>>9002
>implying the nuclear arms trade would not be completely unregulated
>implying there aren't low-cost nuclear weapons especially without all the current safety features
>>9002
>>implying one of the first things anarchists would do wouldn't be to completely dismantle any push-button mass death devices in existence
Yeah just like how states claim to engage in mutual dissaraments while keeping secret reserves.
>be in anarchist nuclear disposal council
>lie about what I'm doing and keep secret stash for later trading
Unless you think anarchy will fundamentally change human nature so that all people are wholly anarchist and act anarchist all the time.
>>8998
>>too poor to
>
>the government would be poor, since it's not there, no militia could possibly maintain it
>
>>they'd lack the intelligence
>
>see above, science people dont work for james bond villans for cheap
Well Bond villains are already extremely rich and fund there evil layers in hopes that their plans will render even more money in the future, or just supreme lels to see millions die.
>>8991
>implying anarchism implemented in one region of the world means anarchism is deployed across the world.
Pretty fanciful imo. It'd be quite a stretch to suggest that the anarchist evolution happens in an afternoon and suddenly everyone is an anarchist.
Seems much more likely that world revolution is impossible and an anarchist society could only occur in certain places. Why would a state like China not find it advantageous to, say, position a nuke off the coast of Anarchist California and exploit the entire population by demanding payments and delivery of raw materials and harvests (since anarchists hate money lel)? A state, contrary to the anarchists, does not leave the population helpless to the exploits of another state by the presence of a standing military force and robust system of nuclear weapons for infiltration nuclear missiles as well as a strong enough deterrent against nuclear-armed states.
There's no way you could abolish nuclear weapons within the anarchist reservation, let alone on a global scale. It's an issue every system of thought must grapple with,.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l08uX0mJgB0
Here's a debate between a minarchist and an anarchist (albeit an ayncrap but there is no discussion of capitalism since they both agree on that position; he may as well be an anarchist given the subject matter, just replace with word aggression with hierarchy). Jan has debated several influential ayncraps and I've not seen one of them give a suitable answer to the issue of states extorting anarchists using nuclear weapons and I'm not aware if he has discussed it with left-anarchists.
The truth of the matter is you have no way to deal with existing nuclear states. An anarchist revolution spanning the entire world in short order is fanciful and not at all likely. Even if it were, the necessary steps of disarmament would be hampered due to the fact that many would not be deceitful or facilities would be infiltrated and arms moved into black markets before they can be properly disarmed. With states like India, China, Pakistan being nuclear-armed you have a fat chance that they'd voluntarily disarm, let alone be willing to convert too anarchism.
>>9002
>>explicitly stating that anarchists would just murder each other wholesale because of slight disagreements on what the ideal society's economic system should be
Well I meant with the way in which resources are distributed in the anarchist society. Given that life itself becomes politicized you could consider any issues of distribution as a fundamentally political however.
And given all prior modern experiences with anarchy (no need to venture far back into history) like in the Spanish Revolution, anarchists are willing to shed blood over politics, even among fellow anarchists. You could say that experience was not true anarchism and true anarchy has not been seen before but that does nothing to make anarchism any more compelling or to support the idea anarchists would not murder wholesale over disagreements.
>>implying one of the first things anarchists would do wouldn't be to completely dismantle any push-button mass death devices in existence
See above arguments. Nuclear abolition is a fanciful pipe dream. It's no more compelling in the absence of states than with their universal prevalence.