• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s 3 nuke scenarios - total war, tactical nukes, depopulation

      Total war doesn’t serve the bourgeois interest. If it happened it would be a strategic blunder.

      Tactical nukes are the easy game to win with, but it’s the same as super tech - without domestic production USA needs to occupy China and force workers to the line. Unsustainable. Nukes won’t work against mobs effectively because they’re too close to production.

      Depop is the scary one. There’s less need for Chinese production if the world population drops precipitously. The bourgeoisie avoid exposure through land control. The workers that revolt would mostly hurt themselves. Production can be distributed to multiple continents and the left over working class can be physically separated enough that they can’t organize. The poisoned land they work on keeps them sick for 6 generations so their population can’t recover.

      I wouldn’t put money on depop, but the analysis that DU was dropped on Yugoslavia as a way to empirically test DU effects widely due to the presence of three different watersheds that feed three major seas really spooked me. The timeline that includes eugenics (US), industrial murder (holocaust), nuking civilians, Agent Orange (still killing new generations), and culminating in DU deployment in Yugoslavia and then Iraq… That timeline doesn’t lead me towards good conclusions about the USA’s grand strategies.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the risk of a strategic blunder is a lot higher than people realize. There were plenty of episodes during the cold war when nukes almost got launched by accident. We’re now entering a scenario where trust is at all time low and everybody is trigger happy.