and how feasible are they?

[Salyut]

What kind of weapons specifically? Most of us here are aware of the disastrous effects of the electro-magnetic pulse on electronic hardware, which is inherent with nuclear detonations, but what kind of non-nuke EMP weapons are there and how feasible are they?

Flux compression. Range is very limited though, ie you want to take out a TV station without leveling it.

[Psy]

The problem here is that this has the unintended effect of making conventional warfare more likely between the imperialist powers.


I don't think it is unintended, I think this is a reaction to the increase of conventional warfare and the huge spike in imperialist ambition. The fact Russia made tactical nuclear weapons available to commanders during the Georgian/Russian conflict just in case NATO intervened was a major wake up call to NATO, that if they intervened the conflict would have instantly gone nuclear according to Russian doctrine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

More importantly perhaps, what can we do to speed up the process of nuclear disarmament? What is a communist strategy in this regard: is it a matter for the here and now or should it be postponed until after the revolution and in fact embrace "proletarian nukes" as a legitimate weapon in our arms?

I remember stating in my theoretical pamphlet my personal opposition to the slogan "abolition of the standing army," since nowadays it refers to all armed forces. Those who operate warships, military aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. have specialized knowledge that ground soldiers don't have.

Democratization and work rights within standing armed forces, including nuclear forces, is a good thing, though.

The abolition can wait until after successful global revolution (two adjectives there for two conditions).


The last 65 years have been one of the bloodiest in human history, despite the existence of nukes. But there has been a shift since nukes came around, since direct inter-imperialist wars are no longer a viable option many wars have been fought by proxy.

I have no problem with what you said here. In fact, Louis Proyect commented on this somewhere in his blog (re. lack of direct inter-imperialist war).


What kind of weapons specifically? Most of us here are aware of the disastrous effects of the electro-magnetic pulse on electronic hardware, which is inherent with nuclear detonations, but what kind of non-nuke EMP weapons are there and how feasible are they?

I Googled the History Channel's documentary on electromagnetic warfare, so that's all I know about this really scary shit:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-invisible-machine/

Sufficed to say, whereas immediate proximity to nukes = painful but quick death, all-out electromagnetic warfare = slow but painful death since you're back to the Stone Age (computers, microwaves, TVs, and pretty much all other electronic technology go out).

[Wolf Larson]

Obama does not intend to do anything but publicly posture. He's a fraud. A Trojan horse sent by capitalists to marginalize the true left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

embrace "proletarian nukes" as a legitimate weapon in our arms

Should read "retaliatory proletarian nuclear deterrent(s)"

[The Ghost of Revolutions]

I don't think anyone here would (or should) object to nuclear disarmament efforts, even if they are done on imperialist terms. The question we should ask ourselves however is what are the possible considerations behind it? Are the capitalists genuine in their efforts, are they simply trying to cut down on expensive hardware that isn't really needed, are they updating their hardware for more tactical (precise) weapons, which need a smaller arsenal?

.

I think that with the newer technolgy the old nukes have lost importance. Newer weapons systems can carry more then one warhead. They will probaly get rid of the old ones and then update the nuclear arsenal. It could also end up saving them money by having a few really powerful weapons then a bunch of moderatly powerful weapons. I read somewhere thats what russias plan is and I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. is doing the same thing. They will also use this as PR to say they are striving toward world peace.