Big capitalists anticipating nuclear apocalypse
- This topic has 82 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Russia could now use nuclear weapons.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-live-putin-donetsk-b2482475.htmlThere is a lot of this sort of bilge on the MSM at the moment – sociopaths like retired generals and slimy politicians going on about how “we” must prepare ourselves now for the possibility of WW3. Loosely translated that means boosting military spending to enable “us” to better stand up to the “Russian” (or Chinese) threat. No doubt they are saying exactly the same thing about the West in Russia and China.
None of these people have any actual concern for the lives of workers in the event that actual war happens. It’s about manipulating public opinion for their own ends. Fearmongering to make us all fall in line. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. I dont believe a nuclear armageddon will happen – at least not by design though possibly by default. Not even politicians can be that dumb to imagine anyone would survive a fullscale nuclear exchange (including the billionaires in their bunkers) However, a frenzied climate of hyper-irrationalism and turbocharged nationalism might make the possibility of an “accident” more likely. All the more reason to pour cold water over articles like this one
Even without nuclear weaponry, if the US wants to use Europe as a proxy battlefield with Russia, “conventional” weaponry would be more destructive than WW2.
And, even with no war, if govt intends to force us into war drills, “civil defence” drills, underground bunker drills etc , they could penalise those of us who refuse, by stopping benefits and other financial measures, forcing us to comply.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/vladimir-putin-nuclear-weapons-nato/
” civilians would have to be mobilised in large numbers if war broke out, and governments would have to prepare for how to manage that process.”
Even if only one side used them, we would all die in a nuclear winter, including the side that fired.
Surely if Putin did use a so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon in Ukraine, he would become an international pariah beyond the NATO sphere, wouldn’t he?
https://www.wspus.org/war-in-ukraine-paths-to-armageddon/
From our companion party in America.
What the White House has said about sending troops to fight Russia
Biden and “boots on the ground.”
Don’t forget this comment at the end from another WSPUS comrade:
“Ukraine is just another proxy war between East & West, like Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (from 1979-89). There is no way I can imagine NATO going to war with Russia/China or vice versa. If there was going to be a nuclear war, it would have happened during the nuclear arms race of 1945-87. In conclusion, world leaders are not going to blow up the world to stop a rival group of capitalists from being top dog.”
I can’t see the war ending unless Zelensky agrees to the partition of Ukraine and neutrality of the western oblasts. I don’t see his govt ever agreeing to that, nor NATO allowing it.
Every day more military warnings.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/23/public-call-up-army-too-small/
“Naturally. the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders”
“It is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials after WW2.
(Quoted in a message under the above-linked newspaper article).
Every day more military warnings.
Yes, currently militarists are campaigning for more money to be spent on the armed forces and their weapons, exaggerating the threat from Russia to back up their case.
For instance, there is an editorial in today’s Times headed “Big Stick” with the subheading “Russia’s potential for nuclear adventurism justifies the updating of Britain’s deterrent”. Apparently, Russia has an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (to be used on the battlefield rather than to blow up the world). The editorial concludes:
“‘Speak softly and carry a big stick,’ goes the proverb. In this uncertain world Britain requires its nuclear big stick more than ever.”
I thought the “proverb” was first enunciated by US President Theodore Roosevelt. It is a theory of diplomacy which accepts that relations between capitalist states are based on the principle that “might is right”.
It doesn’t necessarily imply that the stick should be used but only that it should be waved about so the other side can see it and take that fact into account.
We shouldn’t help the militarists’ campaign by accepting what they say as necessarily true. They have an axe to grind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.