*Permanently Deleted*

So I say i'd rather have other countries not have nukes, and your rebuttal is calling me a jingoist? A jingoist that calls for disarmament?!

Also, please consider not calling people *removed*, that is hurtful towards disabled people and very bigoted, something you claim to oppose.

*removed* jingoists

Speak for yourself... Oh wait.

At this time, the Nazis already have nukes.

I'd also prefer if Russia and the US didn't have nukes

Germany maintains the uranium enrichment plant and a the ability to turn that into nuclear fuel. That is what is needed to build a simple uranium based nuclear weapon.

That is why Germany set up nuclear power plants, as they were always meant to finance and develop those facilities. Since they are now esteblished there is no reason to keep the power plants around. They are of the wrong type anyway, as they produce very little plutonium, which is the other way of producing nuclear weapons. However Germany still has quite a few institutions being able to built nuclear reactors, if need be.

That is also why Germany was fine with US nuclear weapons. Nobody wanted to see Germany have nukes themself, but Germany. Hence that deal. However Germany always had very detailed plans to built nukes, if need be. We are talking about having nukes within a few months, if really pushed hard.

This is what Germany has been doing for decades with its civil nuclear program, but it turned out to be an prohibitively expensive bondoggle and all the nuclear plants have been shut down now.

Production of a bomb and a nuclear reactor involve different things.

You don't have to cool them. Freeer choice of location. I imagine a static good is much easier to safeguard and check.

Most of all, there's cheaper alternatives without a lot of surrounding questions. That's not the case for military deterrent.

My level of optimism is not really lovable, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. The correlation between lack of understanding (not to call it naivety or ignorance) and optimism is growing by the day.

I.e.: for most people in order to survive they will turn more and more towards hopium delivery systems like religions, cults or the deification of powerful people to offset the uncomfortable underlying reality.

That’s why I think I’m an actual optimist. I see a really amazing future of rebuilding in the next half a century once you nothern hemispherians have finished killing each other and reduce the population levels back to a level where we can feed people off the land without needing petrofertilised agriculture.

We’re not that special. We’re just an ant hive that managed to find too much food for a while and we grew out of control. Natural laws exist to deal with these events.

Since the rules of society and safety are always written in blood, I feel they will be pretty good rules after this has all come to pass.

There’s plenty of resources out there that will show you where we’re heading in terms of climate. It’s not going to be pretty (it already is very ugly but wars are generating more clicks) and it will keep accelerating. We’re less than 5 years away from serious impacts on the global food supply, and while the white folks will still have food security, the diaspora from the famines on other continent will drive more of those whites to vote towards the right.

Computer models in the 80’s predicted this. Imagine how accurate my AI predictions have become today.

I do want to say I agree with you that optimism is important. I just think there’s naive optimism and realistic optimism. I’ve picked the latter and that means in my story billions die very quickly. But that’s also best for our environment.

AND MY AXE m'lady

Yep. Quick vapid internet comments that are a repeat of the same meme from the last 15 years is pretty much all we have left.

You’ve got one lucky wife.

Tldr use a condom

Instructions unclear, nuclear device now stuck inside condom.

I don't love your level of optimism. I all seriousness, I don't think it's all quite as predetermined as it may seem at this moment.

An EU nuclear weapons programme would be by far preferable, but that requires a common EU foreign and defence policy.

Not having any nukes won't work with the current state of affairs, except for enjoyers of being on the receiving end of nuclear blackmail by an orange muppet, his puppeteer in Moscow, and Winnie the Pooh.

What does that have to do with the claim that they have nukes?

If they can't use them or only conditionally use them then they don't really have them.

The point of nuclear weapons is to have them to never have to use them, by scaring the shit out of potential enemies, so they don't even dare to attack.

But in order for the weapons to be a credible threat, and therefore a deterrent, their use must be possible.

Nukes that need authorisation by Donald Trump won't deter Vladimir Putin.

As if they even need to use them...

Doubtful, given Trump's displayed reluctance to honour a defence treaty.

Those "German" nukes are a handful of US nukes for use by Germany under NATO's nuclear sharing policy, when approved by the US. With that orange muppet in the White House, Germany really hasn't any nukes it can count on, especially not for deterrence against the orange muppet's puppeteer in Moscow.

Nuclear sharing is the worst of both worlds. You make yourself a certain target, but you cannot exercise control over the weapons. It's turning MAD into SAD (self assured destruction)

Oh can we not?!

Köln / Cologne is actually rather progressive. If you want to bomb a german city for voting the afd into office pick one from east germany / former GDR-territory...

If Putin and the USA already have them, isn't that hypothetical too far off when assessing risk?

There's a strong counter movement to the right. I'd rather have a strong deterrent against Putin than not. It's pretty obvious to me what the more immediate and more realistic risk is.

explain where Germany should test its new bomb

Mar-a-Lago

Something like the Vela incident could work, but seriously nukes are not that complex once you have the weapons grade uranium or plutonium. Everybody knows that Germany can easily produce weapons grade uranium so tests are not needed at all to work as a deterrent.

I propose Saxony /s

Germany should test its new bomb.

Berlin, obviously. If you time it right, the test will be indistinguishable from a normal New Year's Eve to the general public.

Even untested ones would act as a deterrence. Not to the same effect, but almost.

You're not supposed to launch nukes. It's a deterrent. If Ukraine had nukes, this war would never have happened. Germany wants to get their own nukes to get independent deterrent.

Tell that to ukraine. france has plenty of nukes but they have not lanched them at russia over the ukraine invasion and so they are useless for this war.

Germany should focus peace where possible and the equipment needed to end wars in their favor when peace is not an option.

Well, nukes are doing exactly that.

You are confusing can't and won't, Gemany and a few other countries have ability to produce a lot of weapons and armor, they really don't want to do it and corporations that make weapons also don't want to do it. So they obviously _can_ produce more, but it would cut into profits on one side, and requires minimal effort and political will on the other.

Discussing nukes requires nothing and generates news, win-win.

1. You might want to work on your tone. Check rules 3 & 5.

2. This is the discussion you chose to chime in on:

Article titled: Is it Time for a German Nuclear Bomb?

>User A: Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary

User B, citing *Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary*: Non-Proliferation is based on the promise of nuclear powers to defend those who don’t have nukes. Since this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump, proliferation is the logical consequence.

To which you chose to add, citing *this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump,*:

>*George W Bush (and Israel in general).

Given the topic of the article (Germany) and, as mentioned by User A, the currently emerging willingsness of everyone to break the Non Proliferation Treaty, I wonder where you see the connection to "George W Bush (and Israel in general)" rather than Trump's actions that without a doubt are the source for these considerations in a country such as Germany, which, again, is the topic of this article. Maybe you can elaborate it a bit more.

Again, respond to the actual discussion, not the one in your head

This is an article about a potential German nuclear bomb. Germany is a NATO country which so far has been provided with US nukes within the framework of nuclear sharing. The only reason for the sudden ambitions for own nukes for Germany, but also eg Scandinavia, is directly linked to the apparent unreliability of Trump's US in terms of said nuclear sharing and hence especially a concern for non-nuclear NATO members.

Literally no-one mentioned NATO before you, no-one referred to US protection specifically. Respond to the actual discussion, not the one in your head.

What does Israel have to do with the problem of non-nuclear NATO nations no longer being able to rely on the US' promise to defend them with their nukes?

Not really, the goal was disarmament and exchange of peaceful nuclear technology

Pretty much any country that runs a sizable domestic nuclear programme can do that. The technology is well known enough to make all sorts of nuclear devices with relative ease. A gun type (Hiroshima style) nuclear weapon is very low tech. With enough disregard for (workplace) health and safety, a backyard foundry/machine shop could cobble one together, given they have enough (and pure enough) ^235^U. The biggest obstacle is procuring suitable fissile material in sufficient quantities.

I've read estimates that, given the technology needed for production, a country like Japan could develop a functioning nuclear device within a month.

I think the fear is very much alive.

If the alternatives are fearing the negative impact potentially imposed vs being imposed upon, most people choose their own safety and security though. Whether that's factual or hypothetical - it's more than not having such a deterrent while the potential aggressor has them.

Non proliferation was possible because of nuclear security guarantees by the US. Those are now worthless.

Pandora's box is open. Thanks Putin. Thanks Trump. EU can't do nothing... We're heading to more war and disorder either way. Not only more new nukes, also higher chances of them being used again which is even more scary.

No need to break it. The treaty can be left within 90 days after giving a notice with a reason. Given that building nuclear weapons takes some time, that seems very possible.

Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary

Non-Proliferation is based on the promise of nuclear powers to defend those who don't have nukes. Since this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump, proliferation is the logical consequence.

Most of the people who saw the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are dead. The people who grew up hiding under their school desks waiting for the bomb to drop are old.

The memory of the fear is fading.

People are like: let's move a bit closer to the end of the world, seems like a fun event.

to keep France from trying to invade the Saarland

I knew the EU was a mistake. /s

Your entire comment is wrong.

Brexit happened *because* the EU is not only limited to trading.

Also... "Only slightly more cohesive" ? France and Germany were having skirmishes and ready to start a war years before WWI actually started. Germany didn't shoot a Rafale yet, I think we're doing OK

The beginning of the EU started to keep France from trying to invade the Saarland again.

EU only exists because member countries saw the need for an economic power to contend with the US post-WWII. It’s not like States in the US

I'm pretty sure the US was very involved in the process of establishing more union and collaboration in Europe.

You wrote "only exists because". Did you man "only still exists because"? But then the post WW2 comment doesn't make much sense.

The US also did a lot of economic support. So which time frame are you referring to?

It's impossible because the EU is only slightly more cohesive than Europe was before WWI...

EU only exists because member *countries* saw the need for an economic power to contend with the US post-WWII. It's not like States in the US - each country is there only so long as they feel their interests are being met.

The mere *thought* of Brexit occuring should've been a warning shot - everyone took to castigating Britain instead of examining why it could even be an idea, let alone *actually happening*.

There were proxy wars though.

Would one have invaded the other without them? I kind of doing it.

The cold was escalated with the atomic bomb arsenal and proxy wars. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were necessary or actually effective that was like that.

I'd assume the faschists would gift the nukes to their buddies, or just attack someone else. Afterwards we can still get invaded.

So far, nuclear deterrence has worked without fail. The soviets had their first successful nuclear weapon test in 1949, Stalin died in 1953 - neither he no his successors ever fired a nuclear weapon at an enemy, despite being in a cold war the entire time until the end of the USSR.

And frankly, if the German faschists were dumb enough to use nuclear weapons offensively against enemies, I'd assume they would be bombed into oblivion instead of invaded.

Yup! In Frankreich wir haben nukes und für defensive Zwecke das sieht gut aus. Aber wenn Lepen oder ihr Hundchen wird Präsident sein, dann tickt das Doomsdayclock noch einmal für alle...

What's worse, a German far-right government with nuclear bombs or Germany being invaded by Russia or maybe the USA?

Why pick one when you can have both? Hitler and Stalin used to have a deal until they didn't.

What study would that be?

The thing is that among the people who have the power to make it a reality are many who don't understand the topic. Politicians and other people in power are well known to not understand the stuff they get to make decisions about.

For sure, it wasn't super widely reported at the time. Nuclear weapons and foreign policy just happen to be "special interests" for me so I tend to follow things like that.

I must have missed that back then. Thank you for the context.

There was a sincere risk of Russia using nuclear weapons earlier in the conflict, around the winter of 2022/2023 when the first major Russian mobilization of 600k failed to achieve the desired outcomes and the North Western front started to collapse. The released intelligence info put it at about 50/50.

This is why, at the time, the Biden administration made several clearly coded messages/announcements that nuclear weapons usage in Ukraine would result in an overwhelming conventional retaliation that would remove Russian military capability from the board. It's also part of the reason nations were so slow to provide advanced support capabilities. There was a fear (justified, imo) that immediately opening the floodgates and giving Ukraine tanks, jets, advanced missiles, and using those missiles to strike deep in Russian territory would result in usage of nuclear weapons. It still is a risk, honestly. If Ukraine started doing heavy damage to Moscow, there's a real chance Putin might decide to flip the table over rather than lose the game.

I would expect the blowback for using nukes in defense of your sovereign territory to be a lot less than for conquering another country.

But you can also see the hesitance from european leaders due to his nukes

I wonder if Putin would have bet on them not being used and attacked anyway.

Just like Putin has not used any nuke, there's a huge deterrent to use them at all.

I could definitely see Putin making calculated decisions like that.

Of course Ukraine would have had a stronger stand with them either way.

Yep. I'm really hoping we can build on the nuclear arsenals the non-US West has going already, though.

Well, I'm not a big fan of nuclear proliferation but Ukraine gave up theirs and look what happened...

As long as we have imperialistic authoritarian world leaders, we will need ways to keep them at bay, and nuclear deterrence is probably the best one unfortunately...

We never stopped.

If you think those ones we have now are leftover from the 60s, you are in for a shock.

How else are we gonna get that sweet pu238 for our deep space drones?

Who would have known Kim Jong Il would be vindicated

Only those who don't understand the topic. Those of us who study them do not support proliferation.

Yeah, "EU" solutions to security just seem so naive. Do we really expect a German national to put their country's security on the line if need be? Long term, what would prevent French, German, Spanish, whatever exceptionalism from rising and infecting EU leadership?

Member states already have mutual defense pacts that overrule any competing EU dictates in time of war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy

So Hungary can veto whatever they want, but defensive actions will be taken regardless.

Yeah, that's what I had in mind as well. Of course there would be no voting with vetos over a nuclear strike. It would be an immediate response to a nuclear launch towards our territory, nothing else. There shouldn't ever be an option for a first strike in my opinion.

Well if the EU gets nukes i would imagine there would be a clause that allows for a return strike wihout voting and only a first strike being banned completely or require voting.

Since there are only minutes to launch a return strike voting over it is completely pointless.

EU nukes? Hungary would veto their use even if Russian missiles were raining down on European cities.

Who decides about the use of these nukes? Ursula von der Leyen?

This is a reason why there is a push for an EU military. Right now, there isn't a functional EU body which can launch the nukes.

Given the disregard Russian leadership displays towards the well-being of its own citizens, and how it likes to overestimate its own capabilities, the relatively limited nuclear deterrent offered by France might not be enough.

Especially if Russia either gets lucky and manages to detect some (or worse, all) of the few French strategic missile submarines on patrol, and puts a little too much trust in its own anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

France just dominates would be preferrable to everything between Lissbon and Warsaw being a burnt out radioactive wasteland.

This wouldn't change much. Europe is too small to use nuclear weapons in internal conflicts effectively, so it is really only a suitable weapon to deter enemies from outside, like Russia.

We're REnazifying. The future is looking dark ...

And she's Putin's ~~servant~~ pal.

damn *removed*

I really hope europe can "denazify" now that we have seen what it brings.

Germany build a fully complete breeder reactor and then decided to never turn it on. It is a theme park now.

Why not? Plutonium supremacy? ;)

It would take longer and use more energy but the boom is the same in the end.

Did Germany ever have a breeder/dual use reactor? If not you'd have to build one first anyway and i bet that takes longer than building a shitton of centrifuges.

And isn't the issue with a credible nuclear deterrence the delivery and second strike capability anyway? Germany would need submarines and icbms too.

You can improvise a few test bombs that way, but that is not a credible nuclear deterrence.

Not only the people, also the supply chains to produce and handle the fissile materials. (which also include a whole lot of people)

Its mainly about the people. You need a lot of trained people to develop and maintain these weapons, and having a larger pool of civil nuclear engineers (and univercity departments to train them) makes this much more realistic.

Macron was recently pretty clear about this: France is maintaining their nuclear reactors because they need them to maintain their nuclear weapons. Economically these reactors are a bottomless pit and Germany was smart to shut them down.

No sane state would use nuclear arms against another nuclear armed nation unless threatend in its existence. If a conventional army large enough to overrun Germany would exist and attack Germany, France knows full well that they are next and could not defend themselves conventionally either. But that scenario is rather unlikely.

And beyond that there are a bunch of different game theoretical considerations mostly centering around second strike capabilities to protect against the threat of a sudden unprovoked nuclear strike aiming to decapitate an enemy state, and in all those scenarios France IMHO comes out as having no choice but to extend their nuclear shield to nearly all of Europe.

I guess the logic is that France might stand by if Germany is attacked conventionally. It's not just about whether a nuke hitting Germany would affect France.

Do we really need that many nuclear power plants for it though? Wouldn't some experimental nuclear power plants be sufficient? I guess we still have some, right? ..right?

Germany still has some research reactors running. But for enrichment you don't need a reactor, gas diffusion and centrifuges are also options. There should be enough fuel left to enrich enough uranium for at least some bombs. So it should be possible without too much reliance on external partners.

France has no choice. Europe is so small and densely populated that any nuclear attack would have an immense impact on France as well (due to the channel, that is less clear for the UK).

And on the other hand, Germany's nukes would be highly dependant on France as well, as Germany shut down their civil nuclear program a while ago, and you can't have nukes without one. And restarting their civil nuclear program would be complete economic madness for Germany. So the nuclear material and expertise will come from France most likely, and then Germany might as well negotiate a much cheaper sharing arrangement directly.

At least until the next French election. Not exactly a long-term guarantee. Germany needs its own deterrent.

Le Pen has already said, that she does not want French nukes to defend Germany.

Europe is not a country and historically the internal cooperation we see today is the extreme exception. Any of the countries could flip at any time for a multitude of reasons, and then what? France just dominates?

Europe has French nukes, which are more than sufficient.

... or maybe, have some of French // British nuclear weapons in Germany and under its control ? ... to stabilise a "MAD*" equilibrium ?

::: spoiler *MAD

Mutual auto destruction (at Wikipedia)

:::

I just want to point out, that we are really talking about building nukes again in 2025.

Yes. The Budapest memo and the US strategic backflip has proved non nuclear powers are deeply at risk.

Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it's scary

No. If anything, EU nukes could be something to consider. But I don't see why Germany specifically should have them. That might lead to calls for every other European country to get them too and that could just as easily be a security risk as an advantage, with single countries possibly "going rogue", like Hungary. In the hands of the EU they should be fairly safe.

Hoffentlich bauen die Schwaben nie eine Atombombe, weil irgendein Minischderpräsident würde sagen "Etz ham mer se bezahlt, etz werf mer se au ab".

It would be best if there was an EU wide nuclear program. Not a *nuclear sharing program* but a *nuclear program*.

If this is impossible for whatever reason it is up to the member states to develop their own programs.

Russia would never have invaded if Ukraine kept their nukes.

I really would like that everybody who is proposing a german nuclear bomb would also explain where Germany should test its new bomb. Bavaria? Mecklenburg? Erzgebirge?

~~AfD sagt "geil", aber wenn wir ehrlich sind sieht es in den anderen Ländern, unter deren nuklearen Schutzschirm wir uns stellen könnten, nicht viel besser aus. Was ist schlimmer, eine AfD-Regierung mit Atombombe oder eine russische oder vielleicht amerikanische Invasion? Pest oder Cholera ...~~

AfD says "hell yeah", but to be honest it's not looking much better in other countries who might extend their nuclear shield (is that even a thing in English?) to Germany. What's worse, a German far-right government with nuclear bombs or Germany being invaded by Russia or maybe the USA? Lesser of two evils ...

edit: whoops, wrong language. I hope this manual translation gets the point across.

Yes, if they want to be independent.

They just had an election where the second most popular party was an extreme-right-wing pack of lunatics. What happens when they win the next election?

You cannot afford to have nuclear weapons when you can't be sure who's going to have control of them.

The article advocates/answers with infrastructure should be prepared so it can be purposed if it should ever be necessary.

>There is, however, a third option: nuclear hedging. In this model, a country does not develop nuclear weapons outright but instead builds the technological capacity to produce them if ever deemed necessary.

Most of the comments here seem to discuss the headline instead - whether it should equip.

please dont

Didn't they just close down all their nuclear power plants because they're too dangerous after Fukushima?

Building nuclear bombs doesn't seem like the next logical step.

First off. Way to make sure everyone “doesn’t look up” re climate emergency. There’s no amount of nukes we can build that are more powerful and can be secured enough against nature’s planned devastation in the next 30 years. But for some reason all this war talk shit is just a welcome distraction.

Second. This is the same like all these governments asking Apple and Signal to build backdoors. Once you have a backdoor, it doesn’t discriminate who passes through it.

Build all the nukes you want, all European governments will slide towards trumpism in the next 10 years anyway, as European politics seems to copy USA **and** is more and more infiltrated by foreign powers (also just like USA).

I’m sure all the mini-me Aldofs, Elons and Donalds will appreciate a freshly build slab of nukes to establish their tyranny.

Boy are we stupid. Just smart enough to know we’re a bunch of clothed idiots.

**Tldr use a condom**

The war's been over for a while and they seem to have turned into decent people, but if you think it'll help... 🤷‍♂️

Guys, have a kid, buy a house. Smile on your faces. Everything is going to be good.

You need to feel like you have something for them to be able to rip it away.

Too expensive for the little benefit. Turkey for example has none, but one of the bigger armies in the Mediterranean and can still project power.

I'd also recommend to talk to Poland and France about this first, if only for historic reasons.

I can barely imagine the shitty world that makes us need the French nukes in our country, what world would there even be that requires a German one instead? If things are that bad, what good would our own nuke do at that point?

afd still exists so no

Drop it ! Wherever it's dropped is probably fine now

Nukes are only useful if you are at the point where you want to end the world. Germany should focus peace where possible and the equipment needed to end wars in their favor when peace is not an option. They can't deliver Ukraine the tanks, artillery shells, and and so on needed, so adding nukes to their plate is just diverting their interests. If they want to do more airplanes or air defense would be much better to invest in than nukes. (I'm not sure what Germany as in either of those categories)

No 🤦

Germany has a really high chance of having a fascist party in government in four years. So the answer is a fucking resounding NO.