nuclear weapons

[mzalendo]

if all the nations on earth had nuclear weapons in they possession do you think uncle sam and his few allies of convenience would be towering over the world like a colossus?the answer is no mos-def.why america hasnt invaded north korea has everything to do with koreas bargaining power by virtue of having the all powerful nuclear.what do you think

[Xiao Banfa]

Dead right. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked.
Two countries with nuclear weapons are forced to negotiate with each other.

[piet11111]

indeed india and pakistan would have loved to go at it but they both have nukes.
so far things are working out but for how long.

and its the "no nation with nukes has ever been attacked" thing i want to talk about.
the revolution in order to survive needs nuclear weapons.
the most likely place for the revolution to begin is western europe so we have france and the united kingdom.

do you think that with the combined nuclear arsenal of the united kingdom and france that the revolution is secured ?
or should we try to gain the favour of the russian federation to get weapons and protection in exchange for the foreign currency supply's and expert aid ?

[Slider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:19 AM
.. why america hasnt invaded north korea has everything to do with koreas bargaining power by virtue of having the all powerful nuclear.
No doubt about it.

[Abood]

There is NO need for nuclear weapons for a revolution!
We do not want to kill civilians, or do we?!!!
Imagine a world without nukes, and everyone fighting with a gun instead of someone killing 100 000 people by a bomb! It would be much more fair and the workers will have much more power!
I say NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT!!!
Disarm all bombs!!
Something I heard: There are enough bombs in the world to demolish it 5 times!!!
Something else I heard: If all the TNT in the world was distributed equally among all 6billion people, each person gets 11tons!!!

[piet11111]

lol i never mentioned us using nuclear weapons.
i meant it more of having them to prevent nations like china turning us into ashes after the revolution.

without having nukes ourselves others have very little incentive of using nukes against us.
i think we can not risk not having nukes in a world where even the most backwards nations can develop them if they have enough time.

[loveme4whoiam]

Then the revolution should seek to remove ALL nukes from all countries! Nuclear weapons scare me shitless, but what scares me more is when people say that we need to nukes to protect us from people with nukes. That is whayt is know in miltiary parlance as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. And there is a damn good reason that it is called that, because it is fucking insane!!!

True enough, no power has ever been attacked when they have had nuclear weapons (apart, of course, from those Middle Eastern nations who "had" them :P), but does that mean that in order for us, for the revolution, to survive we should be willing to kill hundreds of thousands, millions of innocent people, the people we are supposed to support and aid in revolution, as a response to aggression from a capitalist power?? Now that is MAD.

Take over nuclear depots, sure, take them out of the hands of politicians who might be so unhinged as to use them on their own people, for the love of Jebus and anyone else you might care to mention we shouldn't be willing to use them ourselves! And believe me, to own them is to be prepared to use them.

[Abood]

piet11111:
Instead of making nukes, so that nations with nukes can't attack us, why not prevent those nations from having nukes? Nuclear weapons have much much more con's than pro's, and as loveme4whoiam mentioned...
to own them is to be prepared to use them.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 27 2006, 01:43 PM
piet11111:
Instead of making nukes, so that nations with nukes can't attack us, why not prevent those nations from having nukes? Nuclear weapons have much much more con's than pro's, and as loveme4whoiam mentioned...
to own them is to be prepared to use them.
i prefer that myself if it was possible to make them get rid of nuclear weapons.
but because that is impossible i think its for the best if we are locked in MAD.
everything better then assured destruction if we are attacked.

[loveme4whoiam]

i think its for the best if we are locked in MAD.
everything better then assured destruction if we are attacked.
What?! So, better that we should kill millions of people before allowing ourselves to die? What kind of thinking is that?!
Mutually Assured Destruction is not better that everything, it is better than nothing! How is putting the lives of millions of innocent people on the line in order to protect our own interests better than fighting a convention guerrilla war (if it even comes to that)? You don't have the right to make that kind of decision, no one does.

And to dispel this fear of your that the capitalists are going to use nukes against us, wake up man! Nuclear weapons kills cities, not individuals. For the "leader" of a country to use nuclear weapons against "his" own people would be nothing short of actual, clinical insanity. Added to that, how many soldiers do you think would be willing to blow up whole cities to stop a movement that is supposed by the majority of the population of the country? I can see soldiers "just following orders" and nuking another country, just. But I honestly think it is next to impossible for nukes to ever be used as a suppressant of the revolution.

Of course, post-revolution is a different matter. When any old sod can create a nuke with blueprints from the Net, we have something to be worried about. But this does not support a MAD policy either. I can see no logical reason for nuclear weapons to be a necessity of the pre- or post-revolution.

[piet11111]

ok i am speaking of the situation where western europe is secured by the revolution potentially north america aswell.
the only way we can prevent china or anyother country with nukes to use those weapons against us is by making clear we are capable of nuclear retalliation.

they are the only reason why the cold war never became a fighting war.
i prefer that there where no nuclear weapons but if we are the only ones to get rid of them that would be an open invitation for invasion.
and im sure that such an invasion would be very damn similar to hitlers invasion of eastern europe and the ussr.

and even when we are getting nuclear weapons send our way then we could still decide not to launch our own weapons.
the fact those weapons are so destructive works in our favour because nobody would dare to use them first.

[Psy]

Remeber after a nuclear war you can pretty much forget a egalitarian society as even the the means of survival become too scare to support what few surviors are left as radiation would radically shrink crop yields around the world.

Think how close we came to nuclear war in the Cuban missle crisis. Remeber as we speak Russia and the USA have missles pointed at each others major cities on a hair trigger alert and both have a history of close calls where it came down to just seconds of starting a nuclear war since like I said both have missles ready to go at a moments notice.

[Abood]

I seriously don't get why nuclear weapons aren't totally illegal!!
I don't get how it is legal for someone to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people!

[loveme4whoiam]

Considering the fact that the revolution will (with any luck) be a global revolution, this point is fairly moot. Do you think that, for example, when/if a guerrilla force in, say, the UK removed the UK's ability to use nuclear weapons, would France or the USA or China or Russia or whoever immediately launch weapons at it because it can't fire back? Even to stop a revolution in that country from beginning, I can't see that happening (although lets face it, I am giving the rulers of these countries a little bit of credit).

Just having nuclear weapons on the table raises the ante far too high, even when we are talking about a global revolution. The number of lives on the line dramatically increases if nuclear weapons are considered a valid option.

EDIT - Nuclear weapons are illegal, aren't they? At least, using them must contravene some sort of international agreement, and owning them if you are not one of the "elite countries" who are "responsible" enough to have them is considered illegal by the UN I'm sure. Still, I doubt that would stop Bush, he's already shown he has no regard for international law.

Editted to reply to SA's post.

[Fidelbrand]

a bloody vicious cycle is all i see.

[piet11111]

poeple i am not calling for nuclear war.
having nuclear weapons is the most effective way to prevent nuclear war from happening because both sides would be turned into a slab of glass.

nuclear weapons are here and we cant get rid of them because it would make a first-strike possible where the shooting side would not be hit themselves.

i say that we can not get rid of them because we are the most dangerous enemy's of the capitalists.
if we turn out to be unable to retalliate then the capitalist nations have no military reason not to use weapons of mass destruction.
that is unacceptible because we would be destroyed.
i prever to have nuclear weapons around because the enemy would be forced to keep his nuclear weapons unused or be destroyed.

i dont like nuclear weapons nobody likes them but without them we could just aswell commit suicide because the revolution would be crushed anyway.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:19 AM
if all the nations on earth had nuclear weapons in they possession do you think uncle sam and his few allies of convenience would be towering over the world like a colossus?the answer is no mos-def.why america hasnt invaded north korea has everything to do with koreas bargaining power by virtue of having the all powerful nuclear.what do you think
Not really...

Before World War I, the idea was that since both sides had huge armies, neither side would be brave enough to fight.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by ScottishPinko+Feb 27 2006, 03:57 PM--> (ScottishPinko @ Feb 27 2006, 03:57 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 07:19 AM
if all the nations on earth had nuclear weapons in they possession do you think uncle sam and his few allies of convenience would be towering over the world like a colossus?the answer is no mos-def.why america hasnt invaded north korea has everything to do with koreas bargaining power by virtue of having the all powerful nuclear.what do you think
Not really...

Before World War I, the idea was that since both sides had huge armies, neither side would be brave enough to fight. [/b]
true but one can bring forth the cold war to show that the MAD concept offers protection.
WW1 had the nasty capitalist spin that the capitalists would end up winning anyway.
the royalty probably considered it as a gambling game.

nuclear weapons however would mean the death of the capitalists themselfes something
the first world war did not threaten the lifes of the poeple that started the war.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:08 PM
true but one can bring forth the cold war to show that the MAD concept offers protection.
WW1 had the nasty capitalist spin that the capitalists would end up winning anyway.
the royalty probably considered it as a gambling game.

nuclear weapons however would mean the death of the capitalists themselfes something
the first world war did not threaten the lifes of the poeple that started the war.
There is a slight flaw, when a nuclear power thinks it is under attack it has no choice to attack or it will lose it ability to launch. This is why there have been so many close calls under MAD with operators only seconds from committing to a launch realize they were not really under nuclear attack.

Odds are nuclear war would be by mistake with paranoia causing a nuclear power to launch thinking it is already under a nuclear attack and it must launch to punish its attacker before it loses its capability to do so.

[piet11111]

that is a big risk indeed but i would prefer such a risk over the certainty of the revolution being crushed by capitalist nations.

does anyone think a revolution in western europe and north america stands a chance of survival without a nuclear deterrant ?

i for one certainly dont.

[loveme4whoiam]

I still swing back to this point, because you just seem to keep missing it - are you prepared to say that the revolution is worth the lives of the people that would die as a result of nuclear weapons? I sure as hell am not saying that.

I'll repeat - to have nuclear weapons is to be prepared to use them. They are not a device used for military purposes, they are political weapons in the most real sense. Relying on the fact that the other guy won't risk being blown up himself is worse than relying on the fact that he won't blow up millions of "our" people, because it doubles the number of people who can be blown up. Using nukes as a deterrent is just not an option if you care about the lives of people you haven't met, and I think it goes without saying that everyone here does.

And yes, I do believe a revolution in Western Europe and North America could stand on its on without a nuclear deterrent.

[drain.you]

The revolution is going to be led by the people of a country, a majority of people. You think the country's leader is just gonna okay killing all of his/her citizens? They wouldn't have anything left, no workers, no means of production, no place to live.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous indeed, we all know that. But I'm not sure that MAD acts as a safeguard. I mean, theres crazy people in the world, some of the nukes have simply disappeared into the hands of god knows who after the disband of the USSR and others, there are people willing to die for a 'God' in hope of salvation, we've seen this time and time again and I think its only a question of time before a nuke falls into the hands of some crazy person. Perhaps they already have, Iran....
I dunno. I think capitalist societies and corrupt countries will use any means they can to defend their own interests. thats the nature of humans.

We will have nuclear war.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:05 PM
that is a big risk indeed but i would prefer such a risk over the certainty of the revolution being crushed by capitalist nations.

does anyone think a revolution in western europe and north america stands a chance of survival without a nuclear deterrant ?

i for one certainly dont.
Do you understand the damange ICBMs do? Your talking major cities completly gone, those stupid enough to go to fallout shelter will get asphyxiated as air gets sucked into the mushroom cloud. Only way to survive is to be far enough away from blast and well protected in underground bunkers, thus the ruling elite are the people that will mostly likely survive as the working class get whiped off the face of the earth.

[piet11111]

i fully understand the consequences of nuclear war but i am certain that if we are without nuclear weapons that other nations like say china has no reason not to nuke us.

they have no reason whatsoever to even sleep a second less when europe and north america have been incinerated.

and yes i think even our country's leaders are capable of using WMD's against us (atleast the chemical and biological types)
because in their eyes all is already lost.

and regarding what the revolution is worth to me its worth everything it takes.
but if the revolution is doomed (like when we decide to get rid of our WMD's) then i dont see the point to even bother.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:37 AM
i fully understand the consequences of nuclear war but i am certain that if we are without nuclear weapons that other nations like say china has no reason not to nuke us.

they have no reason whatsoever to even sleep a second less when europe and north america have been incinerated.

and yes i think even our country's leaders are capable of using WMD's against us (atleast the chemical and biological types)
because in their eyes all is already lost.

and regarding what the revolution is worth to me its worth everything it takes.
but if the revolution is doomed (like when we decide to get rid of our WMD's) then i dont see the point to even bother.
I think it is better to push for nuclear disarment as there are no winners in a nuclear war. If you have a succesful revolutio in a nation that has nukes then TELL the workers of other nuclear power that you are disarming for them and all you ask for in return is for them to do everything in their power to get their country to get rid of their nukes.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed, I don't see why nuclear disarmament during a revolution is going to be so hard. I mean, we're expected to topple the government, beat or at least evade the military long enough to accomplish that first one, why is gaining control of nuclear installations going to be so difficult compared to that. Fair enough, nuclear subs are pretty much out of our reach :P, but if the revolution moves quickly and severs the elite in power they can't be launched.

[piet11111]

i am not willing to use nuclear weapons against anyone.
but that does not mean i would allow anyone to get rid of the most important tool for our survival.

we can not barter with the governments to get rid of WMD's because they would stop at nothing to destroy the revolution.
if we have nukes they would be forced to risk losing everything including their lifes.
capitalists fortunatly are not willing to do that.
this does not mean that we would even consider using nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear strike from the enemy.

from the capitalist perspective we are either capable to kill him if he tries something or we are a crippled sheep to the wolfes.
without nuclear weapons the enemy who would be in greater numbers then ourselves would have almost no chance of losing a war.
and even if we somehow managed to push him back then he would simply threaten to use WMD's if we crossed the border.

i for one am not willing to life the rest of my life after the revolution knowing that everything that i and my komrades achieved after the revolution can be destroyed the moment some bastard capitalist feels like going on a plundering campaign.

a world without nukes is a very nice dream but it will always remain a dream untill the revolution spread to every nation on the world.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed - global revolution. Isn't that the general idea? If you are doing things piecemeal then I can see how this could be a problem, but like I said swift movement could nullify the nuclear weapons themselves before they could be launched by a desperate, not to mention utterly insane, cappie "leader".

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 06:14 PM
a world without nukes is a very nice dream but it will always remain a dream untill the revolution spread to every nation on the world.
You do know the bulk of ICBMs are owned by Russia and the USA, right? A revolution in both followed by nuclear disarment of both would get rid of the vast majory of the world ICBMs.

[redstar2000]

I think a nuclear deterrent in the hands of the revolution is "a good thing"...it doesn't have to be particularly large or imposing.

All the potential counter-revolutionary aggressor needs to know is that an attack on us will cost him most or all of his major cities...and it simply won't be "worth it" for him to try.

In fact, it might be best to store our nuclear arsenal on half-a-dozen nuclear subs that are constantly at sea...so even a "quick strike" by a counter-revolutionary force will not save their asses.

Thus far, nuclear weapons have only been used against a country that was unable to retaliate.

I think that's a valuable lesson.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[loveme4whoiam]

In fact, it might be best to store our nuclear arsenal on half-a-dozen nuclear subs that are constantly at sea...so even a "quick strike" by a counter-revolutionary force will not save their asses.
Slightly unrealistic, unless anyone has a half-dozen nuclear subs lying around that they aren't using? Saying that, the Russkies might, perhaps we can borrow theirs :lol:

I doubt we'd have the resources to do this, although against all the overwhelming opinion I'll admit that yes, it'd probably deter countries from counter-revolutionary activites against a particular post-revolutionary society. I think my objection to nukes is caused by to things. One is simply the cost of life involved - why should we kill hundreds of thousands of people just because their leader is crazy enough to use them in the first place?
The other objection to this is from a winning-support perspective. People (just as I did) get sketchy and scared when nukes are mentioned; its how we've been conditioned into thinking. Going on about having a MAD deterrent will scare people away, not draw people in.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Psy+Feb 28 2006, 06:40 PM--> (Psy @ Feb 28 2006, 06:40 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 06:14 PM
a world without nukes is a very nice dream but it will always remain a dream untill the revolution spread to every nation on the world.
You do know the bulk of ICBMs are owned by Russia and the USA, right? A revolution in both followed by nuclear disarment of both would get rid of the vast majory of the world ICBMs. [/b]
ofcourse but did you know that the uk also has ballistic submarines ?
and that even the netherlands still have NATO nukes laying around ?

a global revolution is nigh impossible because not all nations are ready for it.
nations like india and china are perhaps even century's away and i dont even want to imagine what they would do to us if they felt they could get away with it.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:52 PM
a global revolution is nigh impossible because not all nations are ready for it.
nations like india and china are perhaps even century's away and i dont even want to imagine what they would do to us if they felt they could get away with it.
After the October revolution in Russia the world did get closer to global revolution, this was because regardless how much of a workers state it really was for Russians, it was a workers state to the rest workers of the world. Prior to WWII workers saw the USSR as on their side when USSR went nuclear the capitalist used it to make workers scared of the USSR.

A workers state must be something for the workers of the world to look up to not something they fear will wipe them off the face of the earth.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:43 PM
After the October revolution in Russia the world did get closer to global revolution, this was because regardless how much of a workers state it really was for Russians, it was a workers state to the rest workers of the world. Prior to WWII workers saw the USSR as on their side when USSR went nuclear the capitalist used it to make workers scared of the USSR.

A workers state must be something for the workers of the world to look up to not something they fear will wipe them off the face of the earth.
the workers state should make damn sure it has no desire to wage war of conquest.
sending troops abroad should only be done with an "invitation" by foreign revolutionary's and after much debate about the ability of that nations revolution to survive.

the workers state's most important task is to make the revolution survive without nuclear weapons there is simply no reason why capitalist nations cant attack us.

the foreign proletarians are smart enough to realise we have to protect ourselves from the capitalists.
if our revolution is crushed because we could not keep the capitalists from attacking us then we will remain in the capitalist nightmare for generations untill our offspring are able to try again.

and i dont know about the poeple that oppose nuclear deterrant but i want the revolution
to survive like an island in a sea of capitalism.