4 ms·

now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions t

by trhway 6mo ago

now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions to develop and produce nukes (using already existing Pu from the power plants) and have everlasting peace. Germans are rational people as i heard.

Ksv28 6mo ago
They can learn a lot from the Swiss who spend a whole lot of less time and energy reacting daily to what the US thinks, says and does.
- tharkun__ 6mo ago
  How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again? Oh, the number is zero? Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit. Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
    - rayiner 6mo ago
      Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?
      - Arnt 6mo ago
        There was a brief unfortunate episode a couple of hundred years ago, when the US was as little over twenty years old. Some Africans started capturing American citizens and ships, maybe enslaving some, etc. Really quite unpleasant. The US eventually decided that its best option was invading Morocco. It didn't have a commitment to defend anyone nearby, except the many Americans who traded all over the world. The US has worldwide trade and interests now too, more so than in 1805.
      - watwut 6mo ago
        To be able to take territory when it wants something like greenland? Cause speaking about NATO, exactly one country triggerend article 5 and then threatened other members. Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations. Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver. America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  Switzerland benefits from being surrounded by well protected neighbors. They also try to be MAD without being mad, they will just blow up all the roads and retreat to the mountains if they are invaded.
tharkun__ 6mo ago
[flagged]
- watwut 6mo ago
  AfD are nazi, but I read the news they distanced themselves from Trump few years ago. Musk is giving them money tho.
rayiner 6mo ago
Do you think Germany doesn’t have nukes? I’ve always assumed it’s like Japan. They don’t “have nukes.” Just all the parts to make a nuke in five minutes.
- trhway 6mo ago
  Of course making an actual bomb is extremely easy especially when you have Pu from the power plants. And Germany has great stealth cruise missiles which potentially can carry those warheads. Yet actually making and possessing a nuclear arsenal is still a pretty large continuous endeavor - all the facilities for producing and storing of the warheads and delivery missiles, the security for that infrastructure, the ongoing technical maintenance of the weapons, all the people of what is, though small, still basically a separate branch of military, maintenance of the readiness level, integration of these weapons into overall military strategy and training exercises, etc. It is still much cheaper and more effective than a large conventional army, yet sufficiently large and complex to not be doable overnight, so a political situation is required which would allow to, still very quickly, do it.
crises-luff-6b 6mo ago
[dead]
cthe 6mo ago
The nuke is a tricky thing: deterring many scenarios like a full scale invasion, but a risk of mutual suicide when the enemy also has it. As a matter of fact it does not stop from "hybrid war", there are so many possibilities to harm a country (disorganize society, promote a friendly leader, attack critical infrastructures,...). So having nukes certainly increases security in many cases but is not sufficient to have everlasting peace !

by trhway 6mo ago

Ksv28 6mo ago

They can learn a lot from the Swiss who spend a whole lot of less time and energy reacting daily to what the US thinks, says and does.

tharkun__ 6mo ago
How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again? Oh, the number is zero? Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
- watwut 6mo ago
  But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit. Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
  - rayiner 6mo ago
    Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?
    - Arnt 6mo ago
      There was a brief unfortunate episode a couple of hundred years ago, when the US was as little over twenty years old. Some Africans started capturing American citizens and ships, maybe enslaving some, etc. Really quite unpleasant. The US eventually decided that its best option was invading Morocco. It didn't have a commitment to defend anyone nearby, except the many Americans who traded all over the world. The US has worldwide trade and interests now too, more so than in 1805.
    - watwut 6mo ago
      To be able to take territory when it wants something like greenland? Cause speaking about NATO, exactly one country triggerend article 5 and then threatened other members. Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations. Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver. America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.
seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
Switzerland benefits from being surrounded by well protected neighbors. They also try to be MAD without being mad, they will just blow up all the roads and retreat to the mountains if they are invaded.

tharkun__ 6mo ago

[flagged]

watwut 6mo ago
AfD are nazi, but I read the news they distanced themselves from Trump few years ago. Musk is giving them money tho.

rayiner 6mo ago

Do you think Germany doesn’t have nukes? I’ve always assumed it’s like Japan. They don’t “have nukes.” Just all the parts to make a nuke in five minutes.

trhway 6mo ago
Of course making an actual bomb is extremely easy especially when you have Pu from the power plants. And Germany has great stealth cruise missiles which potentially can carry those warheads. Yet actually making and possessing a nuclear arsenal is still a pretty large continuous endeavor - all the facilities for producing and storing of the warheads and delivery missiles, the security for that infrastructure, the ongoing technical maintenance of the weapons, all the people of what is, though small, still basically a separate branch of military, maintenance of the readiness level, integration of these weapons into overall military strategy and training exercises, etc. It is still much cheaper and more effective than a large conventional army, yet sufficiently large and complex to not be doable overnight, so a political situation is required which would allow to, still very quickly, do it.

crises-luff-6b 6mo ago

[dead]

cthe 6mo ago

The nuke is a tricky thing: deterring many scenarios like a full scale invasion, but a risk of mutual suicide when the enemy also has it. As a matter of fact it does not stop from "hybrid war", there are so many possibilities to harm a country (disorganize society, promote a friendly leader, attack critical infrastructures,...). So having nukes certainly increases security in many cases but is not sufficient to have everlasting peace !