- cross-posted to:
- Europe@europe.pub
- cross-posted to:
- Europe@europe.pub
Germany is at a crossroads when it comes to its security policy — one of the deepest upheavals of the post-War era.
You must log in or register to comment.
afd still exists so no
Hoffentlich bauen die Schwaben nie eine Atombombe, weil irgendein Minischderpräsident würde sagen “Etz ham mer se bezahlt, etz werf mer se au ab”.
I really would like that everybody who is proposing a german nuclear bomb would also explain where Germany should test its new bomb. Bavaria? Mecklenburg? Erzgebirge?
explain where Germany should test its new bomb
Mar-a-Lago
The obvious answer is to partner with the UK or France and do it in the middle of fucking nowhere, south Atlantic or South Indian Ocean.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yeah, I’m sure France and the UK would love the idea…
Something like the Vela incident could work, but seriously nukes are not that complex once you have the weapons grade uranium or plutonium. Everybody knows that Germany can easily produce weapons grade uranium so tests are not needed at all to work as a deterrent.
I propose Saxony /s
Even untested ones would act as a deterrence. Not to the same effect, but almost.
Germany should test its new bomb.
Berlin, obviously. If you time it right, the test will be indistinguishable from a normal New Year’s Eve to the general public.
Removed by mod
They just had an election where the second most popular party was an extreme-right-wing pack of lunatics. What happens when they win the next election?
You cannot afford to have nuclear weapons when you can’t be sure who’s going to have control of them.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Oh can we not?! Köln / Cologne is actually rather progressive. If you want to bomb a german city for voting the afd into office pick one from east germany / former GDR-territory…
If Putin and the USA already have them, isn’t that hypothetical too far off when assessing risk?
There’s a strong counter movement to the right. I’d rather have a strong deterrent against Putin than not. It’s pretty obvious to me what the more immediate and more realistic risk is.
The article advocates/answers with infrastructure should be prepared so it can be purposed if it should ever be necessary.
There is, however, a third option: nuclear hedging. In this model, a country does not develop nuclear weapons outright but instead builds the technological capacity to produce them if ever deemed necessary.
Most of the comments here seem to discuss the headline instead - whether it should equip.
Germany maintains the uranium enrichment plant and a the ability to turn that into nuclear fuel. That is what is needed to build a simple uranium based nuclear weapon.
That is why Germany set up nuclear power plants, as they were always meant to finance and develop those facilities. Since they are now esteblished there is no reason to keep the power plants around. They are of the wrong type anyway, as they produce very little plutonium, which is the other way of producing nuclear weapons. However Germany still has quite a few institutions being able to built nuclear reactors, if need be.
That is also why Germany was fine with US nuclear weapons. Nobody wanted to see Germany have nukes themself, but Germany. Hence that deal. However Germany always had very detailed plans to built nukes, if need be. We are talking about having nukes within a few months, if really pushed hard.
This is what Germany has been doing for decades with its civil nuclear program, but it turned out to be an prohibitively expensive bondoggle and all the nuclear plants have been shut down now.
The war’s been over for a while and they seem to have turned into decent people, but if you think it’ll help… 🤷♂️
Guys, have a kid, buy a house. Smile on your faces. Everything is going to be good.
You need to feel like you have something for them to be able to rip it away.
please dont
An EU nuclear weapons programme would be by far preferable, but that requires a common EU foreign and defence policy.
Not having any nukes won’t work with the current state of affairs, except for enjoyers of being on the receiving end of nuclear blackmail by an orange muppet, his puppeteer in Moscow, and Winnie the Pooh.
Didn’t they just close down all their nuclear power plants because they’re too dangerous after Fukushima?
Building nuclear bombs doesn’t seem like the next logical step.
You don’t have to cool them. Freeer choice of location. I imagine a static good is much easier to safeguard and check.
Most of all, there’s cheaper alternatives without a lot of surrounding questions. That’s not the case for military deterrent.
Production of a bomb and a nuclear reactor involve different things.
First off. Way to make sure everyone “doesn’t look up” re climate emergency. There’s no amount of nukes we can build that are more powerful and can be secured enough against nature’s planned devastation in the next 30 years. But for some reason all this war talk shit is just a welcome distraction.
Second. This is the same like all these governments asking Apple and Signal to build backdoors. Once you have a backdoor, it doesn’t discriminate who passes through it. Build all the nukes you want, all European governments will slide towards trumpism in the next 10 years anyway, as European politics seems to copy USA and is more and more infiltrated by foreign powers (also just like USA). I’m sure all the mini-me Aldofs, Elons and Donalds will appreciate a freshly build slab of nukes to establish their tyranny.
Boy are we stupid. Just smart enough to know we’re a bunch of clothed idiots.
Tldr use a condom
I don’t love your level of optimism. I all seriousness, I don’t think it’s all quite as predetermined as it may seem at this moment.
My level of optimism is not really lovable, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. The correlation between lack of understanding (not to call it naivety or ignorance) and optimism is growing by the day.
I.e.: for most people in order to survive they will turn more and more towards hopium delivery systems like religions, cults or the deification of powerful people to offset the uncomfortable underlying reality.
That’s why I think I’m an actual optimist. I see a really amazing future of rebuilding in the next half a century once you nothern hemispherians have finished killing each other and reduce the population levels back to a level where we can feed people off the land without needing petrofertilised agriculture.
We’re not that special. We’re just an ant hive that managed to find too much food for a while and we grew out of control. Natural laws exist to deal with these events.
Since the rules of society and safety are always written in blood, I feel they will be pretty good rules after this has all come to pass.
There’s plenty of resources out there that will show you where we’re heading in terms of climate. It’s not going to be pretty (it already is very ugly but wars are generating more clicks) and it will keep accelerating. We’re less than 5 years away from serious impacts on the global food supply, and while the white folks will still have food security, the diaspora from the famines on other continent will drive more of those whites to vote towards the right.
Computer models in the 80’s predicted this. Imagine how accurate my AI predictions have become today.
I do want to say I agree with you that optimism is important. I just think there’s naive optimism and realistic optimism. I’ve picked the latter and that means in my story billions die very quickly. But that’s also best for our environment.
Tldr use a condom
Instructions unclear, nuclear device now stuck inside condom.
Yep. Quick vapid internet comments that are a repeat of the same meme from the last 15 years is pretty much all we have left.
You’ve got one lucky wife.
AND MY AXE m’lady
Too expensive for the little benefit. Turkey for example has none, but one of the bigger armies in the Mediterranean and can still project power.
I’d also recommend to talk to Poland and France about this first, if only for historic reasons.
I can barely imagine the shitty world that makes us need the French nukes in our country, what world would there even be that requires a German one instead? If things are that bad, what good would our own nuke do at that point?
Drop it ! Wherever it’s dropped is probably fine now
Removed by mod
At this time, the Nazis already have nukes.
Removed by mod
I’d also prefer if Russia and the US didn’t have nukes
Removed by mod
So I say i’d rather have other countries not have nukes, and your rebuttal is calling me a jingoist? A jingoist that calls for disarmament?!
Also, please consider not calling people retarded, that is hurtful towards disabled people and very bigoted, something you claim to oppose.
retarded jingoists
Speak for yourself… Oh wait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Germany already has nuclear bombs
Doubtful, given Trump’s displayed reluctance to honour a defence treaty.
Those “German” nukes are a handful of US nukes for use by Germany under NATO’s nuclear sharing policy, when approved by the US. With that orange muppet in the White House, Germany really hasn’t any nukes it can count on, especially not for deterrence against the orange muppet’s puppeteer in Moscow.
As if they even need to use them…
What does that have to do with the claim that they have nukes?
If they can’t use them or only conditionally use them then they don’t really have them.
The point of nuclear weapons is to have them to never have to use them, by scaring the shit out of potential enemies, so they don’t even dare to attack.
But in order for the weapons to be a credible threat, and therefore a deterrent, their use must be possible.
Nukes that need authorisation by Donald Trump won’t deter Vladimir Putin.
Nuclear sharing is the worst of both worlds. You make yourself a certain target, but you cannot exercise control over the weapons. It’s turning MAD into SAD (self assured destruction)
