On the likelihood of a Nuclear war
 |
| A depiction of an Indian boy coincidentally and correctly shows the destruction of Europe |
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" was reinforced, and the fact that the reason for their wealth was the exploitation of resources belonging to these people was thus hidden behind a 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". The latest comments of EU reps on the Ukraine war and their “forest and jungle comparison” indicate 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 has 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 itself from the writings of Negri and Hardt and their theory of “multitude,” to apply which is impossible to the rest of the world but only to the most developed few of the West.
The outcries of the “total destruction
of the world” in case of a nuclear war are 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 their nuclear warheads on countries other than those with nuclear power. Looking at the map, primary targets would be France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and, depending on the strategic-alliance objective, possibly Turkiye in Europe.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Looking at the “damage zone,” destruction will mainly occur where the bomb explodes. Its secondary, tertiary, and quaternary effects 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 no 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, and what classes have
more to lose than others?
The likelihood
of nuclear war depends entirely on the “balance of powers” and on coming
out of it with minimal or no damage to the interests of Finance Capital. Based
on history and historical developments, we can divide the “world order” into three
categories;
1- A unipolar world where one superpower is dominant and has nuclear power unequal to anyone else. In this situation, nuclear power is used for deterrence and to compel others to submit to the superpower's interests.
2- Bipolar
world where there are two superpowers with equal nuclear-powered military.
3- Multipolar
world where there are multiple superpowers and nuclear-powered countries. In this situation, the possibility of nuclear war arises; however, because new strategic and economic alliances are inevitable, this world order transforms into 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, the United Kingdom, and Israel have around 6200 nuclear heads.
Pakistan and/or India's preference for one of the two opposing alliances will not have any decisive effect. The likelihood is that they will either fight each other or remain
impartial.
As I understood from listening and reading Prof. Ted Postol – I may be wrong- the number of nuclear heads each has is not a decisive factor, but proximity plays a 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.
The US is on the other side of the Atlantic against Russia and the 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 the US-West and Russia-East is highly unlikely.
Now let's 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 decisions on domestic and foreign policy. 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.
From 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, it is responsible for preparing and implementing "laws" in production relations, whether domestic or foreign. In some countries, governments have more flexibility in domestic affairs as long as they do not contradict the ruling elite's interests.
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 the ruling class, and the bureaucracy carries out its administration. No
decisive decisions can be made against the interests of the ruling class, and no serious issue can be decided without their decisive input. 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 Odesa and Kharkiv as “red lines of the 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.
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, visit China and have meetings with Xi Jinping. One of the striking people 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 combined. They are the real decision-makers behind any decision that concerns their interests, especially existential ones.
On every
decision, especially decisions about 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.
People in general have nothing to lose, but the Finance Capital, who owns or at least has a large stake in the banks, most large industries, information, trade, agriculture, trade transaction technologies, and has a stake in 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 and exchange of money. Simply put, the end of
the Finance Capital and its power. If they survive individually, they will be
transformed into unskilled laborers in a world where money means nothing but
food and survival means everything.
Are the members of the finance capital so stupid as to let a couple of bureaucrats make a decision for the world they control and dominate? That decision is existential not only for the members of Finance Capital, but for the rest of the industrialists who live comfortable lives.
Tracking backward, is there really any bureaucrat who is 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, multipolar world, the possibility of a nuclear war is highly unlikely. There may be exceptions in regions far from the borders (with tactical-nuclear bombs), outside of the nuclear effect zone, and outside of the strategic, economic alliances of one or the other, with minimal use of tactical-nuclear weapons.
That is a fact that just the
existence of nuclear bombs by itself makes a nuclear war possible.
It seems that,
especially in a multipolar world, the nuclear bomb has lost its significance as
the weapon for winning a war. In the monopolar world, it was always a weapon of “deterrence” and “subjugation,” and ironically, the hegemonic power dished it out as a “benefit for humankind.” During
this period, for 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 development- satellites, Artificial intelligence, precision-guided subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic missiles, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles), lately introduced Robot Tanks, lasers, signal jamming, and so many others to count- the need for the use of nuclear weapons is diminishing.
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 of, and for the benefit of, the military-industrial complex and 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 where
the new “technological weapons” will be tested on the field and improved
accordingly.
Erdogan A
April 2024
Laos
