Because when I think about it, it seems to me the only sensible option is to be against disarmament. Here are my reasons: 1) It's pointless. Seriously. The cat has been out of the bag for decades now, meaning that the knowledge to build nuclear weapons is widely available. Also, how will one know for sure that each and every nuclear weapon has been destroyed? Even the largest bombs are easily hidden, being no bigger than a trailer. Even if one does manage to destroy every nuclear weapon currently in existance, the knowledge to build new ones is still a matter of public record. 2) It directly aids the imperialists! Nuclear disarmament is an all-or-nothing proposition. Sure, one could protest at imperialist installations such as Faslane, and in the absurdly unlikely situation that such protests are successful, Trident would be no more. But even if the imperialist nations shed their nuclear weapons, they would still possess some of the world's most potent conventional forces and weaponry, a force that most probable victim countries are unlikely to be able to withstand against with their corresponding conventional forces. So, like any sensible military strategist would in such a situation, potential targets of imperialism decide to use nuclear weapons as force multiplicators. But remember what I said about nuclear disarmament being an all-or-nothing proposition? Well that means nobody has nuclear weapons. Ooops. 3) It's potentially shooting ourselves in the foot. Let's face it. The world isn't going to turn communist all at once. Personally I expect proletarian uprisings to be regional in nature, but that is neither here nor there. The basic premise is that we migh end up in a situation where one part of the world is communist and the rest is still playing catch-up. It may be necessary to have a nuclear deterrent to dissuade any remaining capitalist powers from being too boisterous, so to speak. Without that deterrent the capitalist powers could threaten the communist world. So there are my three main reasons, what do you think? What is your stance on the matter?
Well, I have to say that I'm in principle against nuclear weapons since they are much more dangerous for not only civilians but also the environment than any common bomb. I don't like the idea of radioactive areas where people are suffering from cancer and genetic diseases because some hundered years ago a nuclear bomb was thrown by some overzealous imperialists at that area. But the points you mention are quite logical. Also, how will one know for sure that each and every nuclear weapon has been destroyed? Even the largest bombs are easily hidden, being no bigger than a trailer. Good point. It's like: "Hey, look, we're closing Guantanamo!" Well, great, but everybody knows about Guantanamo, so it's worthless anyway, what about secret prisons worse than Guantanamo, which nobody knows of? Same situation here. I don't get 2.), are you saying that every nation should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves from imperialists? Because arguing that nuclear disarmament is pointless because there are still powerfull weapons and forces sounds unlogical, I'd rather be attacked by troops than bombed with a nuclear bomb. But if you mean what I expressed first, it's problematically as well, just assume that Luxembourg and Switzerland start a war which ends in a nuclear war... somehow quite worrying that everybody has the ability to destroy huge parts of other countries that easily. The third point is good again, if a communist nation uprises, it's very likely that the capitalist forces will unite and try to smash it, like it was the case during the Russian Civil War. Maybe it gives them another reason to rant against a communist state if it own nuclear weapons but at least they will think twice before attacking it. Nuclear disarmament has the same problem as general disarmament and pacifism: it would be great if we could do without nuclar weapons or without an army but nuclear (and general) disarmament is only possible and reasonable when everybody disarms. It is no use if one state is totally defenseless while every state around has arms race in its finest and I seriously doubt that people could stop aggressors from nuking their country by throwing flowers, singing songs and talking about the beauty of love and peace. We don't have to lighten things more than necessary for possible enemies, disarming is nothing more than that, inviting others to attack and opress you and as much as I dislike it, I fear it's the same with nuclear disarmament...
Well, I have to say that I'm in principle against nuclear weapons since they are much more dangerous for not only civilians but also the environment than any common bomb. I don't like the idea of radioactive areas where people are suffering from cancer and genetic diseases because some hundered years ago a nuclear bomb was thrown by some overzealous imperialists at that area. I'm not convinced that any nuclear conflict short of a global thermonuclear war would have a significant environmental impact - after all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both hit with fairly "primitive" nuclear weapons that were unlikely to be very "clean" in comparison to modern examples. Yet Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both now flourishing cities rather than mutant-infested radioactive wastelands. Good point. It's like: "Hey, look, we're closing Guantanamo!" Well, great, but everybody knows about Guantanamo, so it's worthless anyway, what about secret prisons worse than Guantanamo, which nobody knows of? Same situation here. While the X-Files may have you believe that the US government is up to its arse in black projects, they're actually the most open and forthcoming major power when it comes to their nuclear arsenal. The US has and still is investing money and research into more powerful non-nuclear explosives. My impression is that were nukes to be banned, such research would recieve a major boost in funding. I don't get 2.), are you saying that every nation should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves from imperialists? Because arguing that nuclear disarmament is pointless because there are still powerfull weapons and forces sounds unlogical, I'd rather be attacked by troops than bombed with a nuclear bomb. I'm not sure how your preferences fit in with tactical and strategic considerations. But if you mean what I expressed first, it's problematically as well, just assume that Luxembourg and Switzerland start a war which ends in a nuclear war... somehow quite worrying that everybody has the ability to destroy huge parts of other countries that easily. Technology marches on. Two or three centuries ago it was unthinkable that a single man could easily carry a device that could slaughter a whole infantry formation. Yet now assault rifles are carried by the vast majority of soldiers all over the world. Quite a few can even be found in civilian hands. The third point is good again, if a communist nation uprises, it's very likely that the capitalist forces will unite and try to smash it, like it was the case during the Russian Civil War. Maybe it gives them another reason to rant against a communist state if it own nuclear weapons but at least they will think twice before attacking it. I think any condmenation by capitalists of nuclear-capable communist powers would be an audacious display of hypocrisy. Nuclear disarmament has the same problem as general disarmament and pacifism: it would be great if we could do without nuclar weapons or without an army but nuclear (and general) disarmament is only possible and reasonable when everybody disarms. It is no use if one state is totally defenseless while every state around has arms race in its finest and I seriously doubt that people could stop aggressors from nuking their country by throwing flowers, singing songs and talking about the beauty of love and peace. We don't have to lighten things more than necessary for possible enemies, disarming is nothing more than that, inviting others to attack and opress you and as much as I dislike it, I fear it's the same with nuclear disarmament... Pretty much. My favourite phrase regarding disarmament and pacifism in general is thus: Those who beat their swords into ploughshares get killed and enslaved by those who kept their swords.
Why is the United States so concerned about keeping nuclear weapondry out of other countries when America has almost 6000 active nuclear warheads!? They insist on keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear power because they are "dangerous" but last time I checked America is the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapondry in combat! America must become nuke free if they wish the rest of the world to do the same!
Why is the United States so concerned about keeping nuclear weapondry out of other countries when America has almost 6000 active nuclear warheads!? They insist on keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear power because they are "dangerous" but last time I checked America is the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapondry in combat! America must become nuke free if they wish the rest of the world to do the same! That does make sense but, if the US gave up all of its nuclear weaponry would that not make us a bit defenseless? And I have always felt that was a bit unfair about how America is so concerned about other countries having nukes when we have so many.
That does make sense but, if the US gave up all of its nuclear weaponry would that not make us a bit defenseless? America would still have the world's most highly-funded conventional armed forces, so no.
Why is the United States so concerned about keeping nuclear weapondry out of other countries when America has almost 6000 active nuclear warheads!? They insist on keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear power because they are "dangerous" but last time I checked America is the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapondry in combat! America must become nuke free if they wish the rest of the world to do the same! Agreed. 100%
A point not often made is also to use nuclear warheads as tools, not weapons. We might have a situation where nuclear warheads might be productive to worlds population. Such situations might be the need to defend planet earth from an approaching comet, or to "violently isolate" a corner of a world that has "contaminated" beyond all repair. Just though that you should take this into account.
Or IF ALIENS ARE KIDNAPPING OUR BABIES AND EATING THEM
Nuclear weapons were invented by capitalists to destroy them if they ever tried to overthrow the ruling class. They will always be a threat to the masses when no matter how many people can form a Red Army, it only takes one capitalist to hit the button to destroy humankind. Disarmament now! BTW, I tend to follow the Bushido code of war in which weapons that can completely annihilate a nation or planet are cowardly to use.
Nuclear weapons were invented by capitalists to destroy them if they ever tried to overthrow the ruling class. Strikes me as equivalent to setting fire to your house because it has a roach infestation. If the ruling class were really that stupid we'd all be piles of radioactive brochettes by now. They will always be a threat to the masses when no matter how many people can form a Red Army, it only takes one capitalist to hit the button to destroy humankind. Disarmament now! They've had 50-odd years to press the button. Why haven't they done so? Because "the capitalists" are not some monolithic hive entity with the survival skills of a suicidal lemming in a minefield. BTW, I tend to follow the Bushido code of war in which weapons that can completely annihilate a nation or planet are cowardly to use. I have a more pragmatic outlook. The one with the bigger, spikier stick wins.
as long as the wolrd is in the bonds og globalized capitalism no one would profit from the loss of a mass of consumers to atomic fire, of course no on has hit the button ,Yet, the cold war was Far to profitable for america, We are the worlds most warmongering state and while we persist in this military industrio-political complex i say revolution,...NOW, we need to organize, form our own militias, and march, ak's on our shoulders
"The basic premise is that we migh end up in a situation where one part of the world is communist and the rest is still playing catch-up." - NoXion Depending on ones' particular tendency, it can be argued that this has already happened; have you heard of the Cold War? Me personally, am no fan of the USSR, so I'm on the same platform as you. But just be aware that argument could sound a bit weak. Now on nuclear disarmament, fuck that. Countries w/out nukes are treated like trash; examples: Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Palestine. While countries with nukes get respect and are then considered as 'equals' to the imperialist powers; examples: North Korea, China, Pakistan, India etc. These countries with nukes have greater bargaining power than those without. I wish every country had nukes. Notice how the powers with nukes have been reduced to fighting wars with each other via proxy states? Realistically though, I'm against nuclear proliferation. no good can come of it. But as noted elsewhere above, its already too late. The human species is destined for doom; militarily-ecologically, speaking.
I think Jacobinist is right- since disarmament isn't going to work, mass proliferation will, if nothing else, put even the most exploited third world nation on an equal footing (militarily, if nothing else) with the mightiest first world nation.
We don't seriously expect the imperialists to disarm their strategic weapons: the cat is indeed long out of the bag... But we cannot condone, either, this reckless, capitalistic-imperialist thinking that any one small group of elitists has it within their power to destroy the entire planet and everyone on it -- thereby giving them effective blackmail ability over all Humanity. "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) was all about that: and why the Cold War was such a useless, demoralizing and demobilizing stalemate for so long -- and why we're actually right back into the inter-imperialist frying pan now, because of it. So: while we prepare for the distinct possibility of a nuclear global classwar -- we must never, EVER condone it.
