International Is It Time For A German Nuclear Bomb?

[Crazy Source]

Who would have thought that the left would argue for a nuclear arms race.

Germany is part of NATO. Even if you hilariously think the US won’t defend Germany, do you think France or UK won’t as well?

If I felt like the U.S. was a reliable ally, I would say they should wield their influence with Germany to keep them from becoming a nuclear power. Recent actions by the U.S. have shown they are not a reliable ally, so it is Germany's right to arm themselves. I wouldn't blame them a bit.

 

[650lb Sumo]

there has been no attempt to invade the mainland UK since WWII. And that was called off when the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain. Without air superiority, the Nazis could never have crossed the Channel.

No True Scotsman. There has been no attempt to invade the UK, mainland or otherwise, since 1797 IIRC, although the Germans did occupy the Channel Islands in WW2. Also even if the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain they still wouldn't have been in a position to invade.

After the Mumbai Massacre, the Indian government wanted to mount a full-scale attack on Pakistan. They were talked down by senior Indian Army officers, who pointed out that it would inevitably lead to a nuclear war.

No True Scotsman/minimisation of error/goalpost shifting

Russia hasn't been invaded since WWII, long before the Orcs possessed nuclear weapons.

Wrong, and I don't endorse using ethnic slurs.

The last attempt to invade Israel was the Yom Kippur War in '73.

Wrong.

I don't think Israel even had the Samson Option at that point.

It did.

In short: your argument is invalid.

I wasn't making an argument.

 

[ChosenOne]

Of course not. Why would you want another country with the ability to vaporize life from the planet?

Because if they do not have them people like you will support carving up their nation to the powers who do have them while saying 'yes we need to give the aggressor everything they want to avoid them using nukes'.

Seano you have absolutely proved that you think if a nuclear power aggresses a non nuclear power then the nuclear power should get everything they want so the only counter to that is for every nation to nuke up.

It would be negligent and foolish of them not to knowing how many people are like you who will just easily and gladly give away their nations to others if they do not have nukes.

 

[KnightTemplar]

No True Scotsman. There has been no attempt to invade the UK, mainland or otherwise, since 1797 IIRC, although the Germans did occupy the Channel Islands in WW2. Also even if the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain they still wouldn't have been in a position to invade.

No True Scotsman/minimisation of error/goalpost shifting

Wrong, and I don't endorse using ethnic slurs.

Wrong.

It did.

I wasn't making an argument.

I apologise for offending Orcs by comparing them to Russians.

When was there an attempt by anyone after 1945 to invade Russia? Up until the end of the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union who did the invading.

I'm glad you agree there is no argument. I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Aurelian]

All nations should build nuclear weapons. When shit finally pops off it will ensure maximum fun and engagement.

 

[ChosenOne]

Please stop with this silliness. If you believe this, you have lost the propaganda war. We're trying to avoid a World conflict and that means we're your enemy all of a sudden? Examine that thinking.

Please try and put aside your TDS.

Trump was literally on television musing about how much he and Putin have been through together the last few years, in the same way one spouse stands up for the other spouse.

I am pretty certain his ONLY kind words since 2016 to now are for Putin, XI, Kim Jong Un, and Orban.

Can you quote him saying a single good thing about the leader of an Ally country? Please do if you can.

I can quote him giving countless praise to countries who are considered the US adversaries and enemies.

IT is extreme TDS silliness if our ally countries trust a Trump Admin giving where his sympathisies clearly lie.

And while you will deny this what you won't do is post Trump saying anything positive about Ally leaders or countries.

 

[ChosenOne]

Who would have thought that the left would argue for a nuclear arms race.

Germany is part of NATO. Even if you hilariously think the US won’t defend Germany, do you think France or UK won’t as well?

Because people like Trump and Rob Battisti have clearly said, if Country 1 has nukes and invades Country 2 with no nukes, then the way to avoid nuclear war is to give Country 1 every thing they want.

You are arguing every day why not doing that and supporting Ukraine 'risks nuclear war or WW3' as the reason to capitulate to Putin and you WOULD NOT if Ukraine had nukes.

The reason we now need a shift to every nation arming up is because Trump and people, like you Rob, have switched to a view that 'the US should not only not try to ensure those with out nukes are not over run by those with nukes... but the US should help facilitate them being run over as a way to avoid nuclear war or WW3.'.

How can anyone argue that it is the view that Trump (and you support) that necessitates every nation, who can, now getting nukes?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Because people like Trump and Rob Battisti have clearly said, if Country 1 has nukes and invades Country 2 with no nukes, then the way to avoid nuclear war is to give Country 1 every thing they want.

You are arguing every day why not doing that and supporting Ukraine 'risks nuclear war or WW3' as the reason to capitulate to Putin and you WOULD NOT if Ukraine had nukes.

The reason we now need a shift to every nation arming up is because Trump and people, like you Rob, have switched to a view that 'the US should not only not try to ensure those with out nukes are not over run by those with nukes... but the US should help facilitate them being run over as a way to avoid nuclear war or WW3.'.

How can anyone argue that it is the view that Trump (and you support) that necessitates every nation, who can, now getting nukes?

I’m arguing that Germany doesn’t need nuclear weapons because they are a part of NATO. I am arguing against nuclear proliferation.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Because people like Trump and Rob Battisti have clearly said

@Rob Battisti you're moving up in the world.
being quoted alongside Trump for things that have been clearly said.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I’m arguing that Germany doesn’t need nuclear weapons because they are a part of NATO. I am arguing against nuclear proliferation.

Yeah but as previously says if the US backs out of NATO then the nukes the UK and France has is quite the numbers disadvantage

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yeah but as previously says if the US backs out of NATO then the nukes the UK and France has is quite the numbers disadvantage

lol “if the US backs out of NATO, France and the UK can’t destroy the world”.

You all need to temper your fear. Turn off The View.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Yeah but as previously says if the US backs out of NATO then the nukes the UK and France has is quite the numbers disadvantage

what disadvantage?
you think anyone can win a full-on nuclear war?
we'd all be dead.

 

[Anewt]

If pakistan and india can manage to behave themselves with nukes why not? Seems silly to say no to germany.

 

[avenue94]

Let me ask you people-

Why did we use nukes once and never use them again? Why didn't we nuke Iraq? Why haven't we nuked say, Iran?

We stopped using nukes because more nukes came into being. The most dangerous time is actually when there's a nuclear imbalance and once side knows the other is developing them.

Iran wasn't nuked because what does that accomplish?

Current nuclear arsenals

USA 5,044
Russia 5,580
Non US NATO 515

Can you see why NATO countries might want more nukes with the US making noises about leaving?

To be fair USA and Russia are hurt by the size of their arsenals. You just need enough to ensure second strike (with insurance obviously). There's no point having thousands of them unless you seriously expect space invaders.

 

[Rob Battisti]

what disadvantage?
you think anyone can win a full-on nuclear war?
we'd all be dead.

Seriously. They are acting like there is any coming back from an ICBM with nukes on it.

If one gets launched, they all launch. The USA, or any country, can’t determine beyond a shadow of a doubt where they’d be headed. One launch all launch.

 

[Stoic1]

If you don't unilaterally and unconditionally support Ukraine you aren't meeting your commitments to NAtohhh errr ... uhhh you love Putin.

Also, when is NATO acknowledges the US almost completely propping it up for decades. Sorry 'bout your debt.

 

[Aurelian]

what disadvantage?
you think anyone can win a full-on nuclear war?
we'd all be dead.

Fuck that. Germany needs to build the most devastating caliber weapons known to man, and they don't need to go cheap on it. They need hundreds of them.

 

[avenue94]

Just what we need. Another muslim nation with nukes after Pakistan and the UK.

One must really have to question how far up your ass your head is if the UK qualifies as a Muslim nation but not India lol

 

[650lb Sumo]

When was there an attempt by anyone after 1945 to invade Russia?

I don't want to seem unfriendly, but I'm not Siri. You can easily find this out yourself in 5-10 seconds.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Fuck that. Germany needs to build the most devastating caliber weapons known to man, and they don't need to go cheap on it. They need hundreds of them.

they can't afford it. too many benefits to pay to the migrants.