Unless something more material like a whole continent turning anti-imperialist, if not socialist, and deciding collectively to nationalize the fruit and veg produce, and thus disrupts U.S’s produce imports -
I don’t think any internal problems in America would reach to a boiling point, as to end on a conclusive note
So what if it’s a big deal to you, huh, America is the most armed-country, and has a lot of guns, yet no civil war(s) has occurred recently… it’s just reactionary settler business as usual
Im America, nichts neues
This one in particular always worries me when it comes to the US war-seeking behavior with China.
If they get their asses kicked badly enough in the south China sea and their arsenals run dry and they believe that if China wanted to, they could counter-attack, invade and overrun the US without a fight (China wouldn’t but they don’t know this or choose not to believe it) that they might resort to nuclear weapons.
Perhaps even before a defeat to turn the tide of battle in betting on China not responding in kind and backing down (which isn’t a bad bet from their perspective given China’s history over the past few decades of drawing red lines and letting the US cross them repeatedly because they don’t want war or to slow their plans for development by a violent break with the US).
Already one must see all US anti-ICMB systems as attempts to gain supremacy in a way that would allow them to obliterate China while protecting themselves from 99% of retaliation to ensure another century of US domination. I yearn for the end of the empire and yet I fear just how violent it could be, that the world could be destroyed. Of course we cannot submit to such blackmail. Though we must, China must ensure they can counter such blackmail with the assurance that the US will not survive and that they will die with the rest of the world. Which is why I think even 1000 warheads is not enough. They must have enough to ensure to the US that they will wipe out the military, cities, towns, farmland, to poison and salt the earth and leave the US nothing but a wasteland for two centuries to come. And they must ensure they have several thousand of these on the latest hypersonic delivery systems to evade US defenses and they must ensure that they have a chain of command and a back-up system in case of decapitating strike on the leadership that still allows a launch of most of their arsenal. All this is required to deter the US. That and maybe letting it be known through back channels they’ll nuke the fuck out of New Zealand with several hundred warheads to kill all the western bourgeoisie there who are hiding in bunkers there to ensure they know they’ll go down with the rest of the west.
I was wondering about that as well. My impression is the US knows they’ll lose a conventional war in the South China Sea and are willing to do a nuclear first strike
The problem is that the US views any build-up in nuclear weapons or development of more advanced delivery methods as a threat that can trigger their first strike policy. Meaning, if China in your example arms hypersonic missiles, that the US can’t shoot down, with nuclear warheads, that will be considered justification to trigger a first strike before China finishes the process, because otherwise the US will be vulnerable to a first strike itself.
Similarly, if Russia or China develop technologies that can shoot down most of the US nuclear missiles, that will also trigger a US first strike, before those technologies are implemented. Otherwise, the US will no longer be able to enforce mutual assured destruction on Russia/China and will consider itself vulnerable to a first strike.
Equally worrying for the rest of us is that Russia is currently drifting into adapting a similar first-strike policy as the US (though fortunately without the insane target list).
That’s why the answer should be disarmament, not ramping up. Though that’s very unlikely considering how bellicose the US is behaving.
In my view, the only way to safely destroy the empire is by playing the long game, which is exactly what Russia and China are doing. Slowly and silently dismantle their economic control of the globe, cause fissures in NATO, wait for the inevitable US economic collapse due to corruption and massive military spending, make the US industries rely on Russian and Chinese suppliers, re-educate Americans politically through their own media, and wait for the eventual political and civil upheaval that will hopefully replace the current establishment with a saner one.
Basically, do to the US what the US did to the USSR.
The Soviets already tried that path, though. We all know how that has ended up, with the events leading up to Ukraine.
There can’t be any trust in the genocide-reich, as I see it. Whatever treaties they make, even whatever weapons they genuinely destroy (and even with inspectors it can only be questioned if they have more), whatever gains in disarmament are made, will be ephemeral.
I agree that the long game is the only safe path forward- but a buildup of weapons is the necessary backup plan- and arguably (as I see it) more important, even, than the optimistic safe path that, while theoretically possible, may not succeed (for instance, if the US pre-emptively launches nukes before it declines to such an extent, or even just out of spite).
So long as MAD exists, I see it as more important than anything else to ensure that it exists as a bulwark- and if not a bulwark, as a promise- towards the west. And I don’t see it as worrying that Russia is drifting towards a first-strike policy; personally I hope that China and North Korea move towards it too in time (so long as the current US regime which seeks global hegemony is around, anyways).
If humanity is to exist on the precipice of destruction- the risk must be equally shared, and it must be understood that our (humanity’s/anti-imperialist’s/AES’) triggers are just as resolute, just as sensitive, and just as broad in scope as that of the imperialists’. As I see it, that is part of MAD as well- it is not a “sane” course of action, perhaps- it is not the course of action that one would take if self-preservation took priority over all else- but it is the only course of action that sufficiently addresses the circumstances we face; it is the only fully responsible path when faced with such an insane (for lack of a better word), anti-human threat, like that poised over the world since the first genocide-reich and ascendant hegemon became also the first nuclear power.
The world can move towards disarmament- and I hope by all means it does, though with every precaution taken not to do so prematurely- once the global and hegemonic system of imperialism is done away with. But not before; the risks that come from failing to offer anything but equal and total annihilation are too great as I see it.
I don’t disagree at all. I can understand Russia’s position.
China is building up it’s nuclear arsenal though, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia is too.
I understand and sympathize with your reasoning, but I don’t think we can cede ground to the U.S. by automatically saying “but they can nuke instantly”, yes, of course that is a possibility, but China is building up it’s own arsenal, and China already has and is in the process of getting the latest generation of missiles and weapons and technology to track, shoot down, deflect and scramble drones and other vehicles and weapons.
I think this will be a multi-pronged approach. We can’t just wait for the U.S. to possibly never collapse, but China likely can’t just destroy the country in one day
I agree with that. And yes, both Russia and China are building up their arsenal. Especially after the US pulled out of the non-proliferation treaties.
I think what Russia and China are doing here (besides defending themselves) is to apply pressure on the US to return to the treaties.
I hope the long game works out
I’m worried that you and Ritter are right