International Is It Time For A German Nuclear Bomb?

[avenue94]

The only reason most of the US allies don't have nukes is because the US is supposed to have our back when it comes to nuclear deterrence

That's only part of it. Nuclear weapons are a cheap form of deterrence but they are also incredibly expensive, before you even factor in the cost of delivery systems. The latter is pretty important with Germany, there's no point developing nukes without a credible one.

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?

You can be on the left and argue in favor of nukes. They aren't contradictory views.

You need the satellite detection infrastructure to be a nuclear power and one faulty detection and it’s bye bye world.

No you don't. If that's the case, how did we have multiple nuclear powers before good satellite detection infrastructure?

Pakistan too.

And yet nukes have limited Pakistan and India from escalating smaller wars into bigger ones, have they not?

 

[KnightTemplar]

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

Concession accepted.

 

[650lb Sumo]

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?

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.

Some of your nukes could get shot down. Some could get destroyed before launch. Tactical nuclear weapons, so you might not just be aiming ICBMs at large cities, but nuclear torpedoes, nuclear anti-ship missiles, nuclear battlefield bombs etc. Nuclear artillery shells even. The ships and planes etc. carrying them could also be shot down, or miss, so you need spares. Logistics could struggle, so nuclear warheads 1,000 miles away might not be accessible (on time), you would need separate stores scattered around.

There are 336 cites over 100,000 population in the US. When you think about it 5,000 isn't that much. There are only about a fifth the number of nuclear warheads in the world now that there were in the 80s. Although how many there are in bunkers here and there off the record, and how many more would be built before a theoretical nuclear war, who knows.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You can be on the left and argue in favor of nukes. They aren't contradictory views.

The left historically was for nuclear disarmament not nuclear proliferation.

No you don't. If that's the case, how did we have multiple nuclear powers before good satellite detection infrastructure?

This was well before ICBMs. To argue that more people having nukes makes the world safer is incredibly terrifying.

And yet nukes have limited Pakistan and India from escalating smaller wars into bigger ones, have they not?

Non-NATO nations.

 

[avenue94]

Some of your nukes could get shot down. Some could get destroyed before launch.

Right, and that safety margin doesn't get you to thousands of nukes. There's not a huge upside planning to use hundreds of nukes either, there's no strategic wins once they start going.

Tactical nuclear weapons, so you might not just be aiming ICBMs at large cities, but nuclear torpedoes, nuclear anti-ship missiles, nuclear battlefield bombs etc. Nuclear artillery shells even.

I actually am not a fan of smaller nukes, it lowers the threshold to using them.

The ships and planes etc. carrying them could also be shot down, or miss, so you need spares

You're really overestimating how easy it is to shoot down ICBMs. Let alone sea-borne ones.

The left historically was for nuclear disarmament not nuclear proliferation.

The left isn't a monolith.

This was well before ICBMs. To argue that more people having nukes makes the world safer is incredibly terrifying.

What decade are you talking? They've been around since the 60s for the most part.

Non-NATO nations.

And? It's a pretty straight forward question, do nukes prevent war or not when both parties have one?

 

[Rob Battisti]

And? It's a pretty straight forward question, do nukes prevent war or not when both parties have one?

It’s a dishonest question. Germany has defacto nukes through NATO

 

[Rob Battisti]

I can’t believe that people are so disturbed by Trump they want to increase nuclear arms in the world.

What a time to be alive!

 

[avenue94]

It’s a dishonest question. Germany has defacto nukes through NATO

Sort of. But I'm sure you can see why other countries are having less faith in US support now. Trump and his ilk have a poor record with honoring treaties and Ukraine has been a nail in that coffin.

I can’t believe that people are so disturbed by Trump they want to increase nuclear arms in the world.

What a time to be alive!

Right, so Trump has an opportunity to step up and assure his allies that America has their back and deepen cooperation.

Something tells me he's not going to do that. I wonder why.

 

[TUFNewb]

I can’t believe that people are so disturbed by Trump they want to increase nuclear arms in the world.

What a time to be alive!

But Trump has signalled that there will no longer be a American nuclear umbrella protecting the west... so the west doesn't really have a choice. There is kumbaya MAGA we are all one hippy fantasy, then there is reality where Russia is a capable adversary with a vast nuclear arsenal and China is expanding theirs to match that of America's. So yeah what a great time it is...

 

[650lb Sumo]

Right, and that safety margin doesn't get you to thousands of nukes. There's not a huge upside planning to use hundreds of nukes either, there's no strategic wins once they start going.

Disagree.

I actually am not a fan of smaller nukes, it lowers the threshold to using them.

Yes they have been put on the back burner since the Cold War cooled down. It's heating up again now though. Or I suppose this is Cold War II.

You're really overestimating how easy it is to shoot down ICBMs. Let alone sea-borne ones.

I didn't say anything about how easy or otherwise it is to shoot them down. However I now think you're implying that it would be more difficult than it would be. I've seen wildly varying assessments of how well it would work shooting them down, and really seeing as this technology has not been used live, we don't know.

Before WWII they thought strategic bombing would be much more effective than it turned out to be. They also don't make decoy missiles and warheads for no reason. It's not something you would want to be overconfident about - if I were in charge of nukes, expenses allowing I would want to have so many weapons that even the most pessimistic assessment of the enemy's defences wouldn't save them. Here's a recent Reddit thread about intercepting ICBMs:

 

[Rob Battisti]

Sort of. But I'm sure you can see why other countries are having less faith in US support now. Trump and his ilk have a poor record with honoring treaties and Ukraine has been a nail in that coffin.

NATO=/=USA

this is why Trump has a point about NATO. Every country coasted in defense and relied on the US. That’s not good for the world. This is different than nuclear war.

Any nuclear capable ICBM launched is lights out for the world.

Less people should have that capability. Especially NATO countries.

If an ICBM is headed toward Germany, you think France is going to wait to see if it’s for sure headed to Berlin and not Paris? No.

Right, so Trump has an opportunity to step up and assure his allies that America has their back and deepen cooperation.

Something tells me he's not going to do that. I wonder why.

The US isn’t the only member of NATO. It’s not the only nuclear power in NATO.

This is about why a NATO country needs nukes of their own.

They don’t.

 

[wlu.29]

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.

Your president called Zelenskyy a dictator and Ukraine started the war with Russia, yet you're the one saying others are falling propaganda?

How could the world trust the US right now when trump is volatile and flips flops on so many things. He also said that he wants to leave NATO.

 

[Xanzito]

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

Having a nuke is kinda having diarrhea in a pool. You only need one.

 

[650lb Sumo]

Poland must look at acquiring nuclear weapons, says Donald Tusk

Prime minister also open to exploring how French atomic weapons can protect whole continent

www.ft.com

 

[Anewt]

Seems really odd to have have a lot of posters where the argument for bearing arms is incase you fight your own tyranical giverment........... or for your own protection

Yet somehow foriegn goverments or nations shouldnt worry about their own protection... your goverment has it covered... and would only be tyrannical to its own citizens . =)

Odd lol

 

[avenue94]

Disagree.

What percentage of nuclear weapons do you think would get destroyed on the ground or midair?

Before WWII they thought strategic bombing would be much more effective than it turned out to be. They also don't make decoy missiles and warheads for no reason. It's not something you would want to be overconfident about - if I were in charge of nukes, expenses allowing I would want to have so many weapons that even the most pessimistic assessment of the enemy's defences wouldn't save them. Here's a recent Reddit thread about intercepting ICBMs:

That's kind of what MIRVs are for already. That's also ignoring submarines and lower flight times. Nuclear weapons are the most extreme example of a good offense beats almost any defense.

this is why Trump has a point about NATO. Every country coasted in defense and relied on the US. That’s not good for the world. This is different than nuclear war.

And? That's separate from the Trump admin's disdain for treaties and international agreements. If Trump has torn up multiple treaties, why would you as a European country believe he'd exempt NATO?

If an ICBM is headed toward Germany, you think France is going to wait to see if it’s for sure headed to Berlin and not Paris? No.

Depends on the trajectory. You're kind of missing the ICBM part and what that means for detection.

This is about why a NATO country needs nukes of their own.

It's pretty clear. They don't have the same faith in the US as they used to, and nuclear arms have always been an effective bargaining tool unfortunately.

Less people should have that capability. Especially NATO countries.

Do you think Iran having nuclear weapons would increase or decrease the odds of regional war with Israel? Or India and Pakistan?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Depends on the trajectory.

This shows your ignorance of nuclear war. I suggest you read Jacobsons book on Nuclear War.

It's pretty clear. They don't have the same faith in the US as they used to, and nuclear arms have always been an effective bargaining tool unfortunately.

Uk and France exist. Besides, the idea that Russia employs nukes or any engagement against a NATO nation is laughable.

Do you think Iran having nuclear weapons would increase or decrease the odds of regional war with Israel? Or India and Pakistan?

So now you’re arguing for Iran to have nukes?

 

[avenue94]

This shows your ignorance of nuclear war. I suggest you read Jacobsons book on Nuclear War.

What do you want me to take exactly from a work of fiction? Wouldn't you rather cite me something more credible and non fiction?

Uk and France exist. Besides, the idea that Russia employs nukes or any engagement against a NATO nation is laughable.

I'm of mixed feelings on the prudence. But I understand why Germany feels that way. As for the other two countries, the UK did brexit and has benefits all over the place and France is notoriously stubborn in integrating defense with its allies.

Besides, the idea that Russia employs nukes or any engagement against a NATO nation is laughable.

Nukes are not only geared toward gearing nuclear attack, they are for deterring conventional attacks too, depending on the country.

So now you’re arguing for Iran to have nukes?

No, I'm pointing out that Israel is much less likely to antagonize Iran if it had nukes.

You ducked the question. Would Iran having nukes increase or decrease the prospect of regional war?

 

[Rob Battisti]

What do you want me to take exactly from a work of fiction? Wouldn't you rather cite me something more credible and non fiction?

Annie Jacobson is a preeminent journalist who has written incredible works on the CIA, the pentagon and operation paperclip.

Her work on nuclear war was a theoretical scenario based on hundreds of interviews she conducted about the global nuclear machine.

Get your head out of your ass if you want to continue to have a real conversation.

 

[avenue94]

Annie Jacobson is a preeminent journalist who has written incredible works on the CIA, the pentagon and operation paperclip.

Her work on nuclear war was a theoretical scenario based on hundreds of interviews she conducted about the global nuclear machine.

Get your head out of your ass if you want to continue to have a real conversation.

Lol ok. Be specific, which part of the novel I skimmed a while ago since I have a soft spot for Tom Clancy did you want me to apply to this conversation? The part where we launch nukes over Russia for no reason? The part where North Korea attacks the US for no reason?

Have you read any credible scholar on nuclear history before btw?