4 ms·

There are at least three German rocket companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Factory_Augsburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Factory_Augsburg, h

by mkl 2y ago

There are at least three German rocket companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Factory_Augsburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Factory_Augsburg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isar_Aerospace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isar_Aerospace, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyImpulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyImpulse

alephnerd 2y ago
Absolutely, yet they're still decades behind the capabilities that SK or Japan developed domestically over the past 20-30 years. Germany is not in a position today to start a nuclear program, becuase any nuclear program can be viewed as causus belli for a conventional war, and Germany would not have the ability to develop credible secondary strike capabilities if such a war were to happen in the next 3-5 years. In addition, Germany lacks a domestic civilian nuclear program due to denuclearization in the 2000s and 2010s - something which Japan or SK DID NOT do. Imo, it will will take 7-12 years for Germany to reach a point where it's domestic space/ballistics industry is comparable to even Iran's today. That said, that development and capital might be sped up if defense related opportunities with the KSA are enhanced, because it would provide a massive infusion of capital. Also, nuclear weapons programs are expensive, and Germany can better use it's capital to build conventional warfighting capabilities that it severely lacks, while remaining assured of France or the UK's nuclear umbrella. Germany should have started this spending spree 10-15 years ago (which is when most other regional powers like Japan, SK, KSA, UAE, India, Pakistan, etc began doing so), but better late than never. Germany is severely lagging in dual use technology, and German civilians need to realize that (the leadership does recognize this and hence why a spree of defense manufacting deals with the KSA, UAE, and India began during the Scholz chancellorship). That is the only way Germany can actually build strategic autonomy.
- croes 2y ago
  Germany can't build nuclear weapons without breaking the Two Plus Four Agreement.
  - vkou 2y ago
    And Russia can't invade Ukraine without breaking a few other agreements, yet here we are. The US has made it clear that European security is a European problem.
    - croes 2y ago
      I think to take Russia as an example is a bad idea especially when the development takes years. Too much time for opponents to react without the benefits of the agreement breaking
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        It clearly doesn't work if Germany is universally opposed. But if, say, France and the UK and major non-US NATO/EU conventional powers like Poland are supportive of the move and see it as sharing the burden of regional security, then I think the calculus changes.
        alephnerd 2y ago
        Poland has the same problem as Germany if not worse, as their domestic space industry is further behind Germany's and Poland directly borders Russia and Belarus, so there is no buffer. Most non-nuclear European states cannot go nuclear today as they lack the ability to concurrently rush second strike and nuclear triad capacity without being pulled into a conventional war. The only major non-nuclear European states I can think of that have this capacity are Turkiye (unsurprising due to competition with Russia, Iran, KSA, and Israel) and Spain (significant MIC that has experience and exports in the Mediterranean - and often competed with the French because of Spanish MIC's co-sell deals with Turkiye). Reality is, most European countries are 5-10 years behind Asian and Middle Eastern regional powers in rearming - all of whom began in the 2010-14 period due to crises such as South/East China Sea, Himalayas, Syria, Myanmar, Donbass-Crimea, and Libya. European leaders recognize this, and hence why there has been a flurry of Asia and EMEA defense deals over the past 6 months to help raise capital to begin rebuilding manufacturing capacity, but European HN/Redditors do not realize this (though I've tried bringing up). The fact that the largest shareholder and launch partner for Europe's replacement for Starlink in Ukraine - Eutelsat Group and Eutelsat OneWeb - is an Indian government aligned conglomerate (Bharti Airtel) starkly shows this issue. European states that aren't UK, France, Turkiye, and maybe Spain will have to rebuild their conventional capabilities in aerospace, space, naval, and land defense tech first before they can even consider a nuclear option.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  If Germany acquires nuclear weapons it would be through direct cooperation with France/Britain, nothing else would make sense. So that speed up the process significantly and alleviate some of the concerns.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Yep, and that leads to the same problems we are seeing on the European continent today - a lack of strategic autonomy leading to a lack of defensibility. If a country like Germany or Poland wants to build a credible nuclear program that actually has deterrence, then they would need a completely domestically supply chain and vendor for most of their delivery systems, because poltical winds change, and despite the current alignment over Ukraine, countries like France, Germany, and Poland continue to clash over foreign and economic policy (eg. Germany undermining the next-gen tank deal for France, France undermining Eurofighter to protect Dassault, Poland directly opposing sending troops to Ukraine despite France pushing to start a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine). And this is one of the various reasons why Germany and Poland have not seriously considered a nuclear program during the current defense rush.

by mkl 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

Absolutely, yet they're still decades behind the capabilities that SK or Japan developed domestically over the past 20-30 years. Germany is not in a position today to start a nuclear program, becuase any nuclear program can be viewed as causus belli for a conventional war, and Germany would not have the ability to develop credible secondary strike capabilities if such a war were to happen in the next 3-5 years. In addition, Germany lacks a domestic civilian nuclear program due to denuclearization in the 2000s and 2010s - something which Japan or SK DID NOT do. Imo, it will will take 7-12 years for Germany to reach a point where it's domestic space/ballistics industry is comparable to even Iran's today. That said, that development and capital might be sped up if defense related opportunities with the KSA are enhanced, because it would provide a massive infusion of capital. Also, nuclear weapons programs are expensive, and Germany can better use it's capital to build conventional warfighting capabilities that it severely lacks, while remaining assured of France or the UK's nuclear umbrella. Germany should have started this spending spree 10-15 years ago (which is when most other regional powers like Japan, SK, KSA, UAE, India, Pakistan, etc began doing so), but better late than never. Germany is severely lagging in dual use technology, and German civilians need to realize that (the leadership does recognize this and hence why a spree of defense manufacting deals with the KSA, UAE, and India began during the Scholz chancellorship). That is the only way Germany can actually build strategic autonomy.

croes 2y ago
Germany can't build nuclear weapons without breaking the Two Plus Four Agreement.
- vkou 2y ago
  And Russia can't invade Ukraine without breaking a few other agreements, yet here we are. The US has made it clear that European security is a European problem.
  - croes 2y ago
    I think to take Russia as an example is a bad idea especially when the development takes years. Too much time for opponents to react without the benefits of the agreement breaking
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      It clearly doesn't work if Germany is universally opposed. But if, say, France and the UK and major non-US NATO/EU conventional powers like Poland are supportive of the move and see it as sharing the burden of regional security, then I think the calculus changes.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        Poland has the same problem as Germany if not worse, as their domestic space industry is further behind Germany's and Poland directly borders Russia and Belarus, so there is no buffer. Most non-nuclear European states cannot go nuclear today as they lack the ability to concurrently rush second strike and nuclear triad capacity without being pulled into a conventional war. The only major non-nuclear European states I can think of that have this capacity are Turkiye (unsurprising due to competition with Russia, Iran, KSA, and Israel) and Spain (significant MIC that has experience and exports in the Mediterranean - and often competed with the French because of Spanish MIC's co-sell deals with Turkiye). Reality is, most European countries are 5-10 years behind Asian and Middle Eastern regional powers in rearming - all of whom began in the 2010-14 period due to crises such as South/East China Sea, Himalayas, Syria, Myanmar, Donbass-Crimea, and Libya. European leaders recognize this, and hence why there has been a flurry of Asia and EMEA defense deals over the past 6 months to help raise capital to begin rebuilding manufacturing capacity, but European HN/Redditors do not realize this (though I've tried bringing up). The fact that the largest shareholder and launch partner for Europe's replacement for Starlink in Ukraine - Eutelsat Group and Eutelsat OneWeb - is an Indian government aligned conglomerate (Bharti Airtel) starkly shows this issue. European states that aren't UK, France, Turkiye, and maybe Spain will have to rebuild their conventional capabilities in aerospace, space, naval, and land defense tech first before they can even consider a nuclear option.
wqaatwt 2y ago
If Germany acquires nuclear weapons it would be through direct cooperation with France/Britain, nothing else would make sense. So that speed up the process significantly and alleviate some of the concerns.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Yep, and that leads to the same problems we are seeing on the European continent today - a lack of strategic autonomy leading to a lack of defensibility. If a country like Germany or Poland wants to build a credible nuclear program that actually has deterrence, then they would need a completely domestically supply chain and vendor for most of their delivery systems, because poltical winds change, and despite the current alignment over Ukraine, countries like France, Germany, and Poland continue to clash over foreign and economic policy (eg. Germany undermining the next-gen tank deal for France, France undermining Eurofighter to protect Dassault, Poland directly opposing sending troops to Ukraine despite France pushing to start a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine). And this is one of the various reasons why Germany and Poland have not seriously considered a nuclear program during the current defense rush.