Honestly, based. The world would be a better place, if every single country (and every indigenous nation and people occupied by the western regimes) had nukes, and the capacity to use them in a second strike.
Either that, or it would be an irradiated wasteland. But we may already be on track to that, at some point there simply has to be an acceptance of the possibility- if it happens, it happens (and if it happens the imperialist devils were always going to make it happen). At least humanity would be spared much of the process leading up to it all, and justice and human dignity would be upheld.
I'd prefer a world where nuclear weapons are highly restricted and the manufacturing process is very open. And every country is allowed an extremely small arsenal, to prevent potential conflict.
That would be preferable, yes. But sadly we live in the reality where the first explicitly genocidal settler-reich, the most warlike nation in history, grew further and further in power as it rampaged across a continent before becoming the first and likely only global hegemon, as war devastated the other powers and eventually the revolution was betrayed (in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, anyways). We live in the reality where it was that regime introduced total destruction to the world, first as a show of strength and a promise of its willingness to do terror, as an unnecessary threat against its erstwhile allies, through two horrific atrocities against a broken civilian population which already was ready to surrender. We live in a world where it has used that threat, over and over again, where it constantly maneuvers to create circumstances where it can use that threat while avoiding or diminishing retaliation in kind- where that threat is used to defend genocide and apartheid (Isntreal's "Samson option," the US' fleet being sent to threaten India during Pakistan's genocidal actions in the Bangladesh liberation war, the US' floating of the idea to bring in nukes in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the historical acquisition of nuclear weapons by the apartheid regime of South Africa, etc).
Personally, I'm of the belief that the moment such horrible weapons were introduced into the world by its most warlike, genuinely barbaric regime (though any other imperialist western regime would likely have acted similarly), a world held hostage to the threat of MAD, and navigating and overcoming it all, was inevitable. In many ways I would go so far as to say- humanity and all its hopes and dreams collectively died when Trinity (the first nuclear bomb, American, it goes without saying) was launched, and it was revived when the Soviets launched First Lightning (the first Soviet nuclear bomb), and further revitalized as China, India, North Korea, and even perhaps debatably Pakistan acquired theirs as well.
Nuclear weapons- and not just that, but the threat of MAD (through any and all means possible) are to me, the greatest and most prominent symbol- of the potential for human cruelty, yes, but also of the human determination for equality, for justice, for prosperity and even love and community (and the willingness in turn to act on behalf of that love and community).
It would definitely be better if they did not exist. But they do, and the concept of MAD being invoked by the imperialists without their victims responding in kind is frankly even more horrifying to me than the opposite; it would be the betrayal of everything good in humanity, the abandonment of all the struggles and the dignity of those people of whom the arsenals of deterrence were meant to protect (or avenge).
I'm no Posadist, rather the opposite. But the nuclear Pandora's box has been opened and we have to work within that reality (and we should for that matter). The bomb (and the threat of even worse weapons in turn- biological, etc) is both the most horrible thing to be invented and the among the greatest threats to human existence- and conversely, the greatest proponent and champion of peace, co-operation, and a path forward for humanity from this terrible world system and towards a better future. It is both the greatest threat against the revolution (of all of humanity, but also of those primary states resisting western tyranny), and its greatest defender.
Would you not be able to simply avoid the entire possibly of small rouge states initiating a nuclear exchange by incorporating states into a mutual defense coalition akin the Warsaw Pact? The nations of the Warsaw Pact didn’t need nuclear weapons and were all perfectly protected conventionally by each other and the Soviet Unions nuclear umbrella.
If a single nuclear weapon can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, I don’t see how throwing a bunch of them all over the globe for anyone to have could ever be a good idea.
Honestly, based. The world would be a better place, if every single country (and every indigenous nation and people occupied by the western regimes) had nukes, and the capacity to use them in a second strike.
Either that, or it would be an irradiated wasteland. But we may already be on track to that, at some point there simply has to be an acceptance of the possibility- if it happens, it happens (and if it happens the imperialist devils were always going to make it happen). At least humanity would be spared much of the process leading up to it all, and justice and human dignity would be upheld.
I'd prefer a world where nuclear weapons are highly restricted and the manufacturing process is very open. And every country is allowed an extremely small arsenal, to prevent potential conflict.
That would be preferable, yes. But sadly we live in the reality where the first explicitly genocidal settler-reich, the most warlike nation in history, grew further and further in power as it rampaged across a continent before becoming the first and likely only global hegemon, as war devastated the other powers and eventually the revolution was betrayed (in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, anyways). We live in the reality where it was that regime introduced total destruction to the world, first as a show of strength and a promise of its willingness to do terror, as an unnecessary threat against its erstwhile allies, through two horrific atrocities against a broken civilian population which already was ready to surrender. We live in a world where it has used that threat, over and over again, where it constantly maneuvers to create circumstances where it can use that threat while avoiding or diminishing retaliation in kind- where that threat is used to defend genocide and apartheid (Isntreal's "Samson option," the US' fleet being sent to threaten India during Pakistan's genocidal actions in the Bangladesh liberation war, the US' floating of the idea to bring in nukes in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the historical acquisition of nuclear weapons by the apartheid regime of South Africa, etc).
Personally, I'm of the belief that the moment such horrible weapons were introduced into the world by its most warlike, genuinely barbaric regime (though any other imperialist western regime would likely have acted similarly), a world held hostage to the threat of MAD, and navigating and overcoming it all, was inevitable. In many ways I would go so far as to say- humanity and all its hopes and dreams collectively died when Trinity (the first nuclear bomb, American, it goes without saying) was launched, and it was revived when the Soviets launched First Lightning (the first Soviet nuclear bomb), and further revitalized as China, India, North Korea, and even perhaps debatably Pakistan acquired theirs as well.
Nuclear weapons- and not just that, but the threat of MAD (through any and all means possible) are to me, the greatest and most prominent symbol- of the potential for human cruelty, yes, but also of the human determination for equality, for justice, for prosperity and even love and community (and the willingness in turn to act on behalf of that love and community).
It would definitely be better if they did not exist. But they do, and the concept of MAD being invoked by the imperialists without their victims responding in kind is frankly even more horrifying to me than the opposite; it would be the betrayal of everything good in humanity, the abandonment of all the struggles and the dignity of those people of whom the arsenals of deterrence were meant to protect (or avenge).
I'm no Posadist, rather the opposite. But the nuclear Pandora's box has been opened and we have to work within that reality (and we should for that matter). The bomb (and the threat of even worse weapons in turn- biological, etc) is both the most horrible thing to be invented and the among the greatest threats to human existence- and conversely, the greatest proponent and champion of peace, co-operation, and a path forward for humanity from this terrible world system and towards a better future. It is both the greatest threat against the revolution (of all of humanity, but also of those primary states resisting western tyranny), and its greatest defender.
Would you not be able to simply avoid the entire possibly of small rouge states initiating a nuclear exchange by incorporating states into a mutual defense coalition akin the Warsaw Pact? The nations of the Warsaw Pact didn’t need nuclear weapons and were all perfectly protected conventionally by each other and the Soviet Unions nuclear umbrella.
If a single nuclear weapon can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, I don’t see how throwing a bunch of them all over the globe for anyone to have could ever be a good idea.
That could work, maybe. Though considering what NATO did to the Warsaw Pact after the Soviets dissolved I'm not sure if it'd be enough.
You have a very beautiful prose.
Thanks :)
I disagree, the US should not be allowed any nukes
I would say that the U.S. wouldn't exist at that point, but understandable.
Good