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?
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
206 points (97.7% liked)
Europe
5086 readers
1782 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in [email protected]. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @[email protected], @[email protected], or @[email protected].
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
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?
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)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it's scary
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, itβs 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.
Not really, the goal was disarmament and exchange of peaceful nuclear technology
load more comments
(6 replies)
Non proliferation was possible because of nuclear security guarantees by the US. Those are now worthless.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
People are like: let's move a bit closer to the end of the world, seems like a fun event.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
~~AfD sagt "geil", aber wenn wir ehrlich sind sieht es in den anderen LΓ€ndern, unter deren nuklearen Schutzschirm wir uns stellen kΓΆnnten, 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.
Yup! In Frankreich wir haben nukes und fΓΌr defensive Zwecke das sieht gut aus. Aber wenn Lepen oder ihr Hundchen wird PrΓ€sident sein, dann tickt das Doomsdayclock noch einmal fΓΌr alle...
load more comments
(4 replies)
I just want to point out, that we are really talking about building nukes again in 2025.
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...
load more comments
(7 replies)
We never stopped.
If you think those ones we have now are leftover from the 60s, you are in for a shock.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Fucking obviously.
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.
EU nukes? Hungary would veto their use even if Russian missiles were raining down on European cities.
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yes, if they want to be independent.
Yes. The Budapest memo and the US strategic backflip has proved non nuclear powers are deeply at risk.
No π€¦
... or maybe, have some of French // British nuclear weapons in Germany and under its control ? ... to stabilise a "MAD*" equilibrium ?
*MAD
Mutual auto destruction (at Wikipedia)