3 ms·

That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDI

by lompad 2y ago

That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.]. Also, france has a first-strike policy. So even without US troops, europe will be fine. A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.

blargthorwars 2y ago
>>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
croemer 2y ago
> Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
- lompad 2y ago
  Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
  - croemer 2y ago
    Thanks, that's helpful! To break it down for others: Germany is considering making a similar deal for sharing with France as it currently has with the US. So it wouldn't really be a (re)armament, more an increase in resilience by not just relying on US for sharing but adding France. I think that's quite an important difference from your original wording.
    - Sammi 2y ago
      It is a significant step away from relying on the US and becoming a self sufficient EU.
ben_w 2y ago
> Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Edit: seen your other comment, that clarifies: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-considers-extension-of-french-british-nuclear-umbrella-to-germany/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-consider... -- this is already a surprise to me, even though it is well short of self-made nukes. France (and the UK) having an independent nuclear deterrent is because they (/we) didn't want to risk someone like Trump when the USSR was still around: “The General himself had asked whether we would be ready to trade New York for Paris.” - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14/d30 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...
kcb 2y ago
I don't know, I think lately there's a massive flaw in first-strike and MAD policies. Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded? It's certainly not going to improve your situation even if the alternative is invasion by a foreign power. A powerful conventional army capable of proportional response is the only realistic deterrent.
- danaris 2y ago
  The purpose of MAD is to never have to launch a nuke. The entire point of the doctrine is that any sane person in charge of a country('s military) would never risk getting their own country nuked just to attack another country, so having nukes on your side means that no one else will attack you. This...does somewhat break down when we end up with people in charge of nuclear countries who are not sane.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded? Certainly something for the invader to think about, isn't it.

by lompad 2y ago

blargthorwars 2y ago

>>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.

croemer 2y ago

> Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.

lompad 2y ago
Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
- croemer 2y ago
  Thanks, that's helpful! To break it down for others: Germany is considering making a similar deal for sharing with France as it currently has with the US. So it wouldn't really be a (re)armament, more an increase in resilience by not just relying on US for sharing but adding France. I think that's quite an important difference from your original wording.
  - Sammi 2y ago
    It is a significant step away from relying on the US and becoming a self sufficient EU.

ben_w 2y ago

> Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Edit: seen your other comment, that clarifies: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-considers-extension-of-french-british-nuclear-umbrella-to-germany/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-consider... -- this is already a surprise to me, even though it is well short of self-made nukes. France (and the UK) having an independent nuclear deterrent is because they (/we) didn't want to risk someone like Trump when the USSR was still around: “The General himself had asked whether we would be ready to trade New York for Paris.” - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14/d30 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...

kcb 2y ago

I don't know, I think lately there's a massive flaw in first-strike and MAD policies. Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded? It's certainly not going to improve your situation even if the alternative is invasion by a foreign power. A powerful conventional army capable of proportional response is the only realistic deterrent.

danaris 2y ago
The purpose of MAD is to never have to launch a nuke. The entire point of the doctrine is that any sane person in charge of a country('s military) would never risk getting their own country nuked just to attack another country, so having nukes on your side means that no one else will attack you. This...does somewhat break down when we end up with people in charge of nuclear countries who are not sane.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded? Certainly something for the invader to think about, isn't it.