Socialist perspectives on Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[CaptainCool309]

Yo! :cool: A couple friends and I have to give a classroom presentation in a couple of weeks on, "The Ethics and Morality of Weapons of Mass destruction," and I want to get some some socialist perspectives on the matter, to help formulate my opinions better. There are three types of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, and biological, and I guess I'd like to know how the Revleft community feels about WMD's. Should we (as socialists) seek to try to eliminate their existence, or are there certain times where it is ethical to produce and possibly use WMD's? Feel free to include any essential reading and viewing material on the subject because I could use a few more resources to add to our work's cited page.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Abolish them.

The whole idea that all nations should have the right to WMDs because the big bad USA has them is an outdated relic of the cold-war: it is based on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) theory that if each side (in a two-way war like the cold war) has enough weapons to destroy the other side several times over, then this will stop either side from ever attacking the other side with WMDs because it will ensure their own, complete destruction.

The problem with MAD today, of course, is that conflict tends to be multi-faceted and is not limited to two, or even several, nation states. Conflicts now involve guerrilla groups, globalised terrorist groups and other non-state actors. The continued existence of WMDs is a danger to us all, as we can see from their (probable) use by the Syrian state and by ISIS in the post-Arab Spring conflicts.

[John Nada]

Those weapons don't distinguish between classes. They're only made out of fear for the purpose of genocide. I'd say abolish them, which has been the socialist line for years, but sadly that's unlikely to happen. Realistically they can be limited.

There's a weapon called the neutron bomb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb . It had the nickname the "capitalist bomb" because it kills the people, while leaving the property intact for the taking. What's needed is a "socialist bomb" that destroys private property(or the concept thereof), while leaving the people intact.:D

[Pancakes Rühle]

Those weapons don't distinguish between classes. They're only made out of fear for the purpose of genocide. I'd say abolish them, which has been the socialist line for years, but sadly that's unlikely to happen. Realistically they can be limited.

There's a weapon called the neutron bomb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb . It had the nickname the "capitalist bomb" because it kills the people, while leaving the property intact for the taking. What's needed is a "socialist bomb" that destroys private property(or the concept thereof), while leaving the people intact.:D

Of course they distinguish between classes... one class holds controls and owns them, has their finger on the red button...the other does not.

[Futility Personified]

I broadly agree with Iller Than Vladdin Lenin (sorry, i'm so bored), my personal opinion would be that in the cold war, they were probably necessary as a deterrent, simply because the provocation/demonstration of Hiroshima showed the callous disregard to life that the ruling classes had. That kind of conflict has hopefully been extinguished, though the bourgeoisie of any nation are never going to completely disarm and these things are going to be hanging around for an awful long time. WMDs are just completely mental, and ultimately the people who are going to survive them are the people who any 'socialist' aggressor would be trying to target. The ruling class have their bunkers and their fallout shelters, ordinary folk do not.

As an additional aside, all that nuclear talk has got me thinking of depleted uranium, that fucking awful stuff is worth reading about if you are in the mood for reading about downright heinous disregard for collateral damage.

I recall reading that Chomsky was in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons to dissuade Israeli aggression, but I can't offer any citations.

Perhaps a suitable alternative to WMDs would be the reverse engineered raygun from scary movie 4? Removes the possessions, retains the person!

EDIT: Holy shit, from that wikipedia article: "In November 2012, during the planning stages of Operation Hammer of God, it was suggested by a British parliamentarian that multiple enhanced radiation reduced blast (ERRB) warheads could be detonated in the mountain region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to prevent infiltration.[62] He proposed to warn the inhabitants to evacuate, then irradiate the area, making it unusable and impassable"

[1xAntifa]

Reject wmd without exception. How many billions have been stripped from social spending for these pointless weapons? No to omnicide!

[CaptainCool309]

Abolish them.

The whole idea that all nations should have the right to WMDs because the big bad USA has them is an outdated relic of the cold-war: it is based on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) theory that if each side (in a two-way war like the cold war) has enough weapons to destroy the other side several times over, then this will stop either side from ever attacking the other side with WMDs because it will ensure their own, complete destruction.
Yup this basically sums up what I was a little iffy about. I was wondering if the majority of socialist still supported this kind of MAD theory when it came to WMD's. I watched a video by Jason Unruhe a while back with a clip of him defending North Korea's possession of weapons of mass destruction, because it served as a deterrent to "capitalist imperialist aggression" in North Korea trying to build a socialist state. When I heard that I kind of thought to myself that this sounded like a outdated cold-war kind of mentality when it came to dealing with WMD's, and personally I don't adhere to very much of what Jason Unruhe has to say, I just watch a video or two of his every once in a while to keep up with the"#1 Marxist on Youtube."


The problem with MAD today, of course, is that conflict tends to be multi-faceted and is not limited to two, or even several, nation states. Conflicts now involve guerrilla groups, globalised terrorist groups and other non-state actors. The continued existence of WMDs is a danger to us all, as we can see from their (probable) use by the Syrian state and by ISIS in the post-Arab Spring conflicts.
Yup this is what makes the MAD theory outdated in today's world, all the guerilla terrorist groups all around the world are playing the game that was once dominated by two blocs, the Western nation-states, and the "communist" bloc of nation-states.


I'd say abolish them, which has been the socialist line for years, but sadly that's unlikely to happen. Yes my personal stance beforehand was to work towards the abolition of WMD's, but unfortunately as you say, the odds of that happening are not very good. I feel that Nuclear weapons would be easier to get a global restriction on, compared to chemical or biological WMD's, because I've been a reading a good book on Chemical and Biological WMD's, and there are just so many advantages of these kinds of weapons compared to nuclear weapons that many terrorist groups and basically any Nation-state can invest it. As Saddam Hussein once said, "We don't need an atomic bomb. We have the "dual chemical." Chemical and Biological weapons are cheaper to manufacture, easier to get the needed materials to make, and can cause a just as much devastating destruction themselves when compared to Nuclear Weapons.

I will address the other responses in a little bit. I am typing this in a study hall right now, and I have to get to back to class in a little bit, but I just want to say thanks for all the great responses and this has definitely helped me shape my own view on WMD's.

[The Intransigent Faction]

All or nothing. They *should* be abolished, but if every state but one dismantles its stockpiles, that would mean trouble. In any case, those weapons serve the myopic interests of the ruling class, so the quickest way to nuclear disarmament would be socialism. Bourgeois politicians might trumpet "steps" toward disarmament just as they trumpet "steps" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they will be too constrained to go as far as necessary, and to do so as soon as neccessary.

WMDs are a powerful tool of population control. They further demonstrate that ruling class rhetoric about "security" refers to the security of their own privileges and hierarchies and the structures that allow them. States are willing to destroy, and have destroyed, large populations to maintain their security.

The notion of guerrilla groups or "rogue states" getting their hands on such weapons has also been used to scare the U.S. and other Western populations into supporting the "War on Terror". U.S. WMD production is deemed necessary for global security, while production by anyone not serving U.S. interests is deemed a threat to global security. It's a clear case of doublethink.

[cyu]

The use of WMD is basically collective punishment (and another example of association fallacy), a violation of Geneva Conventions - opposed in theory by just about every nation, but in practice, I'm not sure if any regime avoids it.

That being said, if it were up to me, I wouldn't totally get rid of them. Even if I believe TNT shouldn't be used on people, that doesn't mean I think there should be no TNT.