Does Germany need the Bomb ?
Thread Starter
Does Germany need the Bomb ?
This is the title of an article* in a major German news magazine - focus. The author asks what would the strategic position of Germany be if Trump were re-elected in 2025 and Le Pen next month ( strangely UK not mentioned at all ) thus making the nuclear umbrella somewhat uncertain, and Putin still in an expansionist mood. I would never have imagined I would read such an article. He adds that, in today's papers there is an open letter signed by 600 German "worthies" saying that it is wrong to spend 100 Mrd on re-equipping the German military ( and upping future spend to 2%).
* https://www.focus.de/politik/deutsch..._80628355.html
* https://www.focus.de/politik/deutsch..._80628355.html
Thread Starter
If we add to this, the fact that Poland's deputy prime-minister said last week that they would be open to the stationing of nuclear war-heads on Polish soil, then that represents significant movement in a policy that has been "frozen" for a lot of years.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the bomb protect German women from the invading hordes of Rapists presently making shopping at night a dangerous pastime for women in Germany ?
As Aristotle might say ask the right question if you want the right answer .
As Aristotle might say ask the right question if you want the right answer .
I would have said at the fall of the wall Ukraine didn’t need them, but now I feel a massive reduction and the retention of say a dozen or so would have prevented the genocide now taking place.
Does Germany need them? If NATO still holds weapons on their territory then probably not.
Does Germany need them? If NATO still holds weapons on their territory then probably not.
Originally Posted by fitliker
Would the bomb protect German women from the invading hordes of Rapists presently making shopping at night a dangerous pastime for women in Germany ?
As Aristotle might say ask the right question if you want the right answer .
As Aristotle might say ask the right question if you want the right answer .
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by NutLoose
I would have said at the fall of the wall Ukraine didn’t need them, but now I feel a massive reduction and the retention of say a dozen or so would have prevented the genocide now taking place.
Does Germany need them? If NATO still holds weapons on their territory then probably not.
Does Germany need them? If NATO still holds weapons on their territory then probably not.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 54
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution could be a European Bomb, rather than a German one. There can be no doubt Europe needs to emancipate and able to defend itself without help.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 56
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given Germany's past naughty behaviour, I'd say it may not be a good idea.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by His dudeness
My best guess is that you won´t be able to get a democratic vote for a 'German bomb' in Germany.
As for Sam Ting Wong's comment, I can't imagine how you devise a system allowing for use with 27 members, many of which would then have to consult their parliaments as well.
Originally Posted by fitliker
Would the bomb protect German women from the invading hordes of Rapists presently making shopping at night a dangerous pastime for women in Germany ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuclear proliferation is not going to make the world a better or even safer place....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sam Ting Wong
The solution could be a European Bomb, rather than a German one. There can be no doubt Europe needs to emancipate and able to defend itself without help.
Mind you, there would be no first strike...
Thread Starter
Alpine Flyer - Are you saying that Ukraine would still have been invaded if it had kept its nukes ?
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 10th Apr 2022 at 00:28.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tartiflette Fan
Alpine Flyer - Are you saying that Ukraine would still have been invaded if it had kept its nukes ?
Here is another, if Ukraine had a non nuclear, precision guided weapon, capable of assassinating the Russian head of State with little collateral damage, would they use it?
Mjb
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north or south
Age: 49
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by HOVIS
Have the Russians made it to Germany already?
"Alpine Flyer - Are you saying that Ukraine would still have been invaded if it had kept its nukes ?"
As with Libya & Iraq - anyone who has a nuclear weapon won't give it up now and people who almost have one (Iran) will redouble their efforts to get one
Who can blame them?
As with Libya & Iraq - anyone who has a nuclear weapon won't give it up now and people who almost have one (Iran) will redouble their efforts to get one
Who can blame them?
For Japan and South Korea they might make sense as a counter threat. There is no time to get them when things turn sour. Limiting nukes has only limited the good guys from getting them. The evil guys still armed up.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 56
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mind you, there would be no first strike...
Anyhuw, the issue at hand developd slowly, and it showcases how bad we all are perceiving slow moving threads. First Ossetia, then the Crimea, now Ukrain and probably Moldova and or the baltics next. Yet Mr.Putin is still seen by some as a peaceful man or that there is a LEGITIMATE Russian claim in any of this.
