Let's say the US balkanizes, becomes decentralized and finally stateless. What to do with the nukes that were left over? Who controls them if there's no central power? Obviously, there should just be no nukes, but let's say other countries that are still states have them, so would it be prudent to denuclearize?
In the spirit of anarchism as a tension towards peace, disarmament is the goal. In the reality of anarchism as self defense against structural violence, MAD would probably hold for a while.
anarchism =/= a lack of collective decision making
if theres like, a fascist nuke-armed threat somewhere to ward off still, they might keep em, but uhhh that'd be unlikely seeing as the nuke-fash are the US
Very true. But the US has nukes everywhere , and the way they are located is to nuke other countries. Even if the US just balkanized, with state power left in every state, it would be pointless for, say Texas, to threaten Louisiana with the nukes, because both states would suffer. So seems like a completely different dynamics at play.
:brace-cowboy: texas would nuke texas
if adults (revolutionaries) dont get there first nuclear hellfire will be the dominant theme of the US warlord period
nuclear hellfire will be the dominant theme of the US warlord period
that's my greatest fear. and honestly, even just nuclear plants. they just melt down and leak toxic shit left unattained.. and since all of that is privately owned, i fear the owners would just fuck off when shit hits the fan
nah nuclear plant workers know how to turn them off lol.
i have far more confidence in them than nuclear silo stiffs
Nukes are very resource intensive to maintain. Without maintenance the warheads decay until they're not able to achieve critical mass. I think it takes about twenty years. So one answer is you could just wait a few decades and the nukes would no longer be viable as nukes.
That said, having nukes is a political necessity if you want to chart a course independent of the hegemon, so...
Nukes are very resource intensive to maintain. Without maintenance the warheads decay until they’re not able to achieve critical mass. I think it takes about twenty years. So one answer is you could just wait a few decades and the nukes would no longer be viable as nukes.
btw this may have been one of the main reasons for the reduction of the USA's and USSR's stockpiles towards the end of the Cold War. Maintaining an arsenal as large as theirs must be a pain in the ass.
but what hegemon would be in contention if the USA is balkanized?
I fail to see how a "world of PMCs" could retain their standing in a balkanized America for any meaningful amount of time. The liberal class is already half dead.
Tell me you just watched TWKUK without telling me you just watched TWKUK
The USA and/or fractured territories disarming would be the single biggest thing they could do to promote peace and stability on a global stage
Absolutely! But is that a realistic scenario? Whole countries denuclearized at the end of the cold war, but those were state decisions. The US has silos everywhere, so what if some want to denuclearize, others don't? I'm trying to think of this sort of very pragmatically, not how things should be, but what kinds of scenarios are likely.
Whole countries denuclearized at the end of the cold war
It's most lilely that Moscow pulled the nukes out before these countries became independent. I doubt that the Ukraine or w/e would have denuclearized if they'd have had any nukes left after gaining independence.
Whole countries denuclearized at the end of the cold war
And that was a huge mistake. Ukraine has already paid the price for disarming with the loss of key territory to an adjacent nuclear power, and it's allies left it out to dry.
Yeah I've no idea there, speculative history isn't my forte lol.
Ive also no idea how to safely/responsibly deal with fissile material, let alone picture how we get to an anarchic society from here.
What conditions need to be met for the present USA to lose control/possession of their nukes? Would they even relinquish that control?
Rerouting military expenditure into public infrastructure works, could you imagine?
Yeah, it's probably not very realistic to even assume that there won't be the USA but there will still be the nukes. They'd probably rather detonate them before losing power.
There should absolutely be nukes, and they should be pointed at the rest of the American states until America is properly unified. You know what happens when one state has nukes and the other doesn't.
put them on orbital missile platforms to defend the earth from aliens.
The aliens are comrades. Capitalists could never build sustainable interstellar vehicles, there's no profit in interstellar travel plus they'd inevitably consume each other. Capitalism is the Great Filter. A dolphin told me this.
everyone's all for this until they remember that a rocket carrying a ton of nuclear weapons is going directly overhead.
Build an inland sea with them somewhere to forestall the inevitable sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy
Trying to justify nukes as anything but weapons of mass destruction was the style at the time.
