Nuclear Weapons and the Revolution

[Burn A Flag]

Does anyone have ideas on if nuclear weapons should play a role if obtained by a revolutionary force? I personally figure they could be useful for fighting the bourgeoisie, but they also have such a large destruction radius that it could lead to many deaths of proletarians as well. Would nuclear weapons be deemed counterrevolutionary, or would the almost inevitable death of proletarians be deemed a necessary sacrifice?

Feel free to add more views on any other aspects of nuclear weapons and the revolution.

[The Ben G]

Never should Nuclear Weapons be used. They are sick and should have never existed.

[28350]

Not really my view, but an... interesting one, to say the least.

The "Posadists" founded its own Fourth International in 1962, which started using the name Fourth International (Posadist) only at a later time (in the early 1970s). At their founding conference the movement proclaimed that “Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
We are preparing ourselves for a stage in which before the atomic war we shall struggle for power, during the atomic war we shall struggle for power and we shall be in power]. There is no beginning… there is an end to atomic war, because atomic war is simultaneous revolution in the whole world, not as a chain reaction, simultaneous. Simultaneous doesn't mean the same day and the same hour. Great historic events should not be measured by hours or days, but by periods… The working class will maintain itself, [and] will immediately have to seek its cohesion and centralisation… After destruction commences, the masses are going to emerge in all countries - in a short time, in a few hours. Capitalism cannot defend itself in an atomic war except by putting itself in caves and attempting to destroy all that it can. The masses, in contrast, are going to come out, will have to come out, because it is the only way to survive, defeating the enemy… The apparatus of capitalism, police, army, will not be able to resist… It will be necessary to organise the workers' power immediately.
Posadas wrote that “Nuclear war [equals] revolutionary war. It will damage humanity but it will not – it cannot – destroy the level of consciousness reached by it… Humanity will pass quickly through a nuclear war into a new human society – Socialism.”
J. Posadas' enthusiasm for nuclear war and "worker's bombs" escalated in the 1970s with the Posadist movement issuing demands that the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China begin a "preventative war" against the United States in order to finish off capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas#Nuclear_war

[Burn A Flag]

@ Ben G
I like that answer. However, how would we as revolutionaries deal with the fact that they do exist, and could be used against us?

[Revy]

There is nothing revolutionary about nuclear weapons. In the context of geopolitics they exist as a psychological deterrent, however, when actually used in the future these weapons would lead to the deaths of millions of workers.

[The Ben G]

@ Ben G
I like that answer. However, how would we as revolutionaries deal with the fact that they do exist, and could be used against us?

Unless if a Government is sick enough to attack its own towns and cities (if we use Guerrilla tactics), then they don't pose to much of a threat to us.

[Tablo]

I feel they might possibly be used by the government as a desperate attempt to hold on to their power during the Revolution. They might destroy a class conscious city to show power or something of that sort to scare workers into continuing to produce goods for them. Not really sure.

Should worker use them in any way? No. Nuclear weapons are for mass destruction and high death tolls. High death tolls means workers, killing workers is counterrevolutionary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Never should Nuclear Weapons be used.

I disagree. Suppose there is a revolution in Europe, and there are rumblings across the Atlantic to "nip things in the bud" with a nuclear assault? Were your position to be policy, they would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation.

On the other hand, I propose a strict "No first use" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) policy for revolutionary territories with nuclear and chemical weapons.


They are sick and should have never existed.

Sicker than pistols and rifles, which kill every day? I'm pretty sure more people have been killed with such small arms than nuclear weapons. It seems that despite fears of "push-button warfare", humans have a much greater predeliction for up close and personal style killing.

[it_ain't_me]

Does anyone have ideas on if nuclear weapons should play a role if obtained by a revolutionary force? I personally figure they could be useful for fighting the bourgeoisie, but they also have such a large destruction radius that it could lead to many deaths of proletarians as well.

killbots > nukes, imho

[MortyMingledon]

Sicker than pistols and rifles, which kill every day? I'm pretty sure more people have been killed with such small arms than nuclear weapons.

It's just that nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction grant a lot more power to a single individual (the button-pusher) than small firearms. Even if firearms have killed more people in history, nuclear weapons should be avoided by everyone because they give the power over the lives or deaths of millions to a single individual, and it is inevitable that this power will eventually be misused by whatever individual holds it. If the workers in a revolution ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they would have to destroy it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's just that nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction grant a lot more power to a single individual (the button-pusher) than small firearms.

That doesn't mean the decision to press that button cannot be democratically decided beforehand.


Even if firearms have killed more people in history, nuclear weapons should be avoided by everyone because they give the power over the lives or deaths of millions to a single individual, and it is inevitable that this power will eventually be misused by whatever individual holds it.

Which is why I believe strategic nuclear armaments should be a collective responsibility.


If the workers in a revolution ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they would have to destroy it.

No they wouldn't. You are being unimaginative.

[maskerade]

If the socialist revolution is international i see no alternative other than worldwide disarmament. If it isn't fully international, which is much more likely, they should be used solely as a deterrent, and no more nukes should be made.

That's my opinion.

[MortyMingledon]

No they wouldn't. You are being unimaginative.

How is destroying a weapon so destructive that it can only bring more suffering than good, as well as create huge differences of power, unimaginative? I can't really see a use for weapons of mass destruction, even if "democratically controlled", aside from bringing destruction and suffering, which is why I think they should be destroyed. Maybe it's unimaginative because the solution is so obvious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is destroying a weapon so destructive that it can only bring more suffering than good, as well as create huge differences of power, unimaginative?

Because it seems you misunderstand the role of weapons in general - they don't "do good" in themselves; their function is maim and kill people. However, they may do good as an indirect consquence of their deployment, which is what really matters.


I can't really see a use for weapons of mass destruction, even if "democratically controlled", aside from bringing destruction and suffering, which is why I think they should be destroyed.

Nobody wants destruction and suffering, at least not for themselves. That's why the threat of destruction and suffering has proven to be a useful tool on the world stage, and that threat must be real in order for it to be effective.

Don't think for one minute that a classless society will have no reason to be nasty at certain times. Humans are not angels and classless society will not be Heaven.


Maybe it's unimaginative because the solution is so obvious.

It's not obvious, it's starry-eyed idealism with its head in the clouds.

[Ovi]

I disagree. Suppose there is a revolution in Europe, and there are rumblings across the Atlantic to "nip things in the bud" with a nuclear assault? Were your position to be policy, they would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation.

If the government across the Atlantic fears that socialism might spread there too, they might as well push the button, they have nothing to lose. What makes you think that striking back would solve the problem? It's not the bourgeois who will die if you do strike back since they'll be deep underground giving orders, but working class people. The bourgeois will make it look like it's your fault since they control the media and in the end it's either the survival of those who strike first or mutual assured destruction.


Sicker than pistols and rifles, which kill every day? I'm pretty sure more people have been killed with such small arms than nuclear weapons. It seems that despite fears of "push-button warfare", humans have a much greater predeliction for up close and personal style killing.
At least with pistols and rifles you know that you're fighting against reactionaries and the more we fight, the closer we are to our goal. You can't say the same about nuclear weapons.

[Luisrah]

Nuclear weapons are horrible things, and they should really have never existed, like someone already said. It brings disastrous consequences, and are one of the most inhumane things that have ever existed.
To kill thousands upon thousands in an instant, just like that, isn't supposed to be normal.

But when it's the USA that orders such fucking mass destruction, no one calls that a mass destruction weapon, and no fucking at least ''important'' american is judged for crimes against humanity. No such thing as fucking human rights here either.

Heck, this discussion shouldn't even exist. Only a senseless person here would approve of the proliferation, use, or non-destruction of nuclear weapons during and after the revolution.

[Ravachol]

Capital, unfortunately, doesn't have a 'head' one can cut off or blow up. It's a social relation propagated by a dominant hegemony.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If the government across the Atlantic fears that socialism might spread there too, they might as well push the button, they have nothing to lose. What makes you think that striking back would solve the problem? It's not the bourgeois who will die if you do strike back since they'll be deep underground giving orders, but working class people.

They may not immediately suffer, but there will be enormous economic, political and social repercussions from a retaliation that will effect them greatly, and they will be aware of such effects.

I don't think the ruling classes like the idea of sitting in a bunker for years eating Spam any more than you or I do.


The bourgeois will make it look like it's your fault since they control the media

In their immediate vicinity, yes, but in this hypothetical there is a revolutionary Europe with its own media that will be saying otherwise.


and in the end it's either the survival of those who strike first or mutual assured destruction.

At least one European nation (France) has second-strike capability through submarine-launched ballistic missiles. So even if the US were to strike first, a united revolutionary Europe would still be able to retaliate. That would make attacking a lose-lose proposition for the US.


At least with pistols and rifles you know that you're fighting against reactionaries and the more we fight, the closer we are to our goal. You can't say the same about nuclear weapons.

I disagree. Good reconaissance can mean you know what you're going to hit, and you never know when you might need a few megatons in one place.

[Luisrah]

Don't think for one minute that a classless society will have no reason to be nasty at certain times. Humans are not angels and classless society will not be Heaven.


I think maybe Marxist-Leninists(-Maoists) know it better than anyone.
But the use of nuclear weapons should always be disencouraged and fought against.
However, while keeping nuclear weapons is good as a threat, keeping these weapons will only turned against us if the revolution doesn't succeed, as did those missiles in Cuba.

Even if you let the nuclear bombs rust and get dust somewhere, sometime later the Capitalist power will say ''they had the coordinates for [insert big city like New York here], and they were ready to launch it at any time, and we have reports that procedures were being taken to do it, we did it in self defense'' or something along those lines. Result? +10 heroic points for capitalism, +10 evil points for communism.

That's how it goes. In the end, a revolution would be much more effective (in terms of post revolution) if we don't use such weapons. We'll be telling tales of how the workers revolted against their opressors without slaughtering them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear weapons are horrible things, and they should really have never existed, like someone already said. It brings disastrous consequences, and are one of the most inhumane things that have ever existed.
To kill thousands upon thousands in an instant, just like that, isn't supposed to be normal.

Is the ability to blow the brains out of another human being with the twitch of a finger muscle "supposed to be normal"? What is your definition of "normal" anyway? Is wearing clothes normal? Is living at the bottom of a gravity well normal?

The consequences of nuclear weapon detonation can be devastating, so we should approach their deployment and use with the appropriate care. But to make vague appeals to some ill-defined "normality" is only to make a bad argument.


But when it's the USA that orders such fucking mass destruction, no one calls that a mass destruction weapon, and no fucking at least ''important'' american is judged for crimes against humanity. No such thing as fucking human rights here either.

The hypocrisy of the USA when it comes to nuclear weapons has been noted worldwide.


Heck, this discussion shouldn't even exist. Only a senseless person here would approve of the proliferation, use, or non-destruction of nuclear weapons during and after the revolution.

Maybe you could try making an argument instead of name-calling.


I think maybe Marxist-Leninists(-Maoists) know it better than anyone.
But the use of nuclear weapons should always be disencouraged and fought against.
However, while keeping nuclear weapons is good as a threat, keeping these weapons will only turned against us if the revolution doesn't succeed, as did those missiles in Cuba.

What are you talking about? There wasn't a counter-revolution in Cuba at the time of the Missile Crisis, as far as I'm aware.


Even if you let the nuclear bombs rust and get dust somewhere, sometime later the Capitalist power will say ''they had the coordinates for [insert big city like New York here], and they were ready to launch it at any time, and we have reports that procedures were being taken to do it, we did it in self defense'' or something along those lines. Result? +10 heroic points for capitalism, +10 evil points for communism.

Had it been the USSR triumphant and the USA that had collapsed, I have no doubt that the Soviet authorities would have said the exact same thing, but inverted. The thing is, both sides targeted major cities and were ready to launch. I think you will find that most people were aware of that.


That's how it goes. In the end, a revolution would be much more effective (in terms of post revolution) if we don't use such weapons. We'll be telling tales of how the workers revolted against their opressors without slaughtering them.

The failings of the USSR have little if anything to do with deployment of nuclear weapons and more to do with their overall geopolitical strategy.


Capital, unfortunately, doesn't have a 'head' one can cut off or blow up. It's a social relation propagated by a dominant hegemony.

Sounds like a good reason why talk of "banning" nuclear weapons is bunk.

[danyboy27]

i dont think nuclear weapon should be used against people.

BUT, if properly secured, such powerful device can and could be used for whole differents purposes.

the soviet used it to stop an oil leak long time ago, perhaps nuclear weapon could be used to dig holes in abandonned planets where we would want to install a station. Some folks here mentionned something about mining stuff on Mars, well with a nuclear bomb you could save a lot of time and ressources to dig a quarry.

just like i keep repeating these day, dont blame the technology, blame those who decided to used it in an horrible manner.

and beside, if there are life out there, nothing can guarantee us All aliens are friendly and benevolents, keeping an ace in our sleeves wouldnt hurt.

[piet11111]

As a deterrent its a good alternative to a massive standing army and of course M.A.D has managed to keep the cold war from going hot.

Nuclear weapons are something i would want to have in the arsenal of a communist country because it would scare off aggressors just look at north korea they are now almost untouchable through military means.

[Luisrah]

Is the ability to blow the brains out of another human being with the twitch of a finger muscle "supposed to be normal"? What is your definition of "normal" anyway? Is wearing clothes normal? Is living at the bottom of a gravity well normal?

I was reluctant to respond to this argument, but very well.
Guns have existed earlier than 1240, clothes too. Clothes don't kill, and by the time guns existed, swords and bows had already existed, and last time I heard, they usually killed one person at a time. Not only that, but the guy who died knew what happened in a fight, he saw it coming, he was fighting to defend himself.

Nuclear bombs don't select, they simply wipe out every single thing in it's radius. Obama can be there, Hitler can be there, Marx can be there, Jesus can be there, they'll fucking die. It doesn't matter if they're innocents or not, they won't know what hit them, they aren't able to evade, they aren't able to retaliate.

I won't give you my deffinition of normal, but I am certain that nuclear bombs simply aren't normal in a normal, civilised society. If there is such things as crimes of war, crimes against humanity or against human rights, than this weapon of mass destruction is one of them.

Socialism is not supposed to commit the same horrors and barbarities that capitalism does.


The consequences of nuclear weapon detonation can be devastating, so we should approach their deployment and use with the appropriate care. But to make vague appeals to some ill-defined "normality" is only to make a bad argument.

Maybe you could try making an argument instead of name-calling.

Take whatever value from my argument you want. That's why I ''called names'', because any normal person doesn't approve of mass destruction weapons. It just isn't fucking right to kill thousands of people without looking them in the eye, by just pressing a button, or saying a word. That just isn't normal.

It's my opinion. What can I do? I don't support the use of mass destruction weapons to obliterate everything in a radius. In any field, tactical, humane, whatever, nuclear bombs bring harm. You can't gain the support of the enemy's troops if they have been wiped out, and from what I've heard, the effects are felt afterwards for a considerable amount of time.

People will call you a murderer, and call me and all communists murderers because one communist remembered to reduce their enemy (and innocents, because there are always) to dust, or whatever.



What are you talking about? There wasn't a counter-revolution in Cuba at the time of the Missile Crisis, as far as I'm aware.

No, there wasn't, but it's another thing that makes communism look bad, because of the missiles. Supposedly the missiles were for self defense, but ''for some reason'' a lot of people say they were pointed to New York or somewhere, as a reason to say communism is evil.
As far as I'm aware, many communists don't consider Stalin a counter-revolutionaire, but he did in fact give a bad image to communism didn't he?

The thing is, whatever mistakes we do, like these, will only make our battle harder, and while we want it to be easy, some difficulties must exist so that the revolution is definitive (in the sense that no counter-revolution happens, and the proletariat is really conscious), or else we'd simply make a coup and enforce socialism on the people, but that's not the way to do it.



Had it been the USSR triumphant and the USA that had collapsed, I have no doubt that the Soviet authorities would have said the exact same thing, but inverted. The thing is, both sides targeted major cities and were ready to launch. I think you will find that most people were aware of that.

But I don't what care they said, except the part that the USSR also had nuclear weapons. I don't care about that. I just care about the fact that if a world revolution fails again, that's another thing used to call us evil.

In the end, it will only turn against us. If we fail, opposers will say they did it in self defense because we were going to bomb them, thus, we are evil. If we win, opposers will say that they acted in self defense, and we bombed them into submission, and thus, we are evil.

Ever heard of martyrs? This produces a similar effect.


The failings of the USSR have little if anything to do with deployment of nuclear weapons and more to do with their overall geopolitical strategy.

I know. That's not my point. My point was the difference between enforced socialism, and ideal hyper-proletariat-conscience socialism.
A revolution that comes truly from the working class, by them seeing how far the bourgeoisie is willing to go will have much deeper effects than we bombing the USA so that capitalism will no longer exist (imagining)


In sum, everyone has opinions. Mine is that it is inhumane to use nuclear weapons and that all alternatives have to be used before even thinking of using this obliterating machine. In the end, it should only be used when inevitable, and when a much greater good will come out of it.
Eventhough I don't think I'd ever live with, for example, being the one who ordered such destruction.

[Psy]

I won't give you my deffinition of normal, but I am certain that nuclear bombs simply aren't normal in a normal, civilised society. If there is such things as crimes of war, crimes against humanity or against human rights, than this weapon of mass destruction is one of them.

Socialism is not supposed to commit the same horrors and barbarities that capitalism does.



Take whatever value from my argument you want. That's why I ''called names'', because any normal person doesn't approve of mass destruction weapons. It just isn't fucking right to kill thousands of people without looking them in the eye, by just pressing a button, or saying a word. That just isn't normal.

So how is that different from large conventional weapons like thermometric bombs,napalm or even artillery barrages?

Also tactical nukes are meant to deployed on battlefields for example nuclear rocket artillery can defeat a marine landing with ease without endangering settlements unless there are homes out in the water as the nukes would be ideally exploding kilometers away from coast line to maximize their killing power of the enemy while minimizing slash damage to your own troops defending the coast line.



It's my opinion. What can I do? I don't support the use of mass destruction weapons to obliterate everything in a radius. In any field, tactical, humane, whatever, nuclear bombs bring harm. You can't gain the support of the enemy's troops if they have been wiped out, and from what I've heard, the effects are felt afterwards for a considerable amount of time.

People will call you a murderer, and call me and all communists murderers because one communist remembered to reduce their enemy (and innocents, because there are always) to dust, or whatever.

What if the use of nukes would end the revolutionary war quickly for example if defected US air forces offer to drop their nuclear pay loads on their masters why not? As the revolutionary armies pushes back the imperialist powers the more likely they would resort to nuclear weapons to turn the tide of the war so nuking the imperialists could save people by preventing them from nuking the revolutionary armies.




No, there wasn't, but it's another thing that makes communism look bad, because of the missiles. Supposedly the missiles were for self defense, but ''for some reason'' a lot of people say they were pointed to New York or somewhere, as a reason to say communism is evil.

I don't think that would be situation, the situation would mostly be revolutionary armies getting nuclear weapons as the global revolutionary war recruits imperialist soldiers for example a entire nuclear bomber wing defecting and willing to drop nuclear bombs on the military command centers of their old masters.



The thing is, whatever mistakes we do, like these, will only make our battle harder, and while we want it to be easy, some difficulties must exist so that the revolution is definitive (in the sense that no counter-revolution happens, and the proletariat is really conscious), or else we'd simply make a coup and enforce socialism on the people, but that's not the way to do it.

How many workers would rather have a revolutionary war drag on for years just to prevent dropping nukes on bourgeoisie/fascist imperialists?




In the end, it will only turn against us. If we fail, opposers will say they did it in self defense because we were going to bomb them, thus, we are evil.

They'd say there regardless if we use nukes or not.



If we win, opposers will say that they acted in self defense, and we bombed them into submission, and thus, we are evil.

They would be very dead or have surrendered unconditionally that probably not want to admit they were fighting on the against revolutionary armies for fear of retaliation from those that lost loved ones in the war.



Ever heard of martyrs? This produces a similar effect.

That would mean there would have to still forces fighting against the revolutionary armies that pose a significant treat to them. By the time the revolutionary armies defeat the imperialist armies they would be the only military forces on Earth and very battle hardened so who would stupid enough to take up arms against them especially if they did use nuclear weapons during the revolutionary war?




In sum, everyone has opinions. Mine is that it is inhumane to use nuclear weapons and that all alternatives have to be used before even thinking of using this obliterating machine. In the end, it should only be used when inevitable, and when a much greater good will come out of it.
Eventhough I don't think I'd ever live with, for example, being the one who ordered such destruction.
Would you rather give the order to not use them that caused the imperialist armies to use them against the revolutionary armies in desperation?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is nothing revolutionary about nuclear weapons. In the context of geopolitics they exist as a psychological deterrent, however, when actually used in the future these weapons would lead to the deaths of millions of workers.

At least you acknowledged the deterrent part, hence the rep. :thumbup1:

[NGNM85]

I think the FissBan treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISSBAN) is a pretty great idea. It also enjoys global support with the exception of the United States and Pakistan.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was reluctant to respond to this argument, but very well.
Guns have existed earlier than 1240, clothes too. Clothes don't kill, and by the time guns existed, swords and bows had already existed, and last time I heard, they usually killed one person at a time. Not only that, but the guy who died knew what happened in a fight, he saw it coming, he was fighting to defend himself.

Nuclear bombs don't select, they simply wipe out every single thing in it's radius. Obama can be there, Hitler can be there, Marx can be there, Jesus can be there, they'll fucking die. It doesn't matter if they're innocents or not, they won't know what hit them, they aren't able to evade, they aren't able to retaliate.

I won't give you my deffinition of normal, but I am certain that nuclear bombs simply aren't normal in a normal, civilised society. If there is such things as crimes of war, crimes against humanity or against human rights, than this weapon of mass destruction is one of them.

Socialism is not supposed to commit the same horrors and barbarities that capitalism does.

I don't see how mere scale has any moral valence. Whether someone murders one person or a million, they're still a murderer. Nuclear weapons are only indiscriminate if they are used in an indiscriminate fashion - of course if you nuke a city a whole bunch of civilians will die, but nukes are just as easily used against military targets. Which leads me on to my next point - thereis nothing inherently evil in constructing and deploying nuclear weapons - it the act of mass murder that is evil, and you don't need nuclear weapons to get away with that, as history demonstrates.


Take whatever value from my argument you want. That's why I ''called names'', because any normal person doesn't approve of mass destruction weapons. It just isn't fucking right to kill thousands of people without looking them in the eye, by just pressing a button, or saying a word. That just isn't normal.

It's my opinion. What can I do? I don't support the use of mass destruction weapons to obliterate everything in a radius. In any field, tactical, humane, whatever, nuclear bombs bring harm. You can't gain the support of the enemy's troops if they have been wiped out, and from what I've heard, the effects are felt afterwards for a considerable amount of time.

People will call you a murderer, and call me and all communists murderers because one communist remembered to reduce their enemy (and innocents, because there are always) to dust, or whatever.

What is it about being up close and personal that makes killing more appealing? It may be "normal" that combat for most of human history involves being bloodied to the elbows with the viscera of one's enemies, but is that really the sort of normality we want to keep? If wars are a psychopathic gorefest, where one can "enjoy" the screams of one's dying enemies, then psychopathic gorehounds will be attracted to warfare, and quite frankly I don't want those types anywhere near a battlefield.

If it's the support of the enemy's troops you want, then the balance of probability indicates that nuclear weapons are the wrong tool for the job. But winning them over might not be possible, while the situation demands other strategies. As for after-effects, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bustling cities and have been for quite some time.

There will always be those who seek to slander communists in any way they can. I expect there will be mistakes and tragedies in the course of any revolution, which anti-communists will do their best to capitalise on. It can't be helped.


No, there wasn't, but it's another thing that makes communism look bad, because of the missiles. Supposedly the missiles were for self defense, but ''for some reason'' a lot of people say they were pointed to New York or somewhere, as a reason to say communism is evil.
As far as I'm aware, many communists don't consider Stalin a counter-revolutionaire, but he did in fact give a bad image to communism didn't he?

The thing is, whatever mistakes we do, like these, will only make our battle harder, and while we want it to be easy, some difficulties must exist so that the revolution is definitive (in the sense that no counter-revolution happens, and the proletariat is really conscious), or else we'd simply make a coup and enforce socialism on the people, but that's not the way to do it.

I think that rather than declawing ourselves, we should loudly point out the rank hypocrisy of such an argument, since the US/NATO had missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at the USSR.

One could make the argument that the USSR came out of the Crisis in a slightly better position - the US secretly agreed to withdraw their missiles.


But I don't what care they said, except the part that the USSR also had nuclear weapons. I don't care about that. I just care about the fact that if a world revolution fails again, that's another thing used to call us evil.

In the end, it will only turn against us. If we fail, opposers will say they did it in self defense because we were going to bomb them, thus, we are evil. If we win, opposers will say that they acted in self defense, and we bombed them into submission, and thus, we are evil.

Ever heard of martyrs? This produces a similar effect.

You know, you're actually the first person I've come across who claims that people thought the USSR was evil because they had nukes. The "reasons" I've seen given for the USSR being evil, while almost always facile and/or ideologically derived, had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

Nobody in their right mind would seriously be able to claim aggression on our part, if we stick to the policy of No First Use.


I know. That's not my point. My point was the difference between enforced socialism, and ideal hyper-proletariat-conscience socialism.
A revolution that comes truly from the working class, by them seeing how far the bourgeoisie is willing to go will have much deeper effects than we bombing the USA so that capitalism will no longer exist (imagining)

In sum, everyone has opinions. Mine is that it is inhumane to use nuclear weapons and that all alternatives have to be used before even thinking of using this obliterating machine. In the end, it should only be used when inevitable, and when a much greater good will come out of it.
Eventhough I don't think I'd ever live with, for example, being the one who ordered such destruction.

You misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that we should nuke the USA in order to eradicate capitalism - that's absolutely daffy! I'm saying that the USA (or any other hostile nuclear-armed power) might see fit to crush a major revolution on the other side of the world with a judicious application of nuclear force, and the revolutionaries will require the threat of retaliation in order to make potential attackers think twice.

Nuclear war is certainly no picnic, and I fervently hope that it never comes to pass, or more likely, that it is limited and that we learn the lessons we need to learn in order to survive and develop as a species.


I think the FissBan treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISSBAN) is a pretty great idea. It also enjoys global support with the exception of the United States and Pakistan.

Doesn't this pretty much amount to ban on nuclear explosives? I think such a ban is short-sighted, since there are peaceful applications for nuclear explosives, and replacements may end up coming up to haunt us in the future, such as pure fusion or antimatter based weapons.

I think a better approach is to have agreements and controls on delivery systems, since they can also be generalised to cover new developments.

[AK]

Although it might have been originally designed for the anarchist case against terrorism...

You can't blow up a social relationship.

That being said, it's doubtful that the ruling class would actually use nuclear weapons on their prized workers/consumers. Who the hell are they gonna exploit when and if they defeat us? They need us. They prefer to keep us under control than exterminate us.

[Psy]

Although it might have been originally designed for the anarchist case against terrorism...

You can't blow up a social relationship.

That being said, it's doubtful that the ruling class would actually use nuclear weapons on their prized workers/consumers. Who the hell are they gonna exploit when and if they defeat us? They need us. They prefer to keep us under control than exterminate us.

We would not be their prized workers/consumers any more and they would also realized if they lose the evolutionary war they would have to answer for not only exploitation of the proletariat but their violence against the proletariat. Let face it by the time the Pentagon would put the use of nukes on the tables to fight revolutionary armies within the USA those imperialist armies around the world would be most definitely losing the war meaning they would have no were to run if they lost the war thus the old ruling classes would be facing its death at the hands of revolutionary armies if they can't turn the tide war.

They would not trust us if we guarantied their safety and we would not really be able to do so since their would be a long list of people that would want to kill them by that point with the means to do so.

[Luisrah]

Well, I still don't agree with it's use other than self defense then.
Say what you want, I still think it's a barbarity.

[The Vegan Marxist]

When the revolution starts, though, or say we've been in the middle of revolution for quite a while now, would there really be larged areas where the oppressors & working class are in the same spot going about their days like normal? Hell no! There will be numerous amounts of segregated areas, from collectivized areas to non-collectivized areas. If needed, nuclear weapons would come in handy as a usage against those areas in which are run & operated by the oppressors. It's not like we'd be killing thousands upon thousands of working class people. In fact, it could be much less than 100, if not lower, if directed at the right spot. Nuclear weapons should be used through democratic decisions by the populace during revolutionary war. I'm not saying that when revolution happens that we'll ever use one, but if needed, then it would be used under tactical defense.

[Psy]

Well, I still don't agree with it's use other than self defense then.
Say what you want, I still think it's a barbarity.
Well thermobaric bombs are a decent alternative to tactical nukes yet they require heavy bombers to get the same explosive force as a tactical nuclear missile and heavy bombers will gather the complete attention of the enemy forces long before they can drop their payload meaning we'd also need fighter escorts to defend the heavy bombers and by then the revolutionary forces would have so much military might the old ruling class probably consdier more exreme measure and turning the war in their favor.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God I'm so fucking sick of the "revolutionary apocalypticists" on here.

Yeah, the revolution is gonna feature Trident missles streaking across the night sky, burning cities, and barren wastelands strewn with the dead and dying! Workers will be riding nuclear bombs down to capitalist strongholds a la Dr. Strangelove, singing the International the entire way!

Gimme a fucking break.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God I'm so fucking sick of the "revolutionary apocalypticists" on here.

Yeah, the revolution is gonna feature Trident missles streaking across the night sky, burning cities, and barren wastelands strewn with the dead and dying! Workers will be riding nuclear bombs down to capitalist strongholds a la Dr. Strangelove, singing the International the entire way!

Gimme a fucking break.

You certainly can't be talking about me. If you are, please take the care to actually read what I've posted.

[piet11111]

I would be surprised if the initial revolution would claim more then a 1000 deaths.
After that nuclear weapons would be extremely helpful as a deterrent against the capitalist nations but i doubt they would dare to attack for fear of their own population.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You certainly can't be talking about me. If you are, please take the care to actually read what I've posted.

I'm not talking about you specifically; I'm talking about a general tendency on this board in regards to "wargaming" scenarios about some kind of huge, climactic military showdown that will occur when unrest and resistance reaches critical mass.

It's like the revolutionary left's version of the Christian Battle of Armageddon Hill. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not talking about you specifically; I'm talking about a general tendency on this board in regards to "wargaming" scenarios about some kind of huge, climactic military showdown that will occur when unrest and resistance reaches critical mass.

It's like the revolutionary left's version of the Christian Battle of Armageddon Hill. :rolleyes:

I agree; any future conflict between future revolutionaries and their enemies will be far from the end of the matter.

[Psy]

I'm not talking about you specifically; I'm talking about a general tendency on this board in regards to "wargaming" scenarios about some kind of huge, climactic military showdown that will occur when unrest and resistance reaches critical mass.

It's like the revolutionary left's version of the Christian Battle of Armageddon Hill. :rolleyes:
You have to remember when we have armed world revolution we'd be cornering the ruling class as they'd have no where to run and be in far too deep to just surrender just like the Nazis after it was clear to even Hitler they had lost the war and all they were doing was delaying the enviable.

For example if Hitler had nukes do you think he would have not have used them? If the Spanish Civil-War resulted in a massive revolutionary army marching east towards Berlin crushing the British and French along the way do you think Hitler would have just surrendered to them as they started to assault Berlin? Do you realize that there was US generals that seriously thought the US losing over half its population in a nuclear exchange with the USSR was not that bad if it prevented the USSR from occupying the US in a war?

[NGNM85]

Doesn't this pretty much amount to ban on nuclear explosives? I think such a ban is short-sighted, since there are peaceful applications for nuclear explosives, and replacements may end up coming up to haunt us in the future, such as pure fusion or antimatter based weapons.

I think a better approach is to have agreements and controls on delivery systems, since they can also be generalised to cover new developments.

How many practical applications are there for nuclear bombs? Not engines, not reactors, again this is specifically limited to weaponized nukes. How often does such a device become practically necessary? Not very often, I should think. Were a legitimate need arise, ACTUALLY legitimate, then I don't see why there would be an issue. The state in question would just have to provide evidence for the necessity of the device, and allow inspection by international regulators, which is precisely what the United States refuses to do under any circumstances.

There could very possibly be new treaties to cover antimatter, or fusion, if these technologies are perfected to the point where such action is warranted. The existing treaty could be expanded, or a new one could be created. This is not new. For example, there were no laws for air traffic in the 1800's, legal systems adapt with the times. Slowly, but gradually.

[bricolage]

If needed, nuclear weapons would come in handy as a usage against those areas in which are run & operated by the oppressors.

Sigh...
How can they be run by the oppressors if they don't people in that area to oppress?
That's the way oppression works.


It's not like we'd be killing thousands upon thousands of working class people. In fact, it could be much less than 100, if not lower, if directed at the right spot.

You talk like they talk.

[Psy]

Sigh...
How can they be run by the oppressors if they don't people in that area to oppress?
That's the way oppression works.

Berlin just before the USSR marched in where the SS officers ordered the remnants of the Nazi army to fight to death of course the Nazi army by then was totally broken but that didn't change the fact the Nazi command structure still tried to give them orders to fight to death. I also don't think I need to prove the SS was highly oppressive.

If the Nazis had nuclear weapons Hitler's final orders would have implied the authorization of nuclear weapons should have been used against the Red Army in Berlin (not like Hitler would have feared the nuclear blast since he committed suicide before the battle ended so would have been more then happy to make his bunker ground zero for his own nukes if he had any).

[bricolage]

And you think a genuine communist revolution will follow the exact same path as WW2?
In any case I was replying to a post about 'collectivized areas to non-collectivized areas'.
This is all pointless speculation though.

[Lulznet]

Using a weapon of mass destruction that doesn't judge who its going to kill isn't revolutionary. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

And you think a genuine communist revolution will follow the exact same path as WW2?
No but a genuine global communist revolution would be worse as the bourgeoisie would have no were to retreat to as the revolution would be global meaning every bourgeoisie state would be fighting for their very survival.

The bourgeoisie is also not stupid they know there is decent chance their necks would be in noose if a revolutionary army captures them.

[Lulznet]

And you think a genuine communist revolution will follow the exact same path as WW2?
In any case I was replying to a post about 'collectivized areas to non-collectivized areas'.
This is all pointless speculation though.
How can a genuine communist revolution follow the path of WW2 when WW2 was the result of several countries seeking to control various parts of land in Europe and the rest of the world. :(

[bricolage]

No but a genuine global communist revolution would be worse as the bourgeoisie would have no were to retreat to as the revolution would be global meaning every bourgeoisie state would be fighting for their very survival.

Maybe. I don't think bourgeois states would still be able to 'fight for their survival' if we are talking about a real revolution. They would have nothing to fight with, they would have nothing to support themselves with.


The bourgeoisie is also not stupid they know there is decent chance their necks would be in noose if a revolutionary army captures them.

What revolutionary army?

[Psy]

Maybe. I don't think bourgeois states would still be able to 'fight for their survival' if we are talking about a real revolution. They would have nothing to fight with, they would have nothing to support themselves with.

That assumes a perfect revolution where even the fascists douche bags join the revolution on the side of the proletariat.



What revolutionary army?
Revolutionary armies as in plural, armies fighting for the worker states (again plural) against the bourgeoisie states to clear the path for communism.

[bricolage]

That assumes a perfect revolution where even the fascists douche bags join the revolution on the side of the proletariat.

No, it just assumes the bourgeoisie won't have the means to support an armed offensive when they have been stripped of their soldiers, their access to production.

In any case this is irrelevant communism will not be won on the battlefield, it will be won in the workplace and in our communities. This fight fight fight mentality is worthless.


Revolutionary armies as in plural, armies fighting for the worker states (again plural) against the bourgeoisie states to clear the path for communism.

I have no interest in fighting for 'worker states' with 'revolutionary armies'. Armies and states are not revolutionary.

[Psy]

No, it just assumes the bourgeoisie won't have the means to support an armed offensive when they have been stripped of their soldiers, their access to production.

Fascists douche bags make up a percentage of bourgeois military forces and large bourgeois forces have stockpiles.



In any case this is irrelevant communism will not be won on the battlefield, it will be won in the workplace and in our communities. This fight fight fight mentality is worthless.

And what is going to happen the bourgeoisie turns workplaces into battlefields?



I have no interest in fighting for 'worker states' with 'revolutionary armies'. Armies and states are not revolutionary.
They are a necessary tool to defeat the bourgeois states and armies. Work militancy and consciousness doesn't matter when they are facing fascist death squads intent on purging the militant elements of the proletariat (even if that comprises of most of the proletariat). You can only counter death squads with revolutionary armies.

[Green/Red]

Nuclear weapons are immoral and must never be used.