this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
76 points (96.3% liked)
World News
2308 readers
117 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see it as revenge, to strike back in equal capacity against the heart of the empire and almost all modern evils of the past century (and certainly the embodiment of the past half millennium of genocidal imperialism). Especially not in the hypothetical context of the US striking out with nukes first.
I see it as a matter of decapitating the empire before it does something worse. Because of things come to that point of a preemptive nuclear strike - even if China, Russia, or whatever other target is able to intercept it- anything at that point is on the table, and I genuinely don't see peace with the AmeriKKKan regime as an option in that scenario- that would basically be the statement of intent, to rule over the ashes (and to truly burn the world to ashes in the process).
What would be next? More nukes? Backing terrorist activities (well more than usual, and that would be saying something)? Bringing out the biowarfare and chemical weapons once again to unleash plagues and famine on the world, considering what we know of the US empire's repeatedly proven depravity? Trying to bring others down with it who may be less able to defend themselves from nukes like China and Russia might- for instance Iran, Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, perhaps even India (I certainly imagine they'd attempt to strike India and Iran, anyways) pretty much any countries they can think of as a spiteful last genocidal gasp of empire? Trying to exterminate as many indigenous peoples and leftist organization at an accelerated, industrial pace within the imperial core itself to preserve the settler-state's foundations, setting the country aflame in scorched-earth tactics, and further intensifying their werewolf-adjacent (the Nazi insurgency plans) preparations? In such a scenario I'd expect all that would be on the table and more.
If the west crosses that line- the line of unprovoked, direct nuclear war- I wouldn't call it revenge, to strike DC off the face of the map- frankly I'd argue it would likely be a necessity and a prime objective of the rest of humanity, if they have any sense. The sheer amount of horror the US has unleashed in its two centuries of existence, and the guarantee of even greater horrors to come if action is not taken swiftly and decisively in such a scenario, is undeniable. Revenge doesn't even factor into the equation here, I genuinely believe (and have good reason to believe- as surely much of the world also does) that the empire is that unhinged, and that capable and more than willing- and eager, even (and only restrained through the fear of retaliation) to destroy the rest of humanity, or perhaps even the entire species or biosphere altogether if they can't maintain hegemony.
In that context, with my thought process explained- can you disagree? And would it be based on reason, or some moral imperative and idealism?
Except, none of the people who call the shots would be anywhere near DC before they launch their unprovoked strike. The only people left in DC would be citizens and probably House\Senate members. That is if they don't go on recess before it happens by "coincidence". So unless this is some kind of "shock and aw" style attack, it wont have tactical value.
Perhaps then it shouldn't be nuked- though I think there's merit to the notion of taking out the core of the criminal bureaucracy that has overseen the most warlike, genocidal state in existence all the same- but it should certainly be occupied. And my personal take on it is that if I myself had anything to say about it, DC would be cleansed from existence, and its civilian population relocated to the outskirts and built new homes there. As the seat of modern evil in the 21st century, as the greatest monument to (many) genocide(s) humanity has ever seen, I think that there has to be something substantial done about it, either way- not merely a renaming of the city if and when it were taken, but a permanent military occupation, perhaps with the end goal of making it, if it were to remain, a living museum of the most warlike, monstrous state in existence.
I feel that it's deathly important that humanity takes such a stance, to disavow not only the settler-state and all its horrors- but to disavow the American empire in particular, which I'd argue is the inspiration of all modern genocides and the culmination of all the capitalist and imperialist (as the highest form of capitalism, granted) crimes in history.
Now, as for if whoever the US targets with a preemptive nuclear strike can't intercept all the missiles- that's another story. If you ask me, if MAD is invoked successfully, by all means survival- as well as maintaining MAD- becomes a matter of equal retaliation or worse. To do anything else would be a betrayal to the victims of such a preemptive strike, to the blood, sweat, and tears that went into creating such weapons to deter and retaliate against American aggression, and to the very notion of human dignity and equality across all nations, races, etc. as I see it. Because there certainly would be more incoming, and the precedent of the west getting away with invoking MAD and not receiving it in turn is frankly worse if you ask me than any other possible outcome.