Sadly, we are now at at point where nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent against Russia. Ukraine surrendered the ones they had and we’re living the side effects.
Yes because all free democratic countries need to be safe from invasion. The US has fallen to authoritarianism and will be in alignment with Russia.
It’s going to be difficult for countries like Germany and Canada to preserve their way of life when the world’s biggest militaries are all authoritarian regimes that also have all the nukes.
Countries can all fall to the social media propaganda anyway since nothing is being done about it. Germany has the AFD. But by that point the least of our worries are a few more authoritarian countries with a couple nukes.
The few democracies that survive these times will be the ones who can harden their defenses against physical invasion and propaganda attacks, and likely renewable energy to protect the power grid.
I don’t think anyone should have nukes. Not even my country. But since that’s never going to happen and the major deterrent to using nukes is if everyone has nukes, then maybe everyone* should have nukes.
*Everyone except crazy psychos that don’t give a fuck about mutually assured destruction and would still use them. Germany isn’t such a country with such a power. At least not since 1945.
Any country can become such, but as you’ve said yourself - everyone having nukes is more realistic than nobody having nukes, and the “mass destruction” part can even have upsides.
It should, but that’s only one level.
First Germany should build a competent armed force which will participate in all the ongoing wars on the globe to gain experience.
(I’m not a German citizen nor I intend to become one.)
It’s a common misconception that using peaceful means is always more moral than fighting a colonial war.
One can imagine a simple experiment. Country A conquers country B and brutalizes country C. Would it be more moral for Germany to peacefully trade (including military goods\technologies) with country A or to use said armed force to get a piece of country B? Country B suffers in both cases, but in the latter case Germany doesn’t finance the aggressor, and also presents some competition and can make life in parts of B controlled by it better. It can also offer military help to C for some preferential treatment.
Ah, also country A already has such a fighting force, all bullies already do. A military has to fight wars to remain competent. So there’s no vegetarian way to defend from influence of bullies. And there’s no neutral way as well - either you are a bully or you actively fight bullies. Maybe both. If you are neither, then you become weaker with time, and thus simply part of supply chain for bullies. Also neutrality always helps bullies and never the victim, that’s Eli Wiesel quote, if someone didn’t know.
NEIN
Doch
Oh!
There are far right extremists on the rise in Germany as well. The question you should ask yourself is: Do you want to risk an AfD-lead, Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government being in control of those nuclear weapons?
Starting next year, a Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government will be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Fair point.
Absolutely.
There are two ways to make sure nuclear weapons are never used in war:- No one has any nukes
- Everyone has nukes.
#1 is never going to happen. The US, Russia, and China are for sure never ever giving up their nuclear weapons.
So #2 it is, level the playing field and give everyone nuclear weapons. A nation is far less likely to use a nuclear weapon if they know they can and will get nuked back right away.2 only works with countries that have something to lose. Don’t assume that a deterrence strategy that works with other major powers is going to work with some small, hellish Islamist dictatorship.
The MAD doctrine aims to make the intentional use of nukes in war unworkable, but in doing so makes their accidental use due to mishap, misunderstanding or miscommunication much more likely, and the more people that are party to the MAD doctrine the more likely accidents are.
You don’t need to look very hard to find examples of cases where billions of people would have been killed if not for people choosing to ignore doctrine even when the information they had at hand said that they should use their weapons
New MAD doctrine idea: all belligerents in any international conflict gets nuked. Thank you coming to my ted talk, I have a proof but it is too large to fit in the comments.
I don’t really want the taliban having nukes…
They probably won’t build them.
This comment section seems to assume that just because the cold war never went nuclear, it never could have. It also seems to forget the stress of living under constant threat of nuclear war.
We need to get rid of nukes, not build new ones. One of our core projects as humanity should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. Our failure to do so is the fault of the Americans as much as the Russians, if not more. You guys sure love your bombs.
So to answer the question: Nah, fuck that.
Thank you. It makes me lose hope for the future of humanity everytime I read comments saying we should remake the mistakes of our past. If we had nukes in 1914, the world would have ended because the Archduke of Austria was shot.
The Archduke of Austria, a title that doesn’t exist anymore, was the heir to rule Austria-Hungary, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. He was killed by a Bosnian because he didn’t like being a part of Austria-Hungary. Bosnia would later become a part of Yugoslavia, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. How many nukes would have been launched to save these meaningless titles and borders?
Well, my guess is that there wouldn’t have been a WW1 if nukes were present. Also, there wouldn’t have been a WW1 (as we know it) if pre-war leaders had known it would be a trench war of attrition.
Also, WW3 would probably have been a reality if nukes weren’t present.
By the logic of mad, those countries would still exist.
and this sounds like and Ace Combat Zero radio call
Obama made this a goal of his second term, and while he achieved some success, the relationship between the west and the other major nuclear powers has significantly worsened since then.
It’s an admirable goal, but I’m not sure it’s going to be feasible any time in the near future.
But what should one do if one has a neighbor who constantly threatens with nuclear annihilation and who doesn’t respect anyone who’s not also a nuclear power? Just give in? I feel that we’re no longer in a Nash equilibrium.
deleted by creator
Build up defence, and a plausible threat using other less awful weapons.
Nuclear threatens the civil population. Despots like Putin might not even care all that much about that. What we need is targeted weapons and intelligence. Putin should expect that, if he launches a nuke, it might not mean that Moscow will be transformed to ashes, but we’ll take out him and his crooks with targeted strikes wherever they may hide.
The Russians have a history of burning their cities to the ground, and of sacrificing their population for strategic reasons. Targeting the civilian population is pointless. We can do a lot better with targeted strikes, and with modern technology it should be possible.
It’s hard to launch a precision counter-strike when your adversary has the capability and quantity of nukes to not only completely overwhelm your air defense systems, but own enough nukes to accept a loss of 80% of them and still have enough going through every layer of your countries defenses to destroy you and the entire rest of the world 6 times over.
Considering this is the problem, I struggle to believe “more nukes” is the solution. No matter how much American political realists enjoy jerking off to their doomsday scenarios.
Cool, but no county is going to say “let’s build just one nuke for deterrence and stop there”.
Also, after witnessing what happened in Libya and Ukraine, no country is going to say “no nukes needed, let’s dismantle what we have, we’re a sovereign and secure country”.
Pandora’s Box is opened and you all are living in a fucking fantasy world where no bullies exist or will never come to exist in the future.
Fair point.
This sounds like a Metal Gear Solid codec call
Would have to be about 2000% longer
If it ever goes nuclear, it doesn’t matter. You’re toast. So nukes keep aggressors like Russia, out of Ukraine (if they had not given up their nukes)
No, it’s illegal. We cannot do this because it’s illegal is I think the most German of answers.
„Die Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik bekräftigen ihren Verzicht auf Herstellung und Besitz von und auf Verfügungsgewalt über atomare, biologische und chemische Waffen. Sie erklären, daß auch das vereinte Deutschland sich an diese Verpflichtungen halten wird. Insbesondere gelten die Rechte und Verpflichtungen aus dem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen vom 1. Juli 1968 für das vereinte Deutschland fort.“
Well, then just change the question. Should it be legal?
We already have nuclear participation with the US. In case NATO decides for mutual nuclear defense, the US nuclear bombs stored in Germany exclusively for German use would be attached to airplanes of the German Air Force to be deployed onto their targets.
And what if the orange man and his friend Putin differs?
There is still the Fr*nch sub’s that Macron just offered to be a shared EU resource.
And what happens if Le Pen wins the next election?
About the same thing as if the AfD does.
We get fucked, my friend. And that’s why establishing a shared EU army to pass the nukes to would be good for everyone.
It’s funny, after the breakup of USSR there existed for a few years such an entity as “CIS armed forces”. It does not anymore because national governments want to control their own militaries.
National governments don’t give a fuck about their own armies until they need them. Ironically, most CIS countries needed their armies to defend against Russia.
EU countries can not wage wars against one other, armies or not, as everyone knows that the whole bloc’s economy would crash instantly as soon as we stopped trading. If German tanks rolled across France again, their crews would starve, as would the French defenders before they could kill each other.
The only reasonable use for an army in modern Europe beyond imperialistic outings with the US to countries who deserve better is to defend against Russia (and maybe China).
France and the US are the only two NATO countries able to build nukes.
Theoretically the UK are able to build nukes too but not without US support.
The Montebello Islands disagree.
You technically could build a nuke with enough enriched uranium. The recipe for a nuke is literally:
- take half of the amount of the enriched uranium required
- smash the other half into it
- boom, Hiroshima.
You need a particular kind of nuclear reactor to create the enriched uranium, though. But for example in Ukraine, the Chornobyl reactor was built exactly for that.
That said, the US, the UK and France are the only three NATO countries allowed under international agreement to build nukes.
You need a particular kind of nuclear reactor to create the enriched uranium
*plutonium. Enriched uranium comes from taking natural uranium and enriching the content of a specific isotope (235U), typically with centrifuges, gaseous diffusion and/or magnetic separation in a synchrotron. The enriched uranium can be used in a weapon, or it can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor to make 239Pu from 238U.
Thanks, my nuclear chemistry was a bit rusty.
Not sure what you mean by “for German use”. The US is very much in charge of every step of the use of shared nuclear weapons. Our pilots get to deliver them, that’s pretty much all of our involvement.
What if the USA decides to side with Russia against Germany?
well if the bombs are located inside Germany it’s not all that simple
Good luck using them unless you’re allowed to. Might be an option if you have a couple of months. Though you would have to defend against two nuclear powers during that time.
Also good luck using your US made jets and critical components.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure if Germany and the US were on so bad terms that they wouldn’t be trading, Western civilization would just collapse. The NL of ASML fame is a very, very close German ally.
I believe that with the new US administration (and US popular opinion), one could go from good terms to bad over night. I would not trust that the US adhere to article 5 if things become serious for real. Why should they start a nuclear war just because their semi-friend forces itself upon a woke central European country? Things were completely different during the cold War.
Oh, you’re thinking, what if the US invades Germany?
So you see, there is one reason we keep the French around beyond baguettes and wine, it’s their ability to turn all major US cities into a radioactive wasteland regardless of what happens to the rest of the EU.
And the French are willing to do that and are obligated to beyond NATO as well.
Well it actually is, terrifyingly so even.
That’s how I know you’re European. America hates Russia. The cold war left generational trauma.
You do not have to worry about America siding with Russia.
JFC, have you been under a rock the last decade? The majority of American population? Maybe. The oligarchs and ruling class? Pft, Trump looks up to Putin as a ‘strong man’. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics/trump-putin-ukraine-russia-smart/index.html
If Germany can’t use the bomb without the US approbation then Germany does not have a nuclear bomb.
Germany does not have a credible deterrence.
We need guillotines, not nukes.
“Our” leaders start wars, and the common people suffer. We are never asked if they want that shit, but are forced to participate and kill or be killed. Fuck that. Fuck those leaders. Let’s united against bad leaders and off with their heads!
Don’t discount the amount of common people that are totally onboard with killing everyone in another tribe. There have been plenty of times when leaders are the only reason diplomacy happens in the face of a bloodthirsty population, though certainly more common that war happens because leaders channel the energy of that bloodthirst as it is easier and the benefits (to themselves first, their tribe second) are thought to outweigh the risks. Look through history and you’ll see enough instances of leaders trying to keep the peace only to be killed by their bloodthirsty population and replaced by someone who will act.
I wish we could all just get along, but so far the only effective deterrent in all of history has been the threat of destruction, either by a sufficiently powerful peace mongering leader, or MAD that nuclear weapons established. I suspect the next change in this dynamic, if MAD holds true, is some real AI that takes the reigns. It would be hard to rule break if we had an omniscient leader that could kill you within seconds.
No.
Why not? This is contingent on the US being an unreliable nuclear umbrella… And Germany deciding they will be part of the EU’s nuclear deterrence.
I don’t like the idea being part of a country that could kill thousands or even millions of people at once.
Any country is able to do that through conventional weapons though.
Well, no, but I’d rather be in the position of the stick holder than the potential pointy end receiver.
Nuclear war is not a stick battle, it’s a knife fight. You’ll both end up bleeding out. Best thing you can do is to not participate.
People should watch Doctor Strangelove as a fucking case study.
Best thing you can do is to not fucking participate.
What if that’s not an option? It could for sure be rational for a violent actor to force it’s will on a non-voilent one. One only needs one rotten apple and the Nash equilibrium dissolves.
We should be hesitant to accept too many lessons from the American realist school of thought. Their great legacy is to narrowly steer clear of a nuclear holocaust, on several instances out of sheer luck, while repeatedly fucking up huge parts of the world beyond recognition.
Somehow we celebrate this clown parade for the one disaster they nearly brought upon us, but we narrowly escaped. There’s no lessons to be learned from the Americans, except as a cautionary tale.
Sure, MAD worked; we only came closer to our own extinction than we ever have in the process.
Best thing you can do is to not participate.
Welcome to nuclear deterrent.
No, that’s not the case anymore. Modern anti-air missile systems can take care of nukes.
It’s not a knife fight, it’s a “who can spend more money” fight to the death.
Anti-air systems are absolutely not built to handle ICBMs. The American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, a dedicated anti-ICBM tool, is estimated to have a 50-50 success rate per counter-missile launched. They only have 44 of them. The Russian counterpart to it uses nukes to nuke the incoming nukes. Just shooting them down is not a solved problem.
See the response of @cabbage.
Good timing. https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
I guess the question would be connected with how europe is going to handle its combined military defense.
Who the fuck is going to invade Germany?
Denmark. First they build the world with lego, than they take it.
One should never trust the Danes.
One does not have to invade. Make them a puppet by using credible threats (they aren’t credible ATM). Do as we say or we fuck you up basically. Maybe blow of a nuke in the Baltic sea, close to the German coast, to show them one is serious.
Wouldn’t work. Germans long for death at every point. Ever watch Dark?
Russia.
They did it once, they could do it again.
