Dead right. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked.
Two countries with nuclear weapons are forced to negotiate with each other.
Results 1 to 20 of 34
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
Dead right. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked.
Two countries with nuclear weapons are forced to negotiate with each other.
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 ?
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
No doubt about it.
<span style=\'colorurple\'>Ask questions first - Shoot later</span>
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!!!
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
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.
Communists are better lovers - RSK
Education, education, education. Then revolution.
--------------------------------------------------------
'"Are you a theologian, sir?" asked the priest.
"I'm... in a similar profession," said the conman.'
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman
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...
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
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.
Communists are better lovers - RSK
Education, education, education. Then revolution.
--------------------------------------------------------
'"Are you a theologian, sir?" asked the priest.
"I'm... in a similar profession," said the conman.'
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
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.
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!
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.
Communists are better lovers - RSK
Education, education, education. Then revolution.
--------------------------------------------------------
'"Are you a theologian, sir?" asked the priest.
"I'm... in a similar profession," said the conman.'
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman
a bloody vicious cycle is all i see.
DOWN WITH JAPANESE IMPERIALISM!
Link in RevLeft.
The Left needs to spank out a number of armchair theorists and kids who cloak themselves with Marxism as excuse for their problems. Exclusion is needed when the cause is hampered. We are supposed to be the examples and persuaders. Assume responsibility, fuckwit!
Full Text: China's Peaceful Development Road
(Official White Paper)
Link.
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Not really...
Before World War I, the idea was that since both sides had huge armies, neither side would be brave enough to fight.
You need to learn how to politically analyze the groups around you. Maybe then you wouldn't start such reactionary threads. - Citizen Zero
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
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.
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.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
