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.
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?
and this sounds like and Ace Combat Zero radio call
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely.
There are two ways to make sure nuclear weapons are never used in war:
#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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Well, no, but I'd rather be in the position of the stick holder than the potential pointy end receiver.
Any country is able to do that through conventional weapons though.
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.
Yes, and lots of them. Cold war is much better than actual war.
You don't need many nowadays. They can be city killers all by themselves.. a single satan 2 missile Russia is so desperate to get working would be able to wipe new York of the map...
It would additionally require a few subs for second strike capability.
NEIN
Doch
Oh!
I guess the question would be connected with how europe is going to handle its combined military defense.
Any country that doesn't want to be invaded should acquire nuclear weapons.
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.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!