This isn’t my idea, several other scholars and leaders have been calling attention to this for years, nuclear armed countries have been developing more advanced missile systems for ages, global political relations are balkanizing if not deteriorating as historical grievances remain unresolved (colonialism, imperialism, shock doctrine, trade wars), long range missiles have been deployed and are still in use in the Ukraine war, militarism is growing everywhere, former world powers are growing increasingly fascistic within their own borders as their expansion gets overthrown, artillery bombardments and other WMDs have been seen in use in modern wars more frequently, political leaders are seen openly threatening invasions, the evidence is there.
I’m not here to fearmonger. It’s hard to tell how bad a nuclear war today could be—personally I doubt that many bombs would be thrown past a few to a few dozen throughout the remainder of this century. However, it’s becoming clear to the average person that nukes and total war is a resurging problem this century despite all the efforts made to eradicate violent conflict.
Theres both a mountain of evidence and material reasons to be concerned about the possibility of nuclear war. The sheer number of reasons that contribute to why any war could break out are too vast for me to deal with.
Stay safe and plan ahead y’all. Things are likely going to get tougher.
>>2188318More artillery and nuclear defence is a lot more pragmatic in the long term than driving anymore irrationality by blasting even more money on sending fear internationally.
Besides, more nukes dont make anyone safer—just look at the security situation between Pakistan and India.
>>2188323today, no nation can have true sovereignty without nukes. all nations must have nukes. without them they cannot really take control of their destiny.
nukes for everyone. acquire nukes. never give up your nukes.
>>2188453Almost like they were all enemies of the proletariat using socialism as a meaningless moniker to justify their right to rule the workers?
Almost like the only force capable of conquering all countries is the proletariat of each country and “Socialism in One Bourgeois Nation-State” is rotting and eaten by rats in the shit filled sewer water it belongs in?
>>2188453Wait lmao did you put Marx in the same sentence as Stalin and Fanon?
Retarded fag
MLs and their gay canons lmao
>>2188457Sure fag. Tell me how you’re going to start socialism everywhere and conquer the planet if you don’t have a place to start.
Sometimes I wish Trotsky survived to kickstart ww2 itself so dipshit dogmatists like you would never have historical reasons to voice such shitty opinions.
>>2188471>Damn dude why don’t you tell me how you plan to conquer the planet ifI’m not a stalinist and don’t adhere to a retarded liberal conception of socialism wherein some state that calls itself the “representative” of the “proletariat” mystically conquers nuclear armed powers through luck and spirit or something?
MLoids need to explain their own shitty outlook and how it can lead to literally anything but participating in the world capitalist system in a world with nukes
Oh wait, they squared that circle by becoming dengists and openly declaring their intentions to win at capitalism, fully abandon the pretense of revolution entirely
I really wish libs would just accept you faggots so you can stay away from anything that even smells of socialism and stick with all the other nationalists where you belong
>>2188545>What happens when you fail to stop a 1 megaton bomb? Given the sheer number of alerts and drills that would be set off, even if the blast hit, most people would be far away and well protected from the explosion
>If you have a 75% success rate against even 100 bombs that is 25 cities wiped out and tens or hundreds of millions dead.You’re severely underestimating how dense and hard to destroy modern cities are if you think modern nukes have the destructive capabilities to wipe them out. It takes a comically high number of bombs to destroy a city—especially one housing millions. Just look at Ukraine when taking in how much artillery a country like Russia has.
>>2188553>You’re severely underestimating how dense and hard to destroy modern cities are if you think modern nukes have the destructive capabilities to wipe them out.… do you know the difference between a hydrogen bomb and the mere atom bombs that were dropped on Japan?
Modern cities, particularly those with millions of people, can be destroyed by a single nuclear weapon. The explosive power of nuclear weapons far exceeds conventional bombs. For example, a typical modern nuclear weapon like a 300-kiloton warhead (significantly smaller than the largest available) would cause immense destruction, including the flattening of large urban areas, devastating infrastructure, and causing catastrophic loss of life. The claim that modern cities are "hard to destroy" by nuclear weapons significantly underestimates the sheer force of these weapons.
>It takes a comically high number of bombs to destroy a city—especially one housing millions.No. A single modern nuclear bomb, depending on its yield and the type of city, can cause massive destruction over a significant area, including the obliteration of infrastructure and civilian populations. Modern cities, while dense, are not immune to the immense damage caused by nuclear explosions. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (with a yield of approximately 15 kilotons) completely destroyed most of the city. While modern cities are built with more advanced infrastructure, they are still vulnerable to nuclear weapons, and multiple bombs would not necessarily be required to cause widespread devastation.
>Just look at Ukraine when taking in how much artillery a country like Russia has.Misleading. Comparing conventional artillery to nuclear weapons is not valid. Artillery, no matter how much a country possesses, lacks the total destructive capacity of a nuclear weapon. Russia's artillery has caused significant damage in Ukraine, but it is not comparable in terms of scale or long-term consequences to the destruction caused by even a small nuclear weapon. The effects of a nuclear bomb are far beyond the scope of conventional artillery, with the potential for mass casualties, lasting environmental damage, radiation poisoning, and infrastructure destruction far surpassing conventional warfare.
You're absolutely wrong.
>>2188318anon, this is wrong. With US empire retreating the chance of getting invaded is less and less. Meanwhile more nations having nukes is multiplying the chance of nuclear war.
Even if we think China is some vanguard of the revolution the better option is for it to give a security guarentee to these countries instead of literally giving them NUKES.
>>2188605yeah. the homeless "first worlder" living in a tent city, or the poor grubby toddler "first worlder" living in a shitty ghetto ass apartment complex has their fingers on the trigger.
No.
It is a very limited subset of the bourgeoisie with security clearance in the first world AND the third world nations who have their "finger on the trigger".
and even if you subscribe to the theory that "AES" nations have some of the nukes, a nuclear exchange would result in annihilation of the species OR the utter destruction of the means of production and agriculture to such an extent that billions would starve and the human species would be set back possibly centuries, at a pivotal moment when we are already facing climate catastrophe. We may never fully recover or possibly even slowly die out in a lingering miserable apocalypse on the only planet we've ever unknown.
You collectively designate "first worlders" as having their "finger on the trigger" as if it wasn't just the psychos in charge. Yeah every single citizen in NATO countries, including the 3rd world immigrants, the imprisoned, the descendants of slaves, the marginalized, and the poor, are all just bloodthirsty dogs who want to nuke everyone. great materialist analysis.
>>2188638ok you fuckin pedant.
the people in charge of first world countries, you happy? it all remains the same. the first world propletariat are inert and ineffectual they cannot be counted on to take control and have solidarity with the global proletariat because of the material conditions of their countries. the can and are regularly duped into undermining movements for the improvement of the conditions of working class people in global south developing countries. one day they might be liberated. but it'll come from outside. for third world countries to be able to realize their own socialist projects that might aid global communism a nuclear deterrent is essential.
to third worldists reading this never accept the projection from first worldists of their own psychotic violent genocidal tendencies. they would like you to ignore all history of known aggressors (their nations).
>>2188650>TikTok speakTake your gibberish elsewhere, I don’t engage with illiterates
>>2188649>Another day, another MLoid advocating for the eradication of humanity out of its hatred for the workers in its countryChrist I fucking hate you liberals so fucking much
>>2188313>Sober take: nuclear war is comingLol no. You're not sober-minded either.
>This isn’t my idea, several other scholars and leaders have been calling attention to this for years, Yes, way too many damn years with it never happening. If it didn't happen in the 50s-70s it's never going to happen. It only becomes less and less probably, not more.
> nuclear armed countries have been developing more advanced missile systems for agesDoesn't matter at all because an ICBM warhead payload is impossible to intercept. That's why we're still using the Minutemen IIIs first deployed in 1970. They only recently started talking about replacing them, because there is no point. They do what they need to do which is deliver country ending nuclear warheads and they're still impossible to intercept.
>long range missiles have been deployed and are still in use in the Ukraine war,So?
>militarism is growing everywhere, Still nowhere near what it once was.
>artillery bombardments and other WMDs have been seen in use in modern wars more frequently, That's not a WMD.
>I’m not here to fearmonger.I believe you are genuinely distressed and panicked about this, but it's bullshit. Nuclear war is never going to happen. If it didn't happen back then it certainly won't happen now.
>Stay safe and plan ahead y’all. Things are likely going to get tougher.There's nothing to plan for if a nuclear war happens. You're gonna die.
>>2189159Do you mean
tests there has been no nuclear
strikes since 1945
>>2188416>whose only logical purpose is to destroy the human racesorry class unconscious radlib, but I'm pretty sure it was only used by a fascist settler state to destroy Japan and turn them into slaves who are so dominated by the satanic empire that they can't even have a small army.
>Accept Dengism (Capitalism without much pretense) ultraleft anarchism is genocide and enslavement of the third world by nazis without any pretense!
>>2188726>Yes, way too many damn years with it never happening. If it didn't happen in the 50s-70s it's never going to happen. It only becomes less and less probably, not moreif you flip a coin and it lands on heads 10 times in a row, the chance of getting tails on the 11th flip is still 50%. The more time passes without something happening, it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood of it happening. but that's for independent events. To think otherwise is called the gambler's fallacy, but Sometimes, the likelihood of an event can increase due to external factors or changes in conditions over time. This could be the case in specific situations like natural processes, human decision-making, or evolving systems where events may become more likely over time. In the case of nuclear war, the probability could decrease due to things like diplomatic agreements, anti-proliferation treaties, etc. But we live in a world where more countries are becoming nuclear-armed, unipolar hegemony is breaking down, regional wars over depleting natural resources are becoming more common, and climate change is destabilizing things as well. So I think since 1991 nuclear war has become gradually more likely, even if, leading up to 1991 as the cold war was winding down, it seemed less likely.
>>2188448>All nuclear weapons must be destroyed. All nations must burn and/or be dissolved. Anything less will result in the annihilation of the proletariat.(intro to the redpilled game Killer7) "July 3rd, 1998, the day that all international disputes were resolved. This day marked the beginning of true peace for the entire world, for people of all races. The four powers quickly formed anti-terrorist organizations, and set out creating peace keeping agencies to bring order and security on a global scale. The world unified to do everything in its power to eradicate all the weeds of evil and disorder.
The International Society, under the motto of protecting the world from international terrorism, ideology terrorism, and cyber terrorism, stopped all air transportation and closed every network station in a short span of two years, to reduce the likelihood of terrorism. The world had changed.
In the year 2002, a network of intercontinental expressways opened, connecting the two major sides of the world. In the following year of 2003, the construction of a mass scale distribution system began, and a man made land mass as large as a city was built over an ocean. The use and research of nuclear energy was banned, and all radioactive waste and materials were disposed of at an energy disposal facility in the Gibsoft islands, a remote set of islands off the coast of the Indian Ocean.
Now, international eyes were on the elimination of the intercontinental missiles that posed the biggest threat to World Peace. In order to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction, they were launched outside the Earth's atmosphere and intercepted by other missiles, exploding them on contact.
People around the world watched these explosions light up the sky, as if they were some kind of dazzling light show. These explosions, later known as "The Missile Shows," became the symbol of World Peace. The world was filled with hope. But a new threat was on the rise…
At the signing ceremony of the UN's world security treaty in the year 2003, terrorists who called themselves "Smiling Faces" attacked the ceremony. The devastating attack caught the International Society by surprise and temporarily crippled key operations in the UN. That assault was aimed at nothing more than using terrorism to create terror.
Fear spread throughout the nations like wildfire. There was nothing the police or the military could do to counter the Smiling Faces. The only ones who had any chance of stopping these Smiling Faces were the omniscient and almost God-like professional assassins. The key players behind the scenes of the four powers utilized their connections and called upon the group known as…Killer 7.
Their only hope, rested with them…"
>>2188605Being edgy about nuclear destruction is the mirror image of moralism. It's simply a more insidious form of moralism where the ends justify the means and the ends are some apocalyptical realization of some Ideas like The Absolute End Of Imperialism or The Advent Of The Next Stage.
It's pretty similar to Christian eschatology, especially of evangelical strands.
Meanwhile, nuclear winter would fucking suck for farmers in the material realm, you know, to have food, just saying.
>>2189447Don’t worry
We’re not going to get “I have no mouth and I must scream.” Unfortunately, we’re going to get something worse. “Forever winter.”
>>2189936NTA butthere's a scene in the Quentin Tarantino WW2 movie
inglourious basterds (2009) where some Brits are pretending to be Germans in a tavern. Their German is impeccable and they're very good at pretending, but one SS officer catches onto them when they order 3 glasses of beer using the pointer, middle, and ring fingers instead of the thumb, pointer, and middle fingers. this leads to a shootout. it's a good scene.
>>2193200I hope your mum gets shot by a homeless dude
Anyway
The Nazis shuffled all the “subhumans” they hated all over Europe to do the labor for them
Turns out white supremacists are also lazy untermenschen that can’t fucking work, which is why they need to be forced to work 20 hour shifts and get shot if they don’t want to
>>2193200I bet you are a nonwhite chauvinist.
Anyways, most scares about immigrant delinquency are just projecting.
Native born residents do more crime and mooch off the system more.
Non white immigrants are doing heavy duty work for subpar pay.
If anything, their labor is what's fuelling you native nor. Residents lifestyles
>>2188313This is actually an irrational take. As long as there is second strike capability, the game theoretical outcome is that no one ever uses nuclear weapons (though those that can will build them for detterence).
I am much more worried about other forms of conflict.
>>2188653>>2188660It is strange that marxism-leninism of the Stalin era has been lumped together with the variety of revisionisms that followed (whether khruschevite or dengist).
Posting this key book once again for reference.
>>2188649The problem is the sentimentality. First worldists often are people who have genuinely shitty lives, or are around people who do. This is a charitable interpretation (often times its not even this do much as basic relative attachment to their immediate surroundings, which everyone has, but goes unacknowledged or even denied by the ardent first worldist).
However this sentiment leads them to make mistaken conclusions about exploitation, unequal exchange, etc. and the objective material conditions for revolution (namely that the latter are either equally likely in the first and third world; Or that if it is more likely in the third world, its mot radically so; Or if it radically so, it still makes sense to dedicate relatively more resources to first world organizations).
>>2196487god you are insufferable
global nuclear war is progressive apparently
dumbass
Unique IPs: 61