You must log in or # to comment.
There are far right extremists on the rise in Germany as well. The question you should ask yourself is: Do you want to risk an AfD-lead, Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government being in control of those nuclear weapons?
Starting next year, a Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government will be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Fair point.
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.
And what if the orange man and his friend Putin differs?
There is still the Fr*nch sub’s that Macron just offered to be a shared EU resource.
And what happens if Le Pen wins the next election?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Thanks, my nuclear chemistry was a bit rusty.
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.
No.
Why not? This is contingent on the US being an unreliable nuclear umbrella… And Germany deciding they will be part of the EU’s nuclear deterrence.
I don’t like the idea being part of a country that could kill thousands or even millions of people at once.
Well, no, but I’d rather be in the position of the stick holder than the potential pointy end receiver.
Any country is able to do that through conventional weapons though.
See the response of @cabbage.
Absolutely.
There are two ways to make sure nuclear weapons are never used in war:- No one has any nukes
- Everyone has nukes.
#1 is never going to happen. The US, Russia, and China are for sure never ever giving up their nuclear weapons.
So #2 it is, level the playing field and give everyone nuclear weapons. A nation is far less likely to use a nuclear weapon if they know they can and will get nuked back right away.The MAD doctrine aims to make the intentional use of nukes in war unworkable, but in doing so makes their accidental use due to mishap, misunderstanding or miscommunication much more likely, and the more people that are party to the MAD doctrine the more likely accidents are.
You don’t need to look very hard to find examples of cases where billions of people would have been killed if not for people choosing to ignore doctrine even when the information they had at hand said that they should use their weapons
New MAD doctrine idea: all belligerents in any international conflict gets nuked. Thank you coming to my ted talk, I have a proof but it is too large to fit in the comments.
2 only works with countries that have something to lose. Don’t assume that a deterrence strategy that works with other major powers is going to work with some small, hellish Islamist dictatorship.
I don’t really want the taliban having nukes…
Any country that doesn’t want to be invaded should acquire nuclear weapons.
We need guillotines, not nukes.
“Our” leaders start wars, and the common people suffer. We are never asked if they want that shit, but are forced to participate and kill or be killed. Fuck that. Fuck those leaders. Let’s united against bad leaders and off with their heads!
Don’t discount the amount of common people that are totally onboard with killing everyone in another tribe. There have been plenty of times when leaders are the only reason diplomacy happens in the face of a bloodthirsty population, though certainly more common that war happens because leaders channel the energy of that bloodthirst as it is easier and the benefits (to themselves first, their tribe second) are thought to outweigh the risks. Look through history and you’ll see enough instances of leaders trying to keep the peace only to be killed by their bloodthirsty population and replaced by someone who will act.
I wish we could all just get along, but so far the only effective deterrent in all of history has been the threat of destruction, either by a sufficiently powerful peace mongering leader, or MAD that nuclear weapons established. I suspect the next change in this dynamic, if MAD holds true, is some real AI that takes the reigns. It would be hard to rule break if we had an omniscient leader that could kill you within seconds.
Yes, and lots of them. Cold war is much better than actual war.
You don’t need many nowadays. They can be city killers all by themselves… a single satan 2 missile Russia is so desperate to get working would be able to wipe new York of the map…
It would additionally require a few subs for second strike capability.
deleted by creator
Sadly, we are now at at point where nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent against Russia. Ukraine surrendered the ones they had and we’re living the side effects. This sucks, man!
NEIN
Doch
Oh!
I guess the question would be connected with how europe is going to handle its combined military defense.
No, it’s illegal. We cannot do this because it’s illegal is I think the most German of answers.
„Die Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik bekräftigen ihren Verzicht auf Herstellung und Besitz von und auf Verfügungsgewalt über atomare, biologische und chemische Waffen. Sie erklären, daß auch das vereinte Deutschland sich an diese Verpflichtungen halten wird. Insbesondere gelten die Rechte und Verpflichtungen aus dem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen vom 1. Juli 1968 für das vereinte Deutschland fort.“
Well, then just change the question. Should it be legal?
Who the fuck is going to invade Germany?
Denmark. First they build the world with lego, than they take it.
One should never trust the Danes.
One does not have to invade. Make them a puppet by using credible threats (they aren’t credible ATM). Do as we say or we fuck you up basically. Maybe blow of a nuke in the Baltic sea, close to the German coast, to show them one is serious.
Wouldn’t work. Germans long for death at every point. Ever watch Dark?
Russia.
They did it once, they could do it again.
It should, but that’s only one level.
First Germany should build a competent armed force which will participate in all the ongoing wars on the globe to gain experience.
(I’m not a German citizen nor I intend to become one.)
It’s a common misconception that using peaceful means is always more moral than fighting a colonial war.
One can imagine a simple experiment. Country A conquers country B and brutalizes country C. Would it be more moral for Germany to peacefully trade (including military goods\technologies) with country A or to use said armed force to get a piece of country B? Country B suffers in both cases, but in the latter case Germany doesn’t finance the aggressor, and also presents some competition and can make life in parts of B controlled by it better. It can also offer military help to C for some preferential treatment.
Ah, also country A already has such a fighting force, all bullies already do. A military has to fight wars to remain competent. So there’s no vegetarian way to defend from influence of bullies. And there’s no neutral way as well - either you are a bully or you actively fight bullies. Maybe both. If you are neither, then you become weaker with time, and thus simply part of supply chain for bullies. Also neutrality always helps bullies and never the victim, that’s Eli Wiesel quote, if someone didn’t know.
Good timing. https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
