But the Baltic States are NATO members, so Article 5 will/would/should apply???

So what.

Thinks old Wladimir Wladimirowitsch. "The West" is - for the time being - NOT a coalition NATO or no NATO. The Brits don´t see themselves as Europeans, the Americans don´t do that either and the rest ? Whos got an Amry left that could resist a full scale invasion ? The Kaliningrad enclave makes for a good second front....

And lets not forget the most important thing in this: there is no Churchill, there is no Roosevelt, there is no politician in the West who is willing and able to take a real leader role and face Putin as he needs to be faced. Most folks live in a lalaland these days. Dancing your first name in protest won´t protect against an army...

I hope my view is to gloomy, but even if the money is dedicated for rearmament, the boots need to be filled. In Germany: good luck with that.

As far back as January 1945, didn't hear?

FB

It would be very interesting, and very worrying, if Putin did invade one of the Baltic States? I imagine any response would be (is now) most carefully thought through as to how to justify the point of NATO. The only Sword of Damoclese being the nuclear strike capability in Putin's hands.

FB

Google the Cologne Christmas Market rapes . Mass rapes in the open in a public square . How safe would you feel at a bus stop at night ?
There are lots of stories in the DW German media, and even some sexual assault stories reported by the BBC Jimmy Saville’s old employer . Usually auntie been has been historically deaf dumb and blind to Sexual crimes unless they involve insulting persons who cursed with confusion about standing or sitting to pee .
I will not post the links given by google as it would take up too much moderators time , but you can read some of the horrific crimes not seen since the Red Army’s denazification in WW2 by using any search engine in seconds .

No one here has mentioned Germany’s agreement with the US regarding nuclear weapons. Although unusual, it is still carefully maintained as demonstrated by their intention to buy nuclear capable aircraft.

This is very recent, although it does pre-date Ukraine and was - I believe - part of the recent electoral campaign / coalition agreement ( may be open to contradiction there )

As far as I know the Luftwaffe still has nuclear capable Tornadoes, and has been part of the nuke sharing scheme continuously since the days of the F104.
Presumably when the Tornadoes go it will need to look at equiping the Typhoon's or buying those F35s?

f
From discussions on here; the Tornados will soon lose currency - or whatever the correct term is.

In his book 'Sacred Dogs' back in 1990, Stanislaw Tyminski proposed that Poland should have the bomb. And then 17% of the Polish people voted for him to be the next president, only slightly behind Tadeus Mazowiecki at 19%. He forced a runoff in which Lech Walesa finally won.

Have the bomb how ,

I may be mistaken but the then POTUS Trump did ask for a 2% of GDP defence spending from the European NATO countries so if Germany spends that, it should be covered by the US defence effort.

His ravings were so general that one could never know. Naturally no administration would ever claim to be limited by his nonsense.

Does Germany need the bomb?
Probably not. Germany does need nuclear power for electricity, but for their own reasons they have turned their backs on it.

If you want the bomb, ask yourself first: how badly do I want to be a target?
If you've got it, you are on a lot of people's target list, and for good reason.
It's that simple.
I wish someone would get this point across to our friends in Iran.

The 2 % GDP defence spending goal was agreed to by Germany and other NATO members before at the Wales and Prague summits as their long term common goal until the year 2024.Two percent is what all new NATO members are asked to contribute. Later on existing members agreed to follow this GDP share goal. However President Trump suddenly asked for 2% immediately, something nobody had promised.

If the cold war is to be repeated then probably the type of military conflicts of that time will come back as well. Proxy wars outside of NATO or Russian soil, so the bomb will not be the crucial issue. It will be the willingness of the West to engage in third countries which will define the Putin era.

"If you want the bomb, ask yourself first: how badly do I want to be a target?"

You might ask

" How badly do I want to be invaded by a large country who already has Nuclear weapons" - The Russians invaded Iran in WW2 and they sure think the US might do the same now. And they have their constant fight with Israel as well (who also have a bomb). Iran sees themselves as surrounded (more or less) by Nuclear capable powers - Russia, China, Pakistan, the US offshore and Israel nearby

Yeah not an easy one, but for some states it makes sense to have them as the cost of war for an aggressor increases so much worst case they wont attack and that keeps the peace. As NATO country they should be protected under some circumstances as well... But of course looking only at Germany alone against Russia it seems to make sense to get them but that is not the case at the moment... Potential arms races and MAD type peaces at the far end after spending huge amounts of money and effort getting there...

Don't understand what that is supposed to mean.
The German MoD has spent a considerable sum of money remanufacturing certain parts to maintain their nuclear Tornado capabilities up to 2030.

And after that timeframe they will have nuclear capable F-35 to carry NATO's US nukes.