• Successful_Try543@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 days ago

    We already have nuclear participation with the US. In case NATO decides for mutual nuclear defense, the US nuclear bombs stored in Germany exclusively for German use would be attached to airplanes of the German Air Force to be deployed onto their targets.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 days ago

            About the same thing as if the AfD does.

            We get fucked, my friend. And that’s why establishing a shared EU army to pass the nukes to would be good for everyone.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              It’s funny, after the breakup of USSR there existed for a few years such an entity as “CIS armed forces”. It does not anymore because national governments want to control their own militaries.

              • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                National governments don’t give a fuck about their own armies until they need them. Ironically, most CIS countries needed their armies to defend against Russia.

                EU countries can not wage wars against one other, armies or not, as everyone knows that the whole bloc’s economy would crash instantly as soon as we stopped trading. If German tanks rolled across France again, their crews would starve, as would the French defenders before they could kill each other.

                The only reasonable use for an army in modern Europe beyond imperialistic outings with the US to countries who deserve better is to defend against Russia (and maybe China).

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          France and the US are the only two NATO countries able to build nukes.

          Theoretically the UK are able to build nukes too but not without US support.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 days ago

            The Montebello Islands disagree.

            You technically could build a nuke with enough enriched uranium. The recipe for a nuke is literally:

            • take half of the amount of the enriched uranium required
            • smash the other half into it
            • boom, Hiroshima.

            You need a particular kind of nuclear reactor to create the enriched uranium, though. But for example in Ukraine, the Chornobyl reactor was built exactly for that.

            That said, the US, the UK and France are the only three NATO countries allowed under international agreement to build nukes.

            • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 days ago

              You need a particular kind of nuclear reactor to create the enriched uranium

              *plutonium. Enriched uranium comes from taking natural uranium and enriching the content of a specific isotope (235U), typically with centrifuges, gaseous diffusion and/or magnetic separation in a synchrotron. The enriched uranium can be used in a weapon, or it can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor to make 239Pu from 238U.

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      If Germany can’t use the bomb without the US approbation then Germany does not have a nuclear bomb.

      Germany does not have a credible deterrence.