Bourgeoisie Retaliation

[Faux Real]

A lingering idea in my mind is how exactly the ruling classes all over the world, more specifically on how the bourgeoisie in nuclear armed states will retaliate.

I imagine if they see that the proletarian revolution is well underway and near successful that they will not have any of it and will reach a point of insanity, then launch nukes at cities and towns controlled by the revolutionaries.

Is this likely or not?

If so would this require us to change strategies?

What other kinds of steps would they take? (besides the usual fascist stormtroopers...)

(sorry about the sci-fi esque question if it seems that way)

[Raúl Duke]

While it has been lingering in my mind that a nuke strike might be possible....such an action if done however might be a death nail for the capitalists. People from the attacking nation will most likely grow massive spite against their leaders/the elite because of the use of a nuclear weapon.

Also, there will be resistence against the use of nuclear weapons. By the time the 1st one is used it is likely that the people will begin resistence (protests, etc) against the use of another nuke and call for the end of nuclear weapons now.

This is very likely the case since I heard that modern nukes are much stronger than what was used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it's destructive power will be much more horrifying and shocking to the people.

Well...let's say hypothetically the revolutionaries have control of all North America. They can try to muster the use of the "nuke deterrence system" that the former US area has. It might not be a great system (actually most likely than not it might be useless)...but it would be better than nothing.

If the nuking occurs during the "civil war"/revolution we may or may not have the control of this system or any other alternatives...this changes the situation.

[BobKKKindle$]

If they have the ability to do so, they will go to any lengths to destroy workers' power. What we must do is deprive them of that ability by engaging with the means by which the bourgeoisie maintain their rule - the 'armed bodies of men' such as the Army and Police force - and show them how it is in their interests to join the side of the revolution and strike against those they have been charged to protect. During the October revolution, soldiers actually refused to fire against demonstrations and played an active role in many democratic bodies such as the Petrograd Soviet - we should follow this example in the future.

[Dimentio]

Why not build nuclear weapons? Think about a trans-continental trade union armed with nuclear weapons :lol:

[Hiero]

The imperialist had nukes during the Chinese revolution, Cuban revolition, Angolian liberation, Vietnamese liberation and revolution. There has been alot of anti-US movements since the US droped the bomb on Japan and they haven't used it yet.

Remember, all imperialist are paper tigers. With all their new technology and fancy weopons they still lose wars. Malcolm said that all you need to win a war against the USA is gym boots, a bowl of rice and a rifle, the Veitnamese proved this to be true.

[RNK]

The imperialist had nukes during the Chinese revolution, Cuban revolition, Angolian liberation, Vietnamese liberation and revolution. There has been alot of anti-US movements since the US droped the bomb on Japan and they haven't used it yet.

None of those revolutions occured on the soil of any imperialist country. And even then, their use was actually a possibility; it was discussed as recently as the invasion of Iraq.

[Janus]

Is this likely or not?
It's possible though one would question why the capitalists would want to utterly destroy any chance of reclaiming their former homes,property,etc.

But in order to prevent any such actions, it would be best to seize the nuclear silos first or at least acquire thermonuclear weapons in order to deter a possible strike.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:50 pm

The imperialist had nukes during the Chinese revolution, Cuban revolition, Angolian liberation, Vietnamese liberation and revolution. There has been alot of anti-US movements since the US droped the bomb on Japan and they haven't used it yet.

None of those revolutions occured on the soil of any imperialist country. And even then, their use was actually a possibility; it was discussed as recently as the invasion of Iraq.
Sorry, I didn't read the queston correctly.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:50 am

The imperialist had nukes during the Chinese revolution, Cuban revolition, Angolian liberation, Vietnamese liberation and revolution. There has been alot of anti-US movements since the US droped the bomb on Japan and they haven't used it yet.

None of those revolutions occured on the soil of any imperialist country. And even then, their use was actually a possibility; it was discussed as recently as the invasion of Iraq.
Yeah, I think Dwight D. Eisenhower had even threatened to use the atomic bomb on Chinese cities in Manchuria if they considered bombing cities in South Korea with their aircraft? It was discussed as an option to consider for North Vietnam also.

[kracken]

how effective would using nukes against revolutionarys actually be? i mean no matter how many die in the actual strike(s) the propaganda potential would be massive, rallying far more people to revolt, than which died in the strikes. and the revolution would surely recover swiftly. i expect that no matter how desperate they were to cling to power, they would realise the futility in this.

On another note, how likely is it that were looking at a second cold war? China is developing long range nuclear systems, and despite good relations to the U.S, has ties to Iran, with the support of Venezuelan oil. If The U.S attacks Iran, will it mean nuclear war?

erm...first post..sorry :blush:

[Edgar]

There are no lengths to which the capitalists won't go to protect their class dictatorship. If a revolutionary situation were to develop on the soil of an imperialist nation, I would fully expect the bourgeoisie to use any and all weapons at their disposal in order to prevent socialism.

[Janus]

Yeah, I think Dwight D. Eisenhower had even threatened to use the atomic bomb on Chinese cities in Manchuria if they considered bombing cities in South Korea with their aircraft?
You're thinking of Douglas MacArthur who suggested the use of nuclear weapons in order to win the war.


how effective would using nukes against revolutionarys actually be?
I would assume that the weapons used would be tactical nukes for use against actual military forces rather than urban centers.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by RNK+August 31, 2007 09:50 am--> (RNK @ August 31, 2007 09:50 am)
The imperialist had nukes during the Chinese revolution, Cuban revolition, Angolian liberation, Vietnamese liberation and revolution. There has been alot of anti-US movements since the US droped the bomb on Japan and they haven't used it yet.
None of those revolutions occured on the soil of any imperialist country. And even then, their use was actually a possibility; it was discussed as recently as the invasion of Iraq. [/b]
There are always a few lunatics who propose the use of nuclear weapons in any military conflict. But no one has used such weapons in any war for over 60 years. There are several reasons for this:

1. Mutually assured destruction. Like all humans, imperialists generally don't want to die. Sure, there will always be the occasional suicidal maniac - like MacArthur - but such people are thankfully rare. No one will ever use nuclear weapons against an enemy that is also nuclear-capable, or against an enemy that has nuclear-capable allies. This pretty much rules out the use of nukes in any international war, but leaves open the possibility of a government using nukes against non-government entities (such as a revolutionary movement that has not yet conquered power). However, see below.

2. Nukes are enormously powerful weapons that kill and destroy indiscriminately. You really can't destroy anything smaller than a city or a large military base with a nuke. Most revolutionary movements are highly unlikely to own entire tank divisions, aircraft carriers, or other such big, obvious targets that could be hit with a tactical nuke. You wouldn't use nukes against Che Guevara, would you?

3. As far as destroying cities, this tends to be extremely damaging to a government's reputation and legitimacy. Imperialists may nuke cities in the periphery (though, as history shows, they have not done this for over 60 years even when sections of the periphery were in imminent danger of falling to liberation movements). However, under no circumstances would a government ever nuke a city on its own soil. First of all, the bourgeoisie is unlikely to want to obliterate its own property. But more importantly, if a government uses a nuke on its own soil, every single civilian left alive will join the revolution - and large sections of the army itself might defect. Every ruling class needs legitimacy. The legitimacy of the bourgeoisie is based on the illusion that the people are in control of the government (within the context of liberal "democracy"). Once the government starts to slaughter its own people indiscriminately, that illusion vanishes; the ideology of the ruling class is undone.


kracken
On another note, how likely is it that were looking at a second cold war? China is developing long range nuclear systems, and despite good relations to the U.S, has ties to Iran, with the support of Venezuelan oil. If The U.S attacks Iran, will it mean nuclear war?
The Cold War was fought between two power blocs with different economic systems, different relations of production and different ruling classes.

Today, the U.S., China and Iran have similar economic systems, similar relations of production and similar ruling classes. There can be no Cold War between them. At most, there might be imperialist rivalry such as we saw before WW2.