/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing
Typical anti-Russia propaganda. For two decades now the US has done everything it could to destroy and sabotage existing arms control treaties. The ball is squarely in the court of the bloodthirsty, psychotic neocons running Washington right now who are so fanatically devoted to the project of global domination that they'll push their brand of anti-diplomacy all the way to the brink of nuclear armageddon. If the world is to be saved we need to get Americans out in the streets to make these fuckers afraid of the populace again. Scott Ritter was trying to inspire something like this earlier this year. How can we motivate Americans to fight for the future of civilization?

I don't have any respect for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists these days. At some point it was taken over by think-tank saber rattlers and they've been peddling Russophobic and Sinophobic bullshit since at least 2016 that directly contradicts their mission of stopping nuclear exchanges.

https://thebulletin.org/2023/01/viral-spread-peter-hotez-on-the-increase-of-anti-science-aggression-on-social-media/
And seriously what the fuck does bullshit like this have to do with nuclear weapons?

>>476329
Oy vey mate. Do you have a license or certification? Otherwise, you are spreading false and misleading science denialism

>>476327
<Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing
>Typical anti-Russia propaganda.

but they did do that. it's just a statement of a fact

The Duma withdrew ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/202310181228-t0GGh.html
>State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin said that the bill was signed by 438 deputies. He noted that such a large consolidation does not happen often, and said that such a unanimous vote is a response to US and its attitude towards its responsibilities to maintain global security.

>>476333
>lying by omission is actually just le "statement of fact" bro xDDDD
liberal retard

>>476326
>The nuclear threat is back.
It never went away, the nukes always sat their in the silos, submarines and so on, ready to end the world.

>But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s.
This is almost like you are complaining about there not being enough politics of fear. It's pointless to cower under a table, it's a weapon that rips apart atoms.
>I am not some prepper retard but even I am getting nervous.
>So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
More fear signals, fuck off with that.
We want to see righteous anger at reckless leaders, not fear.
The nuclear threat will go away, when people in power are terrified of the people's wrath.

>Why is that? Why does nobody care?
I wouldn't say nobody cares, but some people do not believe the physical world is real anymore, so that might have something to do with it.

>Russians axed a nuclear arm controle treaty.
The US was the one that started dismantling detente era de-denuclearization treaties, the Russians responded with tit for tat game-theory logic. I think detente unofficially ended in 2007 when the US broke parts of the ABM treaties, and it officially ended in 2018 when the US pulled out of the INF treaties.

>>476333
>it's just a statement of a fact
Facts don't exist in a vacuum, you are lying by omitting context. The US was the one that started this.

—–

Anyway if you want to understand where this is heading read the military doctrinal stuff. They've been complaining that high yield nukes are "not usable enough". They want to use small yield nukes. I guess the train is heading towards one of those going off, murdering a huge amount of people. Then everybody takes note and we can ban nuclear weapons as well as high yield chemical bombs.

At the moment Russia and China have the superior nuke delivery systems, that reduces US belligerency quite a lot. Russia and China sort off have no-first-strike policies. So the US, China and Russia are not very likely to use nukes.

India-Pakistan tensions and of course unhinged Zionists at the helm of Israel are the source of nuclear concern.

>>476326
>But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s
because americans werent dead inside at that point and actually spirited and nothing like the sheeple of today
>So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
going to try to romeo some senators daughter or whatever, they always have daddy issues and theyre out there, thank allah
>>476327
fuck off faggot there is always something cooking

>>476357
Lurk moar, newfag

>>476360
sorry son been lurking in your moms puss puss

>>476336
>>476337
>muh lying by omission
Did I say Russia is guilty in any of this? No.

I've literally just posted a headline of a BoomerBerg article saying that US did a nuclear test right after Russia revoked their sign of The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Without ANY comment. Just to show how we are getting 60 years back.

US testing nukes simply because Russia revoked some sign actually makes them look bad. This is literally a provocation. And that's how I understood that. I didn't know I have to explain something so obvious.

But apparently to easily butthurt russiaboos on this site, one has to set up historical context all the way back to Democritus or they get a heart attack

>>476381
>BoomerBerg
kek

>The nuclear threat is back.

No it's not, and I unironically wish that it was. Being in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear blast would be a better way to go than how I'll probably die.

The thing about fears of nuclear armageddon is that our leaders are pussies. Every fucking one of them, including Vladimir "fuck it let's be legends" Putin. They value their lives, they value the material gain which comes with their positions, they love all the control they have over stuff… and they know that if they launched a single nuke, that would be over. In fact, if the US sent Ukraine a single nuclear warhead rather than cluster bombs, there would be peace in Ukraine over night - I know that's not what some folks want to hear, but it would save thousands of lives. The distribution of all the former USSR's stockpile to the Russian Federation was predicated on the idea that Russia would behave more responsibly than its little despotic offshoots, a presumption which has been consistently challenged without any nuclear strikes occurring. The US wouldn't even risk the global social repercussions of doing such a thing, let alone the very slim chance that it would result in some sort of military attack on the American leadership. While I don't trust MAD entirely, it's true that there would be a lot less war if all of these countries had nukes - instead, we see countries with nukes constantly invading countries without nukes.

That said, even with total nuclear proliferation, I think we might eventually see a situation where countries just agree to not use their stockpiles and just have wars anyway. Even so, there would be a period of reduced war and forced diplomacy before things heated up again. NK was right to get nukes; Iran should get nukes, and Palestine having nukes would be a miracle of sorts. As a person who cannot possibly justify a fear of death (my life is shit and I want to die), I can see how much benefit a real threat of nuclear destruction would have, and I can just as well see that it is a pipedream which we will never achieve.

>>476467
I can see your point that nuclear proliferation would also proliferate deterrence, and perhaps clamp down some military conflict.

But you are being reckless. Giving the Ukro-regime nukes, is madness. The unhinged fascist elements already tried to cause a nuclear disaster by shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. If you give these people nukes, they'll use them. The other problem is that the Russians can detect nuclear war-heads based on their radioactive signature. They will be able to interdict your attempt of delivering a nuke to Ukraine. Your nuke delivery would get destructively disassembled spewing it's toxic innards all over the place.

If you want to balance out Isreal's nukes (they call "samson option") you probably should allow Iran to develop nukes. Stationing nukes in Palestinian territory does nothing for deterrence, it's too close either side can't nuke the other without also nuking it-self. Also Palestine currently does not have the technical base to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

The nuclear threat posture of Russia is less aggressive than that of the US, and i somehow doubt that nuclear deterrence really wears off. There are no indications of a dark-Kautsky type ultra-imperialism where capitalist ruling classes all work together to organize war-choreographies to kill off parts of their populations. The Neocons in Washington see Russia as a rival they want knocked off the Bord, they don't want coexistence with Moscow and work together with Putin, they want to rule the world by them self.

We do have to dismantle nuclear weapons for statistical reasons. If we keep these systems around for long enough eventually a malfunction will set off a nuclear war.

>>476467
Shut up and read this book already. It's been simple dumb luck that humanity even made it to the 21st century. The threat of nuclear catastrophe doesn't come simply from some lunatic dictator finally pressing the big red button. It comes from massive hierarchical, semi-autonomous structures involved in the deployment of nuclear weapons where individuals across the chain of command have the ability to accidentally or intentionally trigger a largely automated nuclear exchange. In fact in order for the supposed stabilizing effect of adversaries arming with nukes to be realized, these automated structures have to exist for the threat of mutual annihilation to be credible.

>>476483
If Russia would just intercept any nuclear weapons, then you've got nothing to worry about from evil UKROPs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

>>476486
Gimme more information about it. I usually only read books in… literal book form, away from the screen, and I'm broke now so that's probably not gonna happen.

The nuclear threat was never real. They only get launched as a last resort if the masses call the bluff and decide they're ready to go out, because continuing to live under this is worse than anything else. Go back to Public Opinion (1922) and every ruling idea is premised on the idea that the people can be cowed into submission by unlimited fear. Every use of nuclear weapons and every threat made is directed towards the people, rather than a rival state. They are the last resort of a state facing total collapse, and the narrative always calls for stoking as much fear as possible, even if the state actor holding nukes doesn't actually threaten the target population. Israel uses its nukes as a tool not to threaten the Arabs, but to threaten American allies with a general nuclear war if they don't suck Zionist cock. The Arabs have already made it clear they will take the Samson option, because they're likely to survive. They're so confident that they don't even need nukes of their own, nor would they use them as terror weapons since that is not part of their agenda.

So far as nukes have a use, they are a tactical weapon to use against massed formations. One nuke against a staged army = dead army unless it is dispersed wide enough, which limits how much force it can project at a locale. As a terror weapon, the main use of nukes is to cow the normally passive public into submission, so they accept having their lives taken from them piece by piece. It's part of the apparatus which holds a knife at the throat of every subject from cradle to grave, telling them that this is the only possible world. Basically, the threat of nuclear war is not a real threat that would be issued by one state to another. It is only a threat of the empire to the people, and while we should believe that the empire is willing to act on that threat like any other threat it issues, we shouldn't play by their expectations. Most people don't, and a lot of people have their "get the fuck out of the blast zone" plans. The "prepper" fucktardation is programming to get the people to act like headless chickens when war comes about, ratcheting up the paranoia to herd them to believe anything.

If you are going to face the ruling elites' final option with nukes, I think you can see that knowing who you can trust is most important. The rulers will sit in bunkers and secure locations, along with those they plan to keep. At its heart, nuclear war is a threat of eugenicists, because it establishes a clear hierarchy of who is worth keeping - the precursor to lifeboat ethics and Survivor shitfests. Nuclear war against states with deep tunnel networks is surprisingly ineffective. There are stories that nukes were used in Iraq in 2003, and I don't know what to make of them, but Iraq is still here. They were fucked with or without nukes. A state using nuke war in a limited theater - let's say Israel uses the Samson Option - is unlikely to lead to further nukes. Any delivery system Israel uses against a neutral with missile interception capabilities is likely shot down, and the only gain of the Zionists would be pure spite. China, Russia, Europe, would all survive a "random" nuke from Shitrael, and that would probably be enough to call for Anuddah Shoah right then and there for putting the world through that. It's one reason Shitrael won't actually do it. What is the point of nuking Arab or Iranian cities, except to kill people for the lulz? They're going to keep coming for you, and the outcome of a limited such war will be that no one will ever allow a Zionist anywhere near power again. It would be a gigantic display of impotence. I doubt Israel will use its nukes unless doomsday was prepared. A nuclear attack against Iran is something they would have prepared for, and they showed an ability to summon human wave attacks. Nothing would light a fire under their ass like fighting the Great Satan doing such a, well, Satanic and stupid thing.

So unless they're ready to do the full democide now, I'm not expecting a nuke "war" now - and when it happens, it will be used to democide population centers, and would be preceded by making sure eugenics is secured and the residuum are "bunched" and can't escape. Part of why they're so big on "15 minute cities" and Agenda 2020/2030 shit to force plebs into cities as prisons. Too many people would not comply with that without preliminary efforts to force people off their land, and the US would face extreme difficulty turning the entire hinterland into Gaza, even with all of the arms it has stockpiled to do exactly that.

I don't see them doing full democide, because their present depopulation measures are already working very well for targeting the selected enemies and securing those they want to keep (fellow Satanics). They'd only fire the nukes if there was no other way to contain the rage of the people over what was done to them, and there was a sustained offensive against eugenics and open executions of those who did this to us. Such a rebellion is nowhere near forming - the most "revolutionary" faction are the Nazis who intend to advance depopulation once their place on the lifeboat is secured. What's really happening is a plan war between two eugenist factions, who will immediately turn to liquidate the residuum and "neutrals" who are claimed to be the real base of the enemy. The Right and the "Left" already have their assigned targets for liquidation, who they will be sent against in a general global civil war like the one they appear to be making. They will studiously avoid each other or any worthwhile center of power. It's the only way they can accelerate depopulation past what they have done, but there is potential for the world to refuse to play along with this.

There is no possibility of a peaceful end to eugenics. Not after this. The aim of the eugenists will be to use terror weapons to cow the civilized peoples to submit to the agenda, and the threat of stoking an unlimited global civil war to get their way. Anyone who wanted to work against this has been sidelined or made irrelevant, or is of the depoliticized classes and has no agency in this matter.

>>476496
The only peaceful end to eugenics is that it is either utterly victorious and becomes Absolute (all life dies screaming forever), or those behind the throne who really call the shots get everything they want and start the next thing, throwing away the eugenists in favor of the scientific despotism they've really wanted as the result of all of this.

>>476494
>If Russia would just intercept any nuclear weapons, then you've got nothing to worry about from evil UKROPs
Are you daft ?
If a nuclear-bomb transport gets blown up, that would cause radioactive fallout. Such a happening would also cause lots of escalation on a political level and inevitably more attempts at nuclear weapons proliferation.

If the US tried to give nukes to Ukraine, the Russians would try to give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US. The US would also try to blow up those nuke-transports. The overall result of this struggle would have a similar effect than blowing up lots of dirty bombs. And cause the most retarded time line.

>>476499
You're s Satanic faggot.

>>476591
>with 24-times more power
<measured in kilotons not megatons
Yeah the title is a bit sensationalist, this is not a super-powerful bomb.

The most powerful nuclear device ever tested was the Tsar Bomba, it's yield was a little over 50 megatons (but can be configured to be over 100 megatons), which was estimated to be about 3800 times the strength of the US bomb dropped on Hiroshima during WW2.

Check this out, to put this into perspective relative to other nuclear devices
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

So the US is building a new medium yield nuclear weapon. This could just be a replacement for older tech that is being phased out. Political motivations are also possible. The US kinda has been eroding the nuclear-weapons-control scheme from the detente era, and the intention is a new nuclear arms race. But in this case i would still consider the tech-upgrade explanation more likely still.

Overall you're not wrong. Nuclear weapons were on a declining trend during the detente era, and now their on the rise again. And this is worrying.

The big nuclear powers like the US and Russia are however are of lesser concern. At present the most dangerous potential for nuclear weapons use is Israel dropping a nuke on Iran. It's also very likely that with Iran feeling threatened they would seek to create it's own nuclear deterrence capacity, and given the current state of geo-political tensions they will be able to get it. Increasing nuclear proliferation.

Far-right minister: Nuking Gaza is an option, population should go to Ireland or deserts

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/far-right-minister-nuking-gaza-is-an-option-population-should-go-to-ireland-or-deserts/

<A minister from the extremist Otzma Yehudit party says one of Israel’s options in the war in Gaza is to drop a nuclear bomb on the Strip.

Woop there it is.

>>476635
Wasn't Israel relying on the ambiguity of do-they-or-don't-they-have-nukes for a long time? When did that change?

>>476636
>Wasn't Israel relying on the ambiguity
There never was any ambiguity, the fact that Israel didn't admit to having nukes is probably not that relevant strategically, outside of preventing Israeli politicians from doing what this moronic nuclear Zionazi just did. You can't really hide nukes they have a detectable signature, And pretty much every power has been able to detect those since the 80s, unless they are underground or in submersed submarines. Producing nukes is a huge undertaking, that can't be kept secret either, because regular spies could figure this out also.

At the present technology level of commercial available tech-commodities. Technically inclined and physics literate people might be able to diy a detector, i have seen some hobbyists that build vapor chambers that are sensitive enough to detect a single high energy particle, which is much harder.

What also has to be said, this guy just got suspended, he didn't get sacked. Keep in mind that nuking GAZA = nuking Israel. Gaza is too close, even a small low yield nuke would have massive blowback effects on Israel. With tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousand wounded Israelis. This isn't just genocidal evil, it's also intense stupidity, of destroying Israel to own the Palestinians.

If we had a sane international environment, you'd see a ground swell of demands calling for a nuclear arms control regime being imposed on Israel. All your official government people have to toe the line on nuclear doctrine, if you can't insure that, nobody can trust you with nukes. Netanyahu didn't immediately fire this moron because of internal political reasons, but internationally that projects the image of a unhinged madman. This incident probably has granted Iran sufficient political cover to builds it own nukes, because they can point that the crazy neighbor.

>>476635
It's always the irish

>>476498
>Are you daft ?
>If a nuclear-bomb transport gets blown up, that would cause radioactive fallout.

Then blowing it up seems like a bad idea.

>Such a happening would also cause lots of escalation on a political level and inevitably more attempts at nuclear weapons proliferation.

Everyone should have nukes!

>If the US tried to give nukes to Ukraine, the Russians would try to give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US.

GOOD!

>The US would also try to blow up those nuke-transports. The overall result of this struggle would have a similar effect than blowing up lots of dirty bombs. And cause the most retarded time line.

This is provided that every nuclear transport operation is successfully detected and eliminated… I'm kinda skeptical that it would go down that way.

>>476642
>Then blowing it up seems like a bad idea.
Yeah but to the Russians letting the US have a critical nuclear advantage is an impossible idea, the likelyhood that they would interdict a nuclear transport is 100%.

>Everyone should have nukes!
Maybe from a political perspective of leveling the playing field, but that is not the only consideration. Nukes can be set off by system failure, human error or human malice. More nukes and more players that have them means the probabilities stack against species survival.

<give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US.
>GOOD!
You're not looking at the practical problems, many countries lack the technical expertise to maintain nukes, and there are worries about dangerous shit getting sold on the blackmarket.

>This is provided that every nuclear transport operation is successfully detected and eliminated… I'm kinda skeptical that it would go down that way.
I'm pretty sure that avoiding detection is not possible. Unless you build secret tunnels connected to secret under-water submarine ports, this is a theoretical James Bond tier scheme that probably doesn't work in the real world. It might be possible to use supersonic bombers to transport nukes and avoid interdiction by outrunning it, at least in some geographic locations. But that still doesn't solve the problem, that once you have delivered the nuke, it will be on the ground where it'll be a target until it's mounted to a delivery system that creates deterrence.

Amid Israeli genocide in Gaza, Washington threatens Iran with nuclear war
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/11/07/tday-n07.html

>After millions worldwide protested against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza this weekend, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Baghdad Sunday. In the Iraqi capital, he denounced pro-Iranian militias that have been active in Iraq since Washington illegally invaded the country, toppled its government and occupied it from 2003 to 2011.

>Blinken accused these militias of firing on US military bases in Iraq and Syria after the Gaza war began. He said, “(T)o anyone who might seek to take advantage of the conflict in Gaza to threaten our personnel here or anywhere else in the region: Don’t do it. … (T)he threats coming from the militia that are aligned with Iran are totally unacceptable, and we will take every necessary step to protect our people. We’re not looking for conflict with Iran—we’ve made that very clear—but we’ll do what’s necessary to protect our personnel…”

>US threats to Iran emerged clearly this week, with the unusual public announcement of the sending of a US nuclear missile submarine to the Central Command, which oversees the Middle East. Such a ship can carry either 154 nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles or 20 nuclear ballistic missiles. This gives it a total destructive power of either 23 or 28 million tons of TNT—about 1,900 or 2,300 times the power of the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

The fucking Threads movie also starts with a conflict in Iran, lol. So, uhh, idk, get yourselves some popcorn???

>>476652
The Russians are probably still mad because their Sub in Sevastapol got shot up. If a regional war breaks out they might knock out the missile boat and let Iran take the credit.

The US probably let the sub surface to show muscle and intimate IRAN, but that might have been enough to reduce statistical uncertainty to enable the Russians to track it, at least for a while.

>>476664
Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense given that the Middle East is hanging on the precipice of WW3. But then the Bulletin has been invaded by Russophobes and Sinophobes since Trump.

>>476664
However,
Russia says it test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile from a new nuclear submarine
https://apnews.com/article/russia-missile-test-nuclear-submarine-839789f09d01b719747d8850ba427f0d

>MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian military on Sunday reported a successful test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile designed to carry nuclear warheads from a new nuclear submarine.

>The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that the Emperor Alexander III strategic missile cruiser fired the Bulava missile from an underwater position in Russia’s northern White Sea, and hit a target in the far-eastern region of Kamchatka. It wasn’t immediately clear from the statement when the test launch occurred.

>The Emperor Alexander III is one of the new Borei-class nuclear submarines that carry 16 Bulava missiles each and are intended to serve as the core naval component of the nation’s nuclear forces in the coming decades. According to the Defense Ministry, launching a ballistic missile is the final test for the vessel, after which a decision should be made on its induction into the fleet.

>The Russian navy currently has three Borei-class submarines in service, one more is finishing tests and three others are under construction, the Defense Ministry said.

>>476665
>Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense given that the Middle East is hanging on the precipice of WW3.
That is correct.
>But then the Bulletin has been invaded by Russophobes and Sinophobes
They might just be playing politics and not mean it, but on the other hand you could be right about that.

Anyway the imperial logic is that peace, is the result of all countries submitting to imperial rule, and any country that resists imperial rule is the cause of the chaos and conflict. But in reality imperial rule tends to create peace for the imperial center and perpetual conflict all around it.

Real peace only comes about when international politics meet at eye level, that's what happened in the detente era.

One consideration that ought not be ignored is that the middle east crisis is over-extending the US Empire, which is lowering the potential for a SINO-US war. The US empire attempted a "pivot to Asia" (of it's imperial focus) then the Ukraine war interrupted that. 2 years later they once again try to extricate them selves from Ukraine to "pivot to Asia" and then the Middle east crisis happened. All those "interruptions" are basically consequence of unresolved contradictions of the imperial system bubbling back up.

oh, hey, look, the nukes are in the news again

Scientific American: The U.S.’s Plans to Modernize Nuclear Weapons Are Dangerous and Unnecessary
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-s-plans-to-modernize-nuclear-weapons-are-dangerous-and-unnecessary/

>The U.S. is planning to modernize its unwanted, unneeded and unsafe nuclear triad of land-, sea- and air-based weapons. Perfectly poised to refight the cold war, these overhauled bombs will waste $1.5 trillion and threaten life on Earth for the century to come.

>At the center of the government's proposal is a $100-billion bid to fill 450 nuclear silos in five inland states with hundreds of new nuclear missiles set to launch on hair triggers. Built before submarine-launched missiles became large, accurate and untraceable, these relics are now justified as a “nuclear sponge” to absorb a Russian attack on the U.S. Why plant a $100-billion nuclear “kick me” sign on the country's breadbasket?

>>477023
I thought land based nuke silos were being phased out. They might not even work as a "nuke sponge" anymore, because The Russians and others have "kinetic mass impact warheads" that can destroy a nuclear silo just by slamming something heavy into it at great speed. That's a cheaper option because there are no nukes in the impactors, just something heavy, presumably a lump of metal or something. A costly nuke silo for a cheap kinetic impactor, seems like a bad trade.