The means of destruction.

[Forward Union]

Directed at everybody from both the left and right, in regard to your personal sentiments. A lot of the users in this part of the forum disagree on what should be done with the means of Production. What do you think should be done with the means of destruction. When you answer, I mean in context of your ideal society.

By means of destruction, I'm not referring to melee weapons as such, but focusing on state-controlled weapons like Nukes, ICBMS, Chemical Warheads, and even Tanks.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm predicting most idealists here will say "We'll beat all our swords into ploughshares and hug and pick flowers together" Or some sort of similar utopian rot.

Me? I'm in favour of keeping them for as long as necessary.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:59 PM
Me? I'm in favour of keeping them for as long as necessary.
As it stands though, they are not evenly distributed, and perhaps cannot be. Unless there is some form of state as socialists may argue. Im guessing they will suggest them being put under state control, which is under democratic control.

What if there is no state? Destroyed? Distributed? Safeguarded?

[Ele'ill]

I guess a better question is why would we keep them? What uses do they serve us?

[violencia.Proletariat]

meh youd have to keep them around for along time, just to be safe, im talking of tanks/artillery here not nukes. but say one day when we would not have a need im guessing disarmorment and the materials can be recycled.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Maybe I am an idealist, but I would say gradual disarmament is best. As the Non Proliferation treaty states. However, it is obvious that they do present somewhat of a conundrum.

[KC]

Weapons of the state aren't needed. There is nobody to fight.

[JKP]

Nothing is more complex, more expensive, and therefore more centralizing than a nuclear bomb. Such weapons inevitably imply some monstrous, all-consuming Ministry of war behind them. Tanks, battleships bombers, and nukes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, machine guns, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:10 PM
I guess a better question is why would we keep them? What uses do they serve us?
Deterrent.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:11 PM
Weapons of the state aren't needed. There is nobody to fight.
:lol: You think the entire world is going to turn communist at once?


Nothing is more complex, more expensive, and therefore more centralizing than a nuclear bomb. Such weapons inevitably imply some monstrous, all-consuming Ministry of war behind them.

Nonsense. The hardest part about nuclear bombs is procurement of materials and delivery.

I'd post a file to show you just how easy it is but I am afraid it would bring unwanted attention to the site.

H-Bombs are child's play.

[KC]

laugh.gif You think the entire world is going to turn communist at once?


He said in your ideal society. My ideal society is a communist society. We aren't talking about the transitional phase.

[Freedom Works]

Sell them off.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 4 2005, 02:30 AM
Sell them off.
To who? North Korea?

[Freedom Works]

To individuals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And an individual is going to do precisely what with an H-Bomb?

[ComradeOm]

A socialist state will need weapons to ensure the peaceful transition. After that a communist society will have no foes and so no need for weapons. No doubt some will be kept but the likes of WMD or massed armour divisions will be a thing of the past.

[Led Zeppelin]

There will be no heavy arms industry in Communism, since heavy arms aren't necessary.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 10:18 PM
To individuals.
bad idea, who are these individuals? Terrorists? selling WMDs to anyone is very risky. and Marxism-Lenninism, how can you explain then the build up nuclear weapons by the USSR during the cold war?

These kinds of weapons are most likely not going to be used b the majority of the countries who have them, unless you have a rouge country such as North Korea or Saddam controled Iraq. They are the ones that pose the biggest threat with thier WMDs.
Most countries keep WMDs as a method of defense, not for attacking.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:13 PM
how can you explain then the build up nuclear weapons by the USSR during the cold war?

Firstly the USSR wasnt communist and secondly it had to build nukes to protect its self from the US.


You think the entire world is going to turn communist at once?

No. But were gonna have to have the majoroty of the population to have a sucsesfull Revolution and what if a few capitalist hicks take contral of a village what are we gonna do nuke them?

The only reason we will need nukes is if a world revolution is not sucsesfull in a few countrys, then we will need nukes to deter them but when the world is communist will we really need WMD's?

[Freedom Works]

truthaddict11: Is it better to sell to individuals or "government"?

[truthaddict11]

it all depends on what goverments you are giving to, they cannot be trusted completly on how to use thier arms, take a look at Iraq and when we sold them arms in the 80s. Now we cant track on what these governmets do with the arms after we sell them, but I believe it is safer to sell to governments, those that are our allies than to individuals who we dont know what they are to do with them, if you sold WMDs to individuals they could be used by terrorists.

[Freedom Works]

Individuals (usually) earn their wealth legitimately, "government" never does, how can you advocate using stolen wealth to purchase weapons?


if you sold WMDs to individuals they could be used by terrorists.
Oh yeah, and that 'problem' is solved by selling to "government"! :P

[quincunx5]

Freedom Works, are you suggesting that nuclear weapons be sold and actually transfered to individuals?

This seems a bit silly, since there is no wealth in phyiscally having one, and it's very expensive to keep a third party from stealing one (security costs, etc.).

How about keeping the nukes precisely where they (like the Fort Knox of gold), and just assigning to them a market value (perhaps the initial cost of production plus R+D + inflation). This way they can also be part of a commodity standard next to gold and silver. If one can come up with a way that no nuke can be owned (only a fraction of a nuke, or fractions of many nukes), then the problem of having a maniacal invidual obtaining one may be solved.

Or one could just scrap them and recycle them into other goods. The problem with this is getting everyone to do it. And yet it dosn't solve anything since the knowledge to produce them still exists. It is always the knowledge and never the physical nukes that are dangerous.

[Forward Union]

The technology will not dissolve. and Rogue individuals with warped dreams of glory will still exist.

[quincunx5]

The technology will not dissolve. and Rogue individuals with warped dreams of glory will still exist


Yes. What's your point?

[FleasTheLemur]

If if the whole world was red, there will be a need to police criminals and the like.

However, I don't really see the need to keep nuclear weapons or produce weapons grade uranium once the world becomes red (this is 400 or so years down the road though, of course). After that, we could launch all the nukes into some random sun. Not our own, of course.

[Forward Union]

Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.

Don't worry. The Capitalists will probably have already destroyed the world and its environment by then. :(

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 4 2005, 05:13 PM
Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.
theres different theories on that. some say even if you blow up an asteroid it will reform. so i guess we will find out when it happens.

[Freedom Works]

Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.
Probably not, we need capitalism's progress and prosperity to find out ways to efficiently do so.

[saint max]

A few (hundred) well placed Electromagnetic pulse bombs and this question can become a moot point.

cheers,
-max

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 5 2005, 03:31 AM
A few (hundred) well placed Electromagnetic pulse bombs and this question can become a moot point.

cheers,
-max
Which is pretty much a moot point as well since such weapons don't exist, and electronics can be hardened against EMP attacks anyway.
(The side effect of detonating a nuclear weapon in an atmosphere is an electromagnetic pulse, and most military hardware is hardened against such occurrances)

[saint max]

Perhaps...What do you mean by hardened?

I don't think the support networks which the power to run most military weapons come from are protected. Moreover, the infrastructure to run any technological advance past the '70s is pretty vulnerable. Anything with silicon chips is pretty fucked...

The best thing one can do with mass-arms is render them useless as soon as possible.

cheers,
-t

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 5 2005, 08:15 PM
Perhaps...What do you mean by hardened?

I don't think the support networks which the power to run most military weapons come from are protected. Moreover, the infrastructure to run any technological advance past the '70s is pretty vulnerable. Anything with silicon chips is pretty fucked...

The best thing one can do with mass-arms is render them useless as soon as possible.

cheers,
-t
And what is stopping someone from producing them independently? and better yet, what right do we have to stop someone?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 5 2005, 01:41 PM

And what is stopping someone from producing them independently? and better yet, what right do we have to stop someone?
WMDs require a large amounts of resources and personnel. Someone trying to make backyard VX is going to come out alive. Homemade nukes? You've watched the manhattan project one too many times.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps...What do you mean by hardened?

The main damage caused to electronics by EMP is arcing between between circuitry - hardened electronics are electronics where the arcing doesn't melt the solder.


I don't think the support networks which the power to run most military weapons come from are protected.

You bet they are. Since most of the latter half of the 20th century was mostly the Cold War, where nukes were the main threat.

Why do you think most supply trucks and tanks are diesel? Diesel can still run after being exposed to EMP (Petrol engines require constant ignition via spark plugs, diesel doesn't).


Moreover, the infrastructure to run any technological advance past the '70s is pretty vulnerable. Anything with silicon chips is pretty fucked...

Two words; Faraday Cage. Anything within this simple wire cage is easily protected from EMP and electrical discharges.


WMDs require a large amounts of resources and personnel. Someone trying to make backyard VX is going to come out alive. Homemade nukes? You've watched the manhattan project one too many times.

Nukes are easy to make. just get two subcritical masses of any enriched isotope (Uranium-235 is best, but you can use Thorium as well) and set them up so that the two masses hit each each other with great force. Stick this in a container, and you have your A-bomb. Yield is about 10-20 kilotons.
H-bombs are merely 4 or more A-bombs stuck around some lithium deuteride and detonated simultaneously. Yield is much greater, 10-20 megatons.
This sort of information is easily found in your local library.
Like I said earlier, it is the acquisition of fissile materials and delivery of the weapon to the target that present major problems. The best use of nuclear weapons for those on a low budget is for landmines and booby traps for delaying any enemy advance and as "salting" weapons to deny the enemy productive land.

[Andy Bowden]

Selling Battlefield Weapons grade technology to individuals is madness - what the hell do you think they would use them for?

Defence?


They would use them to take power, and any Capitalist-Libertarian state without rules would be overthrown by the people it helped.


To quote Mao - "Political power grows out of the barrell of a gun".

[visceroid]

we should recycles nukes, but keep small arms for the people. i believe even in a communist society we might need them, what if a particular commune goes postal for some reason, obviously we need weapons for law enforcement, if some maniac has a knife, the people will be better of with a ranged weapon to subdue them.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:39 PM
we should recycles nukes, but keep small arms for the people. i believe even in a communist society we might need them, what if a particular commune goes postal for some reason, obviously we need weapons for law enforcement, if some maniac has a knife, the people will be better of with a ranged weapon to subdue them.
I suppose its always possible that communes might war. Communism means the end of history - not the end of events. Its hard to imagine a communist society at war with itself though.

[Ele'ill]

we should recycles nukes, but keep small arms for the people. i believe even in a communist society we might need them, what if a particular commune goes postal for some reason, obviously we need weapons for law enforcement, if some maniac has a knife, the people will be better of with a ranged weapon to subdue them.

There is no problem in this world that cannot be solve by any particular amount of killing.

I hate it but it's true.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 4 2005, 04:23 PM
Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.
haha just like the one that was "supposed to hit last year? :lol: keep that crap in science fiction

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:34 AM

we should recycles nukes, but keep small arms for the people. i believe even in a communist society we might need them, what if a particular commune goes postal for some reason, obviously we need weapons for law enforcement, if some maniac has a knife, the people will be better of with a ranged weapon to subdue them.

There is no problem in this world that cannot be solve by any particular amount of killing.

I hate it but it's true.
What if 'Killing' was the problem?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Oct 7 2005, 08:18 PM--> (truthaddict11 @ Oct 7 2005, 08:18 PM)
Additives [email protected] 4 2005, 04:23 PM
Can't nuclear weapons be useful in destroying/diverting asteroids? there's one going to hit earth in about 800 years.
haha just like the one that was "supposed to hit last year? :lol: keep that crap in science fiction [/b]
The Earth has been hit with asteroids before, and it will happen again. It's a matter of when, not if.


What if 'Killing' was the problem?

Killing isn't a problem, it's a means to an end. You can sit around and spout pacifist platitudes if you want, but some of us actually want to achieve something and in the real world that involves occasionally getting your hands bloody.

[Ele'ill]

What if 'Killing' was the problem?

Well, if killing was the problem to you, and I agreed with killing then I'd kill you. Or say a commune goes postal and chooses to use killing in a manner that the majority disaproves of. You kill those in that commune and you're free of that problem.


ou can sit around and spout pacifist platitudes if you want, but some of us actually want to achieve something and in the real world that involves occasionally getting your hands bloody.

I half agree with this. In the event that a government would open fire on say a demonstration, the demonstrations would be a symbolic suicide. But after a few of them the opposistion would either say enough is enough and take up arms, to physically remove THEIR problem, being the government, or face ideological extinction. Or Hibernation rather as ideas dont' die but they do need a host. The real world is only what those in power want you to see or feel. When you're on the battle field, ideology tends to fade for a while and is replaced with survival instinct. I have to kill him or her because if I don't they'll kill me. It's self justification without ideological influences. It's dangerous to fall into this lull but it's also inevitable. When you have two sides killing in the heat of battle the actual act of killing isn't ideologically based. I stand against war and against murder reguardless of who it is. Unless it is a life or death situation. War will only teach the next generation that bloodshed is acceptable from all political and religious angles.