What good will they do exactly?
I mean, you're hardly going to nuke the big cities of the US in order to get the elite, are you? The nuclear weapon is inherently anti-proletarian.
Results 1 to 20 of 61
Without nukes - who will defend the Revolution?
This is my first OP, so let's see.
Nuclear weapons - yes or no?
Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?
Who will protect the Socialist state without them?
My personal view is that they should be kept.
What is the consensus on the board?
What good will they do exactly?
I mean, you're hardly going to nuke the big cities of the US in order to get the elite, are you? The nuclear weapon is inherently anti-proletarian.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
There is none. To me - ignoring the usual caveat about a "socialist state" not making any sense - it would be near-suicidal for a revolutionary state to scrap a possible deterrent against imperialist intervention.This is my first OP, so let's see.
Nuclear weapons - yes or no?
Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?
Who will protect the Socialist state without them?
My personal view is that they should be kept.
What is the consensus on the board?
This gets back to I think a much older question, of if one can even have socialism in just one (or a few) states. I am of course aware of the traditional Trotskyist position against that in a broad sense, and I even broadly agree with that perspective. But there is a practical matter that revolutions do happen someplace first, rather than everywhere at once, and presumably then also the practical question of how to survive long enough for the former to become the the latter. Unfortunately, I think it is in that survival question itself that most often revolutions fail or at least in part die before they can even be fully born. That broader question I also never found an entirely satisfactory answer to.This is my first OP, so let's see.
Nuclear weapons - yes or no?
Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?
Who will protect the Socialist state without them?
My personal view is that they should be kept.
What is the consensus on the board?
Im not sure I am reading this right. Are you saying that nuclear weapons should be retained as a deterrent against imperialist intervention?
Fashionable avatar in solidarity with Five Year Plan.
As a deterrent against intervention, as a weapon, whatever. It makes no sense for a revolutionary d.o.t.p. to scrap nuclear weapons.
True, the best way to win over large swaths of the working class during the revolutionary period would be to threaten the world with nukes
This sort of pacifist argument can be used against any military action by a workers' state. I mean, yeah, the Bolsheviks fraternised with the Germans on the front lines, but when the Germans started advancing, the Bolsheviks shot back. And you don't "threaten the world" with nuclear bombs, that's the sort of sloppy thinking that has sadly become all to common when it comes to anything nuclear. It's not as if one nuclear bomb landing is going to destroy the planet.
No, it can't, because military action doesn't devastate large swaths of land and kill many innocents in its path. Or,it shouldn't
No one is going to nuke the bourgeois goddammit lmfao
...erm, yes, military action does precisely that? I don't know what people think war is. War is organised butchering of human beings by other human beings. Most of the time the people being butchered are workers, even in a revolutionary war. We fight to split the imperialist armies, but in the meantime, we can't really abandon the defense of the revolution.
I mean, what, people think military action can be awesome (I know I've seen a lot of war-fetishist wankery on RL), but suddenly one method of killing humans is just too much? Really?
you're assuming we're idiots
we're not idiots
we just don't see what we need nuclear stockpiles for
i'm 100% pro fusion technology and i'm not a hippie
i'm 100% pro research and science and technology
just, seriously, we really don't need to be able to level cities with the push of a button
it's just not required
in honesty, i can't even think of a situation for which it would be useful
Nuclear weapons are pointless, and benefit no one. They should be dismantled as soon as possible.
"Whatever you do, never lose your fondness of walking. I walk myself into my daily well-being, and I walk out of all illness. I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so heavy that one cannot outwalk it." -Soren Kierkegaard.
"Beloved imagination, what I most like in you is your unsparing quality. There remains madness, 'the madness that one locks up', as it has aptly been described. That madness or another..." -Andre Breton.
If you can't see the difference in defending the revolution against counter-revolutionary forces through military conflict and straight-up nuking an area that is, most likely, populated by innocent people, you're absolutely alone on this issue. And wrong.
I really don't know what kind of scenario 870 envisions where nuclear weapons would be of use in a war that is being waged by classes and not nations. The tactical purpose of a nuclear weapon was to scare a target nation into submission, not wage war generally. You're not going to scare a dispersed class in a world wide class war by nuking an area that might be more populated with counter-revolutionaries. That's completely insane.
Yeah that is pretty much what I wanted to say.
There is no "bourgeoistopia" that we can throw nukes at, any nuclear warfare would end in unneeded devastation that would kill more of the people fighting on our side than it would the people we're fighting, along with destroying infrastructure that will be absolutely vital to the management of a revolutionary and post-revolutionary society.
It seems as if 870 is taking Mao's position on the issue: It doesn't matter if we kill 3/4 of the planet to bring about socialism, as long as the remaining 25% are socialists when the mushroom clouds settle.
Citation needed.
Here's a useful informatic from the BBC:
For myself, I can't take seriously any call for nuclear non-proliferation from the imperialist powers unless they were to eliminate say, half of their stockpiles as a good faith effort first... it is not like they wouldn't still have an overwhelming advantage numerically!
[The numbers for imperialist Russia in the above graphic are misleading AFAIK]
for the worker's bomb!
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
It will protect the country against imperialism - that's what it will do. M7777
Can you imagine Cuba being left alone with Soviet protection, for example. No way, it would have been invaded in the early 60's by the capitalists.
So, without nukes, who will you rely on for protection?
"Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher, it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again"Citation needed.
Here's a useful informatic from the BBC:
For myself, I can't take seriously any call for nuclear non-proliferation from the imperialist powers unless they were to eliminate say, half of their stockpiles as a good faith effort first... it is not like they wouldn't still have an overwhelming advantage numerically!
[The numbers for imperialist Russia in the above graphic are misleading AFAIK]
http://books.google.com/books?id=5Ns...ain%22&f=false
I agree that nukes are vile weapons, but who will stop the enemies of the revolution from taking over?
