I just want to point out, that we are really talking about building nukes again in 2025.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
120 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
6 readers
70 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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 !yurop@lemm.ee. (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: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
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...
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
We never stopped.
If you think those ones we have now are leftover from the 60s, you are in for a shock.
Only those who don't understand the topic. Those of us who study them do not support proliferation.
What study would that be?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes. The Budapest memo and the US strategic backflip has proved non nuclear powers are deeply at risk.
Europe has French nukes, which are more than sufficient.
At least until the next French election. Not exactly a long-term guarantee. Germany needs its own deterrent.
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
And she's Putin's ~~servant~~ pal.
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?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it's scary
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.
I've read estimates that, given the technology needed for production, a country like Japan could develop a functioning nuclear device within a month.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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
load more comments
(1 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
(2 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No π€¦
Yes, if they want to be independent.
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)
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
please dont
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.
Germany has a really high chance of having a fascist party in government in four years. So the answer is a fucking resounding NO.
view more: next βΊ