Germany to reach out to France and UK over sharing of nuclear weapons
-
It's a hot take the nazis are so successful again out of fear of putin. Living in Germany, I don't get the impression Putin scares anyone here at all. We're worried about our nation friends who share a border with russia and belarus and that's the full extend of Putins influence on our emotions.
I think the nazis reached 20% because they are actually nazis. They offer stupid poppulist impossible solutions for common or often entirely perceived as common problems. They managed to unite a big base using social media, making it okay to come out as a nazi again, which before would have got you shunned or even beaten up. Now, all that happens is a few left protesters, who will get beaten by the police, confirming it's now better to be a nazi.
Living in Germany, I don't get the impression Putin scares anyone here at all.
That is clearly wrong to be honest.
"Ich habe große Angst vor einem Krieg!" Das antworten 39 Prozent der Befragten des ZDF-Politbarometers im November 2023 auf die Frage, ob sie in Sorge sind vor einem militärischen Konflikt in Europa mit Beteiligung der Bundeswehr. Jeder zwölfte Befragte empfindet sogar "sehr große Sorge".
Russlands Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine macht vielen Millionen Menschen in Deutschland Angst vor einem Dritten Weltkrieg. Wie eine Forsa-Umfrage vom Montag im Auftrag von RTL und ntv ergab, befürchten 69 Prozent sogar, dass die Nato in den Konflikt hineingezogen wird, weil der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin ein Mitglied des westlichen Verteidigungsbündnisses angreifen könnte
In einer Umfrage des Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitut INSA im Auftrag der Bild, gaben 46 Prozent der Befragten an, dass ihnen ein möglicher Russland-Angriff auf Deutschland Sorgen mache. Dabei schätzten Linken-Wähler und CDU-Wähler die Kriegsgefahr höher ein als Sympathisanten der neu gegründeten Wagenknecht-Partei und der AfD.
-
That's still a problem at least in the medium term, because the US control the supply of spare parts for the missiles.
(I won't mention the possibility of a remote kill switch, because having that on an SLBM would render it useless by design, I hope the UK ruled that out when buying Trident)
Would a remote killswitch for something aboard a submarine even be technically feasible? Radio waves don't travel through water very well
-
Should France and the UK share their nuclear weapons with the rest of Europe?
How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
-
Would a remote killswitch for something aboard a submarine even be technically feasible? Radio waves don't travel through water very well
The missiles have to travel through the air and even space eventually, after launch.
-
In case of a nuclear war everyone is a target.
This is not how it works. For example as it is, German cities in a case of war with Russia are not targets, because Germany has not nuclear weapons (like Ukraine, but Ukraine is not a Nato member, so no protection with nuclear weapons from Artikel 5).
-
Not having nuclear weapons makes your country a target before the nuclear war. Also even the Afd would be unlikely to launch nukes for the same reason Putin hasn't, it's a suicide pact.
Is that the reason Nato exists? In case of an invasion from Russia, countries with nuclear weapons will involved..
So what the need of nukes exactly? Don't fuel WW3 guys. Relax with the fucking arms race again. -
How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
Germany has nuclear-capable subs. There was a whole thing about exporting subs to Israel because they might put nukes on them.
Nuclear-powered is a whole other thing. Type 212s can't dive as long as nuclear subs but it's definitely sufficient (18 days is publicly known, they probably can do way more), and on the upside they're way less detectable than nuclear subs which are loud AF due to being powered by steam engines on angry steroids.
-
Living in Germany, I don't get the impression Putin scares anyone here at all.
That is clearly wrong to be honest.
"Ich habe große Angst vor einem Krieg!" Das antworten 39 Prozent der Befragten des ZDF-Politbarometers im November 2023 auf die Frage, ob sie in Sorge sind vor einem militärischen Konflikt in Europa mit Beteiligung der Bundeswehr. Jeder zwölfte Befragte empfindet sogar "sehr große Sorge".
Russlands Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine macht vielen Millionen Menschen in Deutschland Angst vor einem Dritten Weltkrieg. Wie eine Forsa-Umfrage vom Montag im Auftrag von RTL und ntv ergab, befürchten 69 Prozent sogar, dass die Nato in den Konflikt hineingezogen wird, weil der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin ein Mitglied des westlichen Verteidigungsbündnisses angreifen könnte
In einer Umfrage des Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitut INSA im Auftrag der Bild, gaben 46 Prozent der Befragten an, dass ihnen ein möglicher Russland-Angriff auf Deutschland Sorgen mache. Dabei schätzten Linken-Wähler und CDU-Wähler die Kriegsgefahr höher ein als Sympathisanten der neu gegründeten Wagenknecht-Partei und der AfD.
Being worried about war is a different thing than worrying about losing.
-
Being worried about war is a different thing than worrying about losing.
-
Having Nuclear weapons is making your country (and it's cities) a target in case of a nuclear war. It can act as a deterrence yes, but it is an all in move.
Oh and better not to give Germany nuclear weapons, you guys learned what they did in the past when they had a little more power than normal.
I don't think that's necessarily true. And surely the Ukraine war shows that nukes are useful for deterrence. Biden was reluctant to give things to Ukraine (tanks and planes) because he feared escalation from Russia - i.e. the use of tactical nukes.
If Ukraine had nukes, maybe they wouldn't have been invaded.
-
Is that the reason Nato exists? In case of an invasion from Russia, countries with nuclear weapons will involved..
So what the need of nukes exactly? Don't fuel WW3 guys. Relax with the fucking arms race again.In case you missed it, the US just effectively abandoned NATO. What security you think it has, it doesn't. Which also means you can't depend on any ally that depends on the US, which is all of them.
No one is calling for an arms race, no one needs a thousand nukes. But the ability to erase the dozen biggest cities of an invader is the only effective deterrent these days.
-
How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
If Russia were to nuke Germany at the scale necessary to prevent a retaliatory strike, the entire planet would be fucked indefinitely.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
There is a (not unreasonable) fear that the same brainworms infecting American politicians would take hold under a Nigel Farrage or Marine Le Pen government. In the same vein, an AfD takeover of the German government could mean Germany becomes a rogue state if it controls a nuclear stockpile. But again, in these kinds of scenarios, nuclear weapons don't benefit anyone.
Even beyond that, what we're talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They're trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
And all the while, you've got guys like Peter Thiel and Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy not seen since Henry Ford whipped the first edition of "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" off the press. While Europeans scramble to bar the gates against Trumpism/Putinism, the evil shit is leeching straight into their well water.
-
It’s pretty alarming (Reform is mostly ex-UKIP people):
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljvdnhsfnk2d
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljnuuefi2y2k
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljlmhqdjnh2y
And brought the receipts
Thanks! And ah yes, Reform is the current name, thanks. -
In case you missed it, the US just effectively abandoned NATO. What security you think it has, it doesn't. Which also means you can't depend on any ally that depends on the US, which is all of them.
No one is calling for an arms race, no one needs a thousand nukes. But the ability to erase the dozen biggest cities of an invader is the only effective deterrent these days.
Yeah USA, not France and UK. Why the need to share nuclear weapons with Germany? And until USA officially pulls out (that won't happen, the cost is too big for them too), they all are obliged to engage if any NATO member is invaded.
-
Yeah USA, not France and UK. Why the need to share nuclear weapons with Germany? And until USA officially pulls out (that won't happen, the cost is too big for them too), they all are obliged to engage if any NATO member is invaded.
You're missing the point. They don't have to commit to pulling out. The fact they can't be trusted now is enough to shake faith that if Article 5 is invoked that they'll live up their agreement.
Honestly, them exiting would be best, at least everyone will know where they stand. If Russia took a poke at another NATO country and Trump decided to do nothing, what is the rest of NATO gonna do? Send stern letters?
Collective defense only works if you trust your ally with your life. Do you trust the USA right now?
-
Yeah USA, not France and UK. Why the need to share nuclear weapons with Germany? And until USA officially pulls out (that won't happen, the cost is too big for them too), they all are obliged to engage if any NATO member is invaded.
The idea of sharing nukes is really just a logistics solution. It's the same reasoning that led Ukraine to get rid of their nukes. Upkeep is expensive. Sharing with France and UK splits that cost, without having to create duplicate infrastructures. It's affordable nukes for all to balance the dual problem of, you have to have this thing you never want to use, and that thing you have to have is stupidly expensive.
-
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
If Russia were to nuke Germany at the scale necessary to prevent a retaliatory strike, the entire planet would be fucked indefinitely.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
There is a (not unreasonable) fear that the same brainworms infecting American politicians would take hold under a Nigel Farrage or Marine Le Pen government. In the same vein, an AfD takeover of the German government could mean Germany becomes a rogue state if it controls a nuclear stockpile. But again, in these kinds of scenarios, nuclear weapons don't benefit anyone.
Even beyond that, what we're talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They're trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
And all the while, you've got guys like Peter Thiel and Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy not seen since Henry Ford whipped the first edition of "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" off the press. While Europeans scramble to bar the gates against Trumpism/Putinism, the evil shit is leeching straight into their well water.
Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
They already have a space program, so it's more like a new rocket, really.
Is it really only Russia that you folks worry about? Trump wants Greenland. China will eventually want something.
-
Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
They already have a space program, so it's more like a new rocket, really.
Is it really only Russia that you folks worry about? Trump wants Greenland. China will eventually want something.
If European states rebuild a serious modern army, in another twenty years they'll be bombing one another.
-
If European states rebuild a serious modern army, in another twenty years they'll be bombing one another.
I mean, it's not like they don't have armies to start with. So I guess that happens either way?
-
You're missing the point. They don't have to commit to pulling out. The fact they can't be trusted now is enough to shake faith that if Article 5 is invoked that they'll live up their agreement.
Honestly, them exiting would be best, at least everyone will know where they stand. If Russia took a poke at another NATO country and Trump decided to do nothing, what is the rest of NATO gonna do? Send stern letters?
Collective defense only works if you trust your ally with your life. Do you trust the USA right now?
Russia knows that invasion of a NATO country is the start of WW3. That´s why they attacked Ukraine before they entered NATO.
I don't believe they will exit. I believe that is their move to stop their front with Russia, concentrating to China (sacrificing Ukraine with the worst way possible, i mean Brutus is looking as an innocent guy in front of USA), and EU will increase dramatically their Army budget, something USA was begging for decades. And after the Trump era they will go back normal and act like nothing ever happened.
Europe is panicking (both people and politicians) and acting without a plan right now.
