Every socialist state should seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance against American-backed regime change wars. If you don't have nuclear weapons, you're not a sovereign nation. Not really. The West could in theory nuke or invade you at any time and you'd have no deterrent. The base areas of the international revolution will be defended with nuclear weapons. Not having nuclear weapons is a sign of weakness, not moral clarity. Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs were heroes. Besides, a strong nuclear arsenal will show the dolphins we're serious.
Nuclear war would be historically progressive
agree
ITT: We design in exhaustive detail the blueprint for a covert proletarian nuclear weapons development program. It should be low cost and easy to conceal. Who wants to go first?
>>2540835Bonus points: It must fit on a Fattah-1 missile and make use of fusion in some way, even if only a boosted fission device.
POSAGANG GANG BRRRR
>>2540835I knew a guy who told me that with enough resources he could build a nuclear bomb, he smoked a lot of weed and played lol, recently I found out he had a psychotc episode.
>>2540861Actually designing a basic bomb isn't that hard, it's like physics undergrad tier. They've done studies on it (nth country experiments). The actual thing is designing a covert system of supply chains for getting the material to build one. Most of the plants and equipment involved are difficult to hide.
dolphins and aliens aside, that's just true.
I mean this is basically the same as saying that you want to redistribute all of the world's wealth, because that's what it would actually take for total nuclear proliferation. The obstacles are more than just international law or the authority of some foreign power, it costs a shitload of money to get nuclear weapons and there's no way around that. If you aren't a rich high-tech industrial nation then you can't build a nuclear weapon. And no foreign nation would ever give you a nuclear weapon or sell you one for all the money in the world, nothing could possibly be worth the risk. If nuclear weapons ever trickled into the black market you might buy one that way but it won't be cheap and even when you have the nuclear weapon, what do you do with it now? Do you have missile silos or a space program? Do you have a stealth bomber or a submarine that could penetrate a modern nation's military defense systems? Do you just put the warhead in the back of a semi and sneak it all the way to America and blow yourself up?
>>2540930
Is North Korea a rich, high tech industrial nation? What about China during the great leap forward? Even if you argue that they are, it demonstrates that Marxist-Leninist administrations are capable of performing highly impressive feats of industrialization under very difficult conditions. Any AES state that we want to have nukes will be undergoing a similar transformation.
>>2540937
>north korea's "nuclear weapons"We're talking about nuclear weapons here sir, not bottle rockets.
>>2540931>it costs a shitload of money to get nuclear weaponsit might seem like a pedantic point, but the real cost is a lot of work, time, and natural resources. if a country has the workforce (intellectual and physical labor) and the natural resources are available in it's territory, it
can cover the cost. it just needs to plan it's economy around the project (planning would imply also producing and providing the necessities of life for the workforce). the devastated PRC and DPRK built nuclear weapons. of course, countries must develop a way to deliver the device. easiest and most cost effective are ballistic missiles
>>2540948those bottle rockets have prevented foreign intervention for as long as they've had them
>>2540948Do you think North Korea's nuclear program is an elaborate conspiracy theory maintained by the entire international community?
>>2540952I think one of Israel's early contingency plans in their nuclear program (not long after stealing enough HEU from the US to make several bombs in the Apollo Affair) was to simply drag a nuclear bomb into the Negev and to set it off in the path of advancing Egyptian forces. This never came to path, but it would not have been the worst tactical use of a weapon. Hypothetically, I'm sure a country could also load a nuclear device into a remote controlled speedboat as part of a larger suicide boat fleet to get in range of an enemy aircraft carrier, but let's not get carried away too much.
>>2540953No, that would be China.
>>2540955North Korea's missile program and nuclear program have never really been taken that seriously by the international community, it's obvious that they don't have the funding or the expertise or the infrastructure and they can barely manage to even get a single rocket off the ground and they had to starve their entire population for decades just to accomplish that pitiful feat.
>>2540995They're "taken seriously" in the sense that they're real missiles and real nuclear warheads. No one is taking seriously the prospect of trying to invade North Korea either. Virtually everyone agrees that North Korean nuclear tests correspond to actual nuclear devices.
Nuclear weapons programs are also completely orthogonal to food security. They didn't intentionally "starve their population for decades", they were forced into isolation following the collapse of the Soviet Union and experienced something similar to the Cuban Special Period, and last time I checked the Cubans don't have nuclear weapons to show for their struggles.
>>2540995simply false. easily demonstrably false. one of the most false things ever posted on this site.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/dprk/ >>2540997And what geopolitical gains have these incredible weapons given North Korea, other than international condemnation and crippling economic sanctions? It didn't get them any seat at the international table, if anything it just further alienated them from the rest of the world and made them even more of a rogue state. At what point does all the funding and research and testing and mass starvation to build these weapons finally pay off? What can North Korea do now that they could not do before? Launch a missile and watch their entire country instantly get annihilated by a retaliatory strike? It seems like their weapons haven't helped North Korea at all and it seems like your whole theory about nuclear weapons being some kind of global equalizer may also be a complete crock of shit.
>>2540952>easiest and most cost effective are ballistic missilesYeah it's not like it's rocket science or anything.
>>2541004What geopolitical gains has not having these weapons accomplished for Iraq, Libya, and Syria? North Korea has never had to use their nukes so I'm sure countries that are just as unpopular with the West as North Korea that don't have nukes must be doing fine.
The reason North Korea is taken seriously as a country is not their nuclear weapons, which they didn't even have until recently, it's China. The only reason North Korea even exists is because China allows it to exist.
>>2541016Would China ever risk war with North Korea, in the event they were to suffer a serious breakdown of relations? Somehow I find this unlikely, even though China has vast military superiority in every sense.
>>2541023>Would China ever risk war with North KoreaIt would be a very short and one-sided war.
>>2541057It would last all of 30 minutes and would probably not happen to avoid the risk of downtown Beijing turning into a moonscape in spite of the Chinese probably killing every North Korean alive. It only takes decent odds that even one missile might make it through to make the cost of war unacceptable.
>>2540645Nuclear weapons aren't enough.
You can have the largest, most advanced arsenal in the world, but if you behave like a weakling like Putin, the hegemon will still harass you with conventional weapons.
>>2541064In Ukraine the West is fighting Russia through a non-nuclear proxy state and giving that proxy state NATO admission is politically untenable because of the nuclear risk. Ukraine spilling over into a great war style conflict like WW1 or WW2 could have easily happened without nuclear weapons, but now it's impossible. Avoiding direct confrontation is very beneficial.
>>2541071They're not really proxy attacks anymore with HIMARS, Storm Shadows, and ATACMS. Ukraine can't fire them itself. They need Western approval. Combined with the MSM reports saying that the West also selects targets, we have this situation:
>West to Ukraine: Hit site X>Ukraine to West: May we hit site X?>West to Ukraine: Yes, we've just typed in the approval sequence. >>2541060It doesn't matter; if a rogue state launches a nuke, they must and will be destroyed, as per the policy of mutual assured destruction. That's the only way this whole arrangement works, that's the only thing holding this entire world together is a mutual understanding among all the nations of the world that launching a nuclear weapon is suicide, that it will result in your nation's immediate and total destruction, no exceptions.
>>2541060china has military equipment to destroy ballistic missiles, even nuclear missiles too, even if one nuclear bomb landed in china the chinese would hit them with 80 tactical nukes and a full military invasion
>>2541110>80 tactical nukes and a full military invasionThere would be no need for any military invasion after that. Even 80 low-yield tactical nuclear warheads launched at North Korea's military infrastructure would basically destroy the country, it would kill millions and cause massive firestorms and total societal collapse and would probably lower the temperature of the entire North Hemisphere from all the soot and ash in the air.
Nuclear weapons are really a zero-sum game. Best case scenario, your country might build enough bombs to be equally capable of destroying another major nuclear superpower, but so what? If you ever launch them at another country it would be suicide and your enemies know it would be suicide and they know you would never do that, so they just resort to conventional warfare and continue whipping your ass the old fashioned way or they just destroy your economy and starve your population to death with sanctions and embargos. Even with nuclear weapons your country is still poor and the other countries are rich and that's that.
>>2541124Attempted slow strangulation is much better than Operation Iraqi Freedom style shock and awe. It buys valuable time to expand partnerships with other third world countries and to industrialize as the grasp on global power of the West slips. A growing bloc of nuclear armed developing states serves as a hard break on naked Western military interventionism, creating base areas that can funnel supplies to other proxy conflicts to slowly choke the American octopus. Eventually a network of anti-imperialist forces hardened with nuclear weapons can create a mutually reinforcing block that can pressure the West and trade amongst themselves, instead of being perpetually vulnerable neocolonies whose most advanced anti imperialist nodes can be cut down by Iraq style regime change. Domino theory in reverse.
>>2541143Without nuclear weapons, the American empire can sustain itself much longer by selectively cutting down the tallest trees in the grass every so often. With nuclear weapons, the American empire must shift to merely containing and isolating the tallest trees in the grass. Rollback becomes much more difficult, and even isolated trees can sprinkle the ground with seeds if they still haven't been chopped down.
>>2541148You may begin with a few loosely scattered, highly isolated anti imperialist states. But those states can learn to survive for the long haul by hardening themselves with nuclear weapons and building deeply self-sufficient industrial bases using autarkic "socialism in one country", while becoming sustainable by building alliances with neighbors or by engaging in Chinese style export oriented development from from a much stronger collective bargaining position. As more of those states emerge, you can relax your defenses and engage in belt and road style initiatives to erode dependence on Western economic power. The natural selection engines of history will dictate that only the states with stable leadership which can endure economic isolation while industrializing and protecting themselves will survive-namely, ML style socialist states. Sanctions eventually lose their bite and the economic power of the West is gradually sapped by hyperfinancialized de-industrialization and dependence on socialist-controlled Eastern imports until finally the West loses to a general strike by the state-organized, nuclear armed global proletariat of oppressed nations.
>>2541156Global socialism could be achievable by the 22nd century or even earlier, and nuclear proliferation will probably be a vital weapon in this process. Global socialism and then communism emerges as an evolutionary process shaped by the materialist laws of history, not unlike the development of capitalism from feudalism. We shouldn't panic just because we live in the time of the Bourbon Restoration and they chopped Robespierre's head off.
>POV: Not even capable of asking yourself why “socialist states” would be accumulating armaments whose very existence is an utter waste of society’s surplus and whose only usage is the direct annihilation of humanity and the end of the proletariat everywhere alongside society in general and the end for any hope at all of communism
>>2541524Communism aint doing too good lately. It's best to just destroy humanity and start from scratch. Maybe a more collectivist species would emerge.
EMBRACE NUCLEAR ORTHODOXY
That's some Metal Gear tier idea
>>2541524so long as they have a use they're not a waste. and so long as a nuclear armed belligerent capitalist imperialist USA exist, they do have a use beyond just "direct annihilation of humanity". that use is: deterring the imperialist impulses of the USA and it's first world vassals. preventing sabotage of the development of advanced societies independent of the USA economic sphere.
every nation. every man woman and child and their dog and youre fucking grandma should have a nuke. should have two nukes. nuke vending machines. corner store nukes.
>>2541004> Launch a missile and watch their entire country instantly get annihilated by a retaliatory strike? They constantly launch missiles and the west cant do anything about it lol, and north korea is going through a major construction boom. Wouldnt be hard to know if you actually following any (even western) news. You are a moron.
>>2541692North Korea doesn’t exist, it’s a shibboleth created by the defense industry that you’re falling for
>>2541016>Ehm actually China controls North KoreaHello liberal. China doesnt control North Korea, not even as a proxy. North Korea stopped all trade with China during Corona and even beyond and what happened? Nothing. Doesnt sound like a China controlled state to me.
>>2541695You are genuinely retarded.
>>2541702At least I am real, unlike North Korea or China
>>2541581this shit and eurasianism is a literal vibes-based ideology
>we wuz red empire, red empire stronk because NVKE<completely rejects the basis of how this "red empire" came to power into the first place, lenin more like le-german-spy>glorious soviet era technology and vast public infrastructure begins to wear out and gracefully dies after decades of use<modern tech has to be imported for bazillions of $$$ from bourgeois countries and fails after 1 minute of use<repair of tech is another bazillion of $$$ because patented technology<public infrastructure implodes on itself every other week because dogshit repairs keep failing<repair of infrastructure is dogshit because of abysmal wages paid and the cheapest equipment provided, "saving" money directly into porky's pocket Are the socialist states in the room with us right now?
The stupid thing about a Mexican standoff is if you take away all of the guns, absolutely nothing changes, everyone is in the exact same position as before. Why even have the guns to begin with?
>>2542594Its a prisoner's dilemma. A classic one at that. Read up on game theory.
If nobody has a gun, you gain an advantage over everyone by procuring one. If everyone has a gun, you can credibly dissuade them from robbing you by getting a gun.
Unique IPs: 20