4 ms·

And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we co

by dtx1 5y ago

And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we could. We cowardly hide under the umbrella of french nuclear deterrence, yet chose not to get our hands dirty and take the responsibility on ourselves

hef19898 5y ago
We do have US nukes stationed in Germany for that very reason. rather old tech nukes, but still. This gives Germany a seat at the NATO table about nuclear strategy. If push comes to shove, German Tornado fighter jets are going to carry those nukes into combat.
- dtx1 5y ago
  Just another cowardly work around. If we want to live under the protection of weapons of mass destruction and the means of a global nuclear holocaust than we should take on that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to the US, Britain and France.
  - hutrdvnj 5y ago
    What do you suggest? ICBM launch silos in Germany and hypersonic missile launchers?
    - dtx1 5y ago
      Accepting Frances offer of shared custody of the french nuclear arsenal and a Bundeswehr (german armed forces) with enough technical and personal resources to facilitate that effectively. ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        We have that model with the US. As did the Netherlands, past tense. And it is not very well liked. Trying to change it would start a public discussion, and end that model. This is a big issue around the Tornado replacement, US nukes mean US planes. Everybody is just tip-toeing around that topic, simply to avoid any attention on German nuclear participation. I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.
        account42 5y ago
        > I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022. There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.
        hutrdvnj 5y ago
        If Ukraine would have been in the NATO then we would have NATO troops (including US troops) in Ukraine. What do you think would be the response if russia opens fire on US troops? Biden made it very clear, in this case we have WW3 immediately.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    You are aware that Gean rearmament, conventional rearmament, was a hard pill for the Western allies to swallow? Let alone nukes? And Strauss, defense minister back the day, wanted German nukes. Turned he didn't get a majority for that. Thus, the compromise. And hence no German nukes. Technically it wouldn't have that much of a problem.
    - dtx1 5y ago
      I think today the resistance is much more on the side of the german people than it would be for the western allies. France basically told us "bro, wanna share those nukes we got?" in 2007 and Germany declined.
  - nuclearize58 5y ago
    Every NATO country, especially those on the eastern flank should be given their nukes, without anyone knowing it. Heck, even Finland. This is the best thing that could be done for peace in Europe. Imagine Russia attacking Finland, and they say, we have nukes, we haven't told you so. Step back or we will blow St Petersburg to dust. Nothing protects a country like nukes, NATO, you never know how it works out in practice. Denuclearizing was only in favor of the super powers that would not denecluarize - and is it really in their favor, certainly half of Europe being destroyed is not in US favor. And the drawbacks are really small. Look at North Korea, there has been some fear around it but nothing happened so far. In the end of the day, everyone wants to live. And if some small nuclear state went insane, it would not have the arsenal needed to destroy the world anyway and could be neutralized quickly by other nuclear states. The biggest problem is centralization of power, it should never be centralized. It should be distributed among independent states.
vkou 5y ago
It's not clear they had a choice. The west was scared shitless of nuclear proliferation in ex-soviet republics, and would probably not have lifted a finger about the matter.
- dtx1 5y ago
  When you have the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the plant like ukraine did at the dissolution of the soviet union you have a choice. They chose to trade nuclear safety for empty promises. A mistake no country will ever make again.

by dtx1 5y ago

hef19898 5y ago

We do have US nukes stationed in Germany for that very reason. rather old tech nukes, but still. This gives Germany a seat at the NATO table about nuclear strategy. If push comes to shove, German Tornado fighter jets are going to carry those nukes into combat.

dtx1 5y ago
Just another cowardly work around. If we want to live under the protection of weapons of mass destruction and the means of a global nuclear holocaust than we should take on that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to the US, Britain and France.
- hutrdvnj 5y ago
  What do you suggest? ICBM launch silos in Germany and hypersonic missile launchers?
  - dtx1 5y ago
    Accepting Frances offer of shared custody of the french nuclear arsenal and a Bundeswehr (german armed forces) with enough technical and personal resources to facilitate that effectively. ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      We have that model with the US. As did the Netherlands, past tense. And it is not very well liked. Trying to change it would start a public discussion, and end that model. This is a big issue around the Tornado replacement, US nukes mean US planes. Everybody is just tip-toeing around that topic, simply to avoid any attention on German nuclear participation. I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.
      - account42 5y ago
        > I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022. There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.
        hutrdvnj 5y ago
        If Ukraine would have been in the NATO then we would have NATO troops (including US troops) in Ukraine. What do you think would be the response if russia opens fire on US troops? Biden made it very clear, in this case we have WW3 immediately.
- hef19898 5y ago
  You are aware that Gean rearmament, conventional rearmament, was a hard pill for the Western allies to swallow? Let alone nukes? And Strauss, defense minister back the day, wanted German nukes. Turned he didn't get a majority for that. Thus, the compromise. And hence no German nukes. Technically it wouldn't have that much of a problem.
  - dtx1 5y ago
    I think today the resistance is much more on the side of the german people than it would be for the western allies. France basically told us "bro, wanna share those nukes we got?" in 2007 and Germany declined.
- nuclearize58 5y ago
  Every NATO country, especially those on the eastern flank should be given their nukes, without anyone knowing it. Heck, even Finland. This is the best thing that could be done for peace in Europe. Imagine Russia attacking Finland, and they say, we have nukes, we haven't told you so. Step back or we will blow St Petersburg to dust. Nothing protects a country like nukes, NATO, you never know how it works out in practice. Denuclearizing was only in favor of the super powers that would not denecluarize - and is it really in their favor, certainly half of Europe being destroyed is not in US favor. And the drawbacks are really small. Look at North Korea, there has been some fear around it but nothing happened so far. In the end of the day, everyone wants to live. And if some small nuclear state went insane, it would not have the arsenal needed to destroy the world anyway and could be neutralized quickly by other nuclear states. The biggest problem is centralization of power, it should never be centralized. It should be distributed among independent states.

vkou 5y ago

It's not clear they had a choice. The west was scared shitless of nuclear proliferation in ex-soviet republics, and would probably not have lifted a finger about the matter.

dtx1 5y ago
When you have the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the plant like ukraine did at the dissolution of the soviet union you have a choice. They chose to trade nuclear safety for empty promises. A mistake no country will ever make again.