On the likelihood of a Nuclear war

A depiction of an Indian boy coincidently and
correctly shows the destruction of Europe

Erdogan A
April 2024

Late Professor Edward Said had said "... by creating "others" who would become Colonies, the Colonizers created themselves, the opposite of those who would be Colonies." Likewise, while the colonists who exploited the  natural resources and manpower of the colonies became rich, the people of the colonies became poor and remained dependent on the colonizers. With consciously taken precautions and the methods used, the racist view that the colonizers were "superior human beings" reinforced, and the fact that the reason for their wealth was the exploitation of resources belonging to these people was thus hidden behind racist “superiority” view. In other words, the West saw and presented the inequality it created as a “human fact” that strengthened its own racist "superiority".  Latest comment of EU rep’s on Ukraine war and his “forest and jungle comparison” and comment indicates how deep this superiority complex is. 

For them, the West is “forest” (civilized)  and the rest of the world is “jungle” (wild and uncivilized). This reinforced self acclaimed “superiority” of the West have become dominant and reflected itself in so many so-called “leftist” academicians and theoreticians' books, articles, and commentaries. That made them see and analyze the world from the point of view that “West is the world “ sharply reflected it self from the writings of Negri and Hardt and their theory of “multitude” to apply which is impossible to the rest of the world but to only to the most developed few of the West.

The outcries of the “total destruction of the world” in case of a nuclear war is another example of seeing the West as the entire world.

Here is the list of Nuclear Power Countries as of 2024

Country	Total Weapons
Russia	6,257
United States	5,550
China	410
France	290
United Kingdom	225
Pakistan	170
India	164
Israel	90
North Korea	50

Nations hosting Nuclear weapons

Italy 35, Türkiye 20, Belgium15, Germany 15, Netherlands 15, and Belarus unknown

Click to enlarge

An inexpert but intelligent assumption would be that none of the nuclear power countries will waste its nuclear war heads for the countries other than those with nuclear power. Looking at the map, primary targets will be France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands, and depending on the objective conditions of strategic alliance, may be Turkiye in Europe.

Click to enlarge

Looking at the “damage Zone” the destruction mainly will be where the bomb is blown up. Its secondary, tertiary and quaternary affects will be based on the quantity and size of the bomb. In other words, all the “South”  is not within the “total destruction” zone. It would be the “total destruction of the West” not the total destruction of the “World”.  West is not the world.

Our subject is not the technical analyses of the consequences of a nuclear war about which I have next to none knowledge or expertise.  The fundamental question is what is the likelihood of an all out nuclear war, who really makes the decisions for the decisive subjects, especially for one that threatens the very existence of the world and world order, who, what classes have more to lose than others?              

The likelihood of a nuclear war is entirely contingent on the “balance of powers” and coming out of it with minimal or no damage to the interests of Finance Capital. Based on the history and historical developments, we can divide the “world order” in three categories;

1- Unipolar world where one superpower is dominant and have nuclear power unequal to no one. In this situation nuclear-power is used for deterrence and the submittance of the others to the interests of  superpower. The use of nuclear power if and when necessary will not impact the interests of the finance capital.

2- Bipolar world where there are two superpowers with equal nuclear-powered military. In this situation nuclear war is highly unlikely as long as both sides have destructive capacity leaving no room for the finance capital to minimize its loss.

3- Multipolar world where there are multiple superpowers and nuclear-powered  countries. In this situation the possibility of a nuclear war arises however due to the inevitability of forming new strategic and economic alliances this type of world order transforms itself to a de facto Bipolar one.  

Based on the current alignment; Russia, China, North Korea  alliance have close to 7,000 nuclear heads.

United States, France,  United Kingdom, Israel have around 6200 nuclear heads.

The preference of Pakistan and/or  India on the two opposing  alliance will not have any decisive affect. The likelihood is that they will have  either each other to fight or remain impartial.

As I understood – I may be wrong- the numbers of nuclear heads each have is not decisive factor but the proximity plays significant role. Considering that the nuclear-powered and nuclear hosted countries in Europe are almost neighbors to Russia, they do not even have any chance against Russian military power never mind against its nuclear power. According to the military experts and as proven in Ukraine, Russia has nuclear head attachable hypersonic missiles that no country in the West can stop.

The US is on the other side of Atlantic against Russia and  Pacific against China.

For the US, in case of a nuclear war threat, it is likely that it may desert its European proxies but unlikely to wage a nuclear war against Russia and China since North Korea with its own intermediate hypersonic missiles, by itself is capable of destroying both South Korea and Japan.

Practically that is why a nuclear war between US-West and Russia-East is highly unlikely.

Now lets study the theoretical aspect of the question.

Who makes the decisions on questions related to the vital interests of finance capital?

The dominant perspective is that “governments” make the decisions on any domestic and foreign policies. For a Marxist Leninist any government, either somewhat dictatorial or bourgeois democratic can only make decisions within the boundaries set by the elite-ruling classes. Their decisions cannot go above and beyond the interests of the ruling class at any given situation. Government and all the institutions are made up of bureaucrats in order to serve the ruling classes and as long as bureaucracy keep on serving their interests, bureaucrats can survive.

For a Marxist Leninist point of view, Bureaucracy does not create "value" by itself, but it controls the coordination, distribution, and consumption of the created "value" in the "production" process and its continuation. In other words, they are responsible for the preparation and implementation of "laws" in production relations whether it be domestic or foreign relations. In some countries governments have more flexibility in the domestic affairs as long as they do not contradict the interests of ruling elite.

Criticizing Hegel’s  Philosophy of Right Marx said, “The bureaucracy has the essence of the state.”  The "essence" is not the ownership of the state as an apparatus but its administrative function. The state is the apparatus of ruling class for which the bureaucracy carry out the administration of it. No decisive decisions can be made contrary to the interests of the ruling class and without their decisive input on any serious issue. Simply, decisions concerning the vital interests of the ruling class are made only by them or with their approval. 

The latest event in which Macron of France has gone above and beyond his “authority”. His declaration of Odessa and Kharkov as “redlines of EU” and his intention of sending French troops to Ukraine  backfired when Russia drew its red line and declared its commitment to destroy any and all such attempts by any means necessary. Macron’s sudden retraction on sending troops to Ukraine  and its domino affects is not a consequence of “objective  thinking” of bureaucrats but a consequence of warning by the domestic ruling elite, more like of the world’s finance capital.

Ironically, while a section of the US neo-cons wants to leave Russia alone and focus on China as the real” enemy”, US business executives, including  Blackrock visits China and had meeting with Xi Ping. One of the striking person is Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone. Blackstone together with Vanguard is the front financial company of the world’s largest finance capital groups-families second to none, if not larger than the rest is combined. They are the real decision makers behind any decision that concerns their interests, especially the existential ones.

On every decisions, especially on the decisions for a Nuclear War, the fundamental question is who will benefit and who will lose. The response to this question is elementary when the issue is Nuclear war and the destruction of the World.

Peoples in general have nothing to lose but the Finance Capital who owns or at least have a large stake in the banks, most large industries, information, trade, agriculture, trade transaction technologies and have stake on every sector of life will inevitably be the ultimate loser.

A destructive nuclear war where the meaning and function of money disappear, will mean the end of the “powers” and the use, exchange of money. Simply put, the end of the Finance Capital and its power. If they survive individually, they will be transformed in to unskilled laborers in a world where money means nothing but food and survival means everything. 

Are the members of the finance capital so stupid to let a couple of bureaucrats make a decision for the world they  control, dominate?  That decision is an existential one not only for the members of Finance Capital, but for the rest of the industrialists who live a comfortable life.

Tracking backwards, is there really any bureaucrat who are dumb enough to act against the interests of the ruling elite, finance capital? History has shown that they disappear quickly from the political arena if not from the world.

Considering this fact, in a bipolar, multi polar world the possibility of a nuclear war is highly unlikely. There may be exceptions of regions far from the borders (with tactical-nuclear bombs), outside of the nuclear affect zone and outside of the strategic, economic alliances of one or the other with minimal use of tactical-nuclear weapons. However, the wars during  the phase of multipolar world seems to be proxy wars in smaller scales, regional at worst, economic competition at best.

That is a fact that just the existence of nuclear bombs by itself makes a nuclear war possible.  However, in addition to the fact that the use of nuclear bombs do not coincide with the interests of the ruling elites -either global or local- the technological developments in military warfare gradually making  its use an obsolete one.

It seems that, especially in a multipolar world, the Nuclear Bomb lost its significance as the weapon for winning a war. During the monopolar world, it was always the weapon of “deterrence” and “subjugation” and ironically, it was dished out as a “benefit for humankind” by the hegemonic power. During this period, for the smaller or weaker  countries, it played the strategic role of  defensive “deterrence”. With strong strategic-economic alliances this may gradually diminish or (due to the law of uneven economic development) they themselves may become another superpower.

With the technological - satellites, Artificial intelligence, precisian guided sub-sonic, supersonic, hypersonic missiles, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles), lately introduced Robot Tanks, lasers, signal jamming, and so many other to count-development,  the need for the use of nuclear weapons is diminishing. This new technological war machines are also extremely destructive but can be localized and their extent is controllable.

For these reasons I do not see any likelihood of nuclear world war.

Nuclear warheads will probably remain for a long time as a weapon of deterrence, new missiles will be produced for their possible use. It is similar to the fact that wars will be inevitable as long as capitalism exists. New technological weapons will continue to be destructive in the service and for the benefit of Military Industrial complex and of the Finance Capital. However, most likely the wars will be proxy wars with the use of new weapons at the expense of the people and the destruction of the proxy countries in where the new “technological weapons” will be tested on the field and improved accordingly.

Erdogan A

April 2024

Laos