What's Zig Forums opinion on denuclearization?

We? "We" aren't allowed to have any nukes because of the usa while they stockpile enough weapons that obliterating every town in my country wouldn't even put a dent in their supply.

Thats probably not true, just because a nuclear war didn't happen yet doesn't mean it wasn't likely to have happened. There were some really scary close calls that were revealed when the USSR collapsed. Every one knows the Cuban Missile Crisis but there was a bunch of dumb shit that almost led to the end of civilization. Once the Soviets deployed this state of the art missile detection system that was a little too sensitive and thought abnormally reflective clouds were missiles. Another time Sweden forgot to tell the USSR about a satellite launch. Both times we were saved by the fact that the guy with the finger on the button didn't have the balls to do it even though the regulations told him to.

My favorite was Abel Archer. The West was planning war gamesin Europe but the Soviets thought it was the real deal and were about to end it all, but luckily the game ended just before they were about to pull the trigger. The CIAs plot to make Reagan look like a apocalyptic psychopath was too successful.

Attached: Y2xbG3Af.png (807x879, 634.04K)

Yeah, the problem with the nuclear peace theory is that we won't find out whether it really works or not before it's too late. It's compelling to view these relatively peaceful times in light of increased nuclear proliferation, but there are other factors and theories out there that also can explain the decrease of interstate war following WW2 (balance of power/polarity in the international system, liberalist commercial peace theory lmao, etc.)
I'm not ready to disregard nuclear peace theory entirely, but it just seems like such a bonkers way to ensure peace even if it probably works to some degree

I am unironically a Stalino-Posadist. We must seize nuclear weapons and domestic kulaks and other reactionaries. The only valid form of nuclear disarmament is expending nuclear arms.

As much as a posadist and wouldnt want denuclearization with the threat of the us imperialism. I do believe there is a treaty that was ratified that said no nation would be taking nukes into space as that be in direct violation of the Space Treaty.

...

We’ve had nukes for almost eighty years, and there’s been no major way in that time period. Without Nukes it’s likely WW3 between the US and USSR would’ve occurred.

There's a german tv series about this

If he was he had every chance to be. He was just a run of the mill American president full of corruption, war, exploitation, and murder no different from Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc. He is overrated as great by conservatives and overrated as dangerous by liberals as part of the ongoing two party system propaganda. Of course he is a monster, I'm not saying he's not, but he is literally no worse than any other recent American president, they're all the same, there's nothing special about Reagan.

what's special about Reagan is that he was the beginning of it.

Democracy is a nuke for every family.

Denuclearization is very important. Nuclear weapons are a weapon the few use to control the many. No people can ever claim their nation for their own when capitalist states can destroy them with their weapons. The weapons industry should be disbanded as soon as possible.

...

Absolutely not, I mean come on guys.
In saying that, there is nothing wrong with North Korea building nukes.

This is correct. There's nothing more powerful than nuclear weapons. The U.S. openly planned to "rollback" (read: invade) Soviet bloc territory and was much more successful with its first-use threats in the 50s / early 60s when the US had a massive thermonuclear advantage. After the USSR developed a credible second strike capability, the US of course didn't want to give up its first use threat - hence, a new focus on "flexible response", "limited" nuclear war, "decapitation strikes" with 10 minute flight time missiles, etc.

ellsberg.net/call-to-mutiny/
Read this essay by former nuclear war strategist Daniel Ellsberg, US nuclear posture has never been about "deterrence", it's always been built on the threat of first-strike - and with it, the threat of "preemptive" retaliation from an enemy that believes the US will actually do it. Look at the Able Archer 83 war scare for instance.

I think the nuclear issue is a good wakeup call to get people to realize the true nature of war and imperialism. You could easily, drastically reduce the risk of nuclear war by declaring a No First Use policy (and destroying unilaterally first-strike weapons like ICBMs to make it credible). But the thing is, Porky will never, ever let that happen, because nuclear brinkmanship is a lot cheaper to guard his interests than conventional troops. Generation after generation of cold warriors, Kennan, Kissinger, Schultz, etc. look back at the risks of nuclear war decades later and back No First Use anyway, but every new administration continues to roll the dice with nuclear armageddon. Look at Trump and his INF withdrawal and sub-launched cruise missiles, for instance. There's no draft, but you realize you could still die as a result of these wars. From there, you start to realize that the capitalist system is inherently in conflict with nuclear disarmament.

Attached: Desert Rock Observers.jpg (1363x846 251.9 KB, 382.83K)

You're assuming correlation = causation. Thing is, other factors also correlate with this unprecedented time of interstate peace, such as the stability and predictability resulting from the bipolar international system which characterized the Cold War, compared to the chaos and unpredictability in the multipolar international system we were in before both world wars and which we're increasingly living in today. Not saying that nuclear proliferation isn't a large factor, but only that it's fortunately for us impossible to isolate it as the principal factor.

The bets are still on, mind you. As the other user noted, we were still dangerously close to nuclear annihilation even in a relatively stable bipolar Cold War setting. Now that we're entering a more chaotic multipolar era in the international system, we're charting unknown ground when it comes to the MAD principle. The possibility for fatal misunderstandings and miscalculations increase as the number of bickering great powers increase. My point is that we're all still pretty much canaries in the coal mine on this one.

Who would go to war with each other. China and America have poor relations, but it’s who gets the right to sell lead toys to each other. China and India hate each other, and have land disputes, but nothing that would justify a nuclear war. No who has nukes hates Russia enough to nuke them. The only countries that might nuke each other are India and Pakistan, but their nuclear arsenals are pretty small, and their missiles are of a poor quality. However this isn’t entirely true as they haven’t gone to war when they were booth nuclear powers. Them both having nukes has probably made it the reason why they aren’t at war now. They have to much to lose and to little to gain from a nuclear war.