International Is It Time For A German Nuclear Bomb?

[OldFashion]

We are literally in a security treaty with Russia and Ukraine to protect the Ukrainian's sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

They conveniently ignore this point when coming up with all these stupid post hoc rationalizations.
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. The moment Trump deepthroated Putin's cock live in the oval office and stabbed Ukraine in the back that nuclear deterrence evaporated. Nuclear proliferation is the only logical result of that

 

[Crazy Source]

We haven't? What more are we supposed to do for our NATO allies aside from pay all their bills?

Forgive me for quoting you twice, but I had another thought. The U.S. is getting off cheap for the stability NATO has cultivated. Economies go to shit with instability. NATO is serving its purpose wonderfully. It's an incredible success story.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

I do believe the US has been taken advantage of with NATO and that European countries should pony up for their defense. Unfortunately part of defending themselves is to build their own nukes.

More nukes isn't great, but it's an unavoidable consequence of security independence.

 

[Prutfis]

Who should do this? The US? You can't occupy them with NATO as thats part of the reason Russia has issues with Ukraine.

So you dont know how peace keeping troops work. Not surprising

 

[Rob Battisti]

Fair Play. FAFO. Period.

I’m glad European countries are arming themselves. Nukes shouldn’t be a part of that though.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I’m glad European countries are arming themselves. Nukes shouldn’t be a part of that though.

Wou;d you be able to justify to a German why the US and Russia should have them but they shouldn't?

 

[Crazy Source]

I do believe the US has been taken advantage of with NATO and that European countries should pony up for their defense. Unfortunately part of defending themselves is to build their own nukes.

More nukes isn't great, but it's an unavoidable consequence of security independence.

You act as if the U.S. doesn't get anything in return. They are by far the most powerful NATO member, and they wield an incredible amount of influence over other members. Isolationism will just lessen that influence and make the world a less safe place, which is the opposite of why NATO was formed in the first place.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

You act as if the U.S. doesn't get anything in return. They are by far the most powerful NATO member, and they wield an incredible amount of influence over other members. Isolationism will just lessen that influence and make the world a less safe place, which is the opposite of why NATO was formed in the first place.

Yeah, the last two times we sent soldiers to die in a warzone it was in support of the US.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Wou;d you be able to justify to a German why the US and Russia should have them but they shouldn't?

Because no one should. But while people do, less people should.

 

[650lb Sumo]

Let me ask you: how many nations with nuclear weapons have ever been invaded?

Take your time, I'll wait for your answer.

Huge invasion going on in at least 3 at the moment. London is becoming Pakistan. Nukes don't seem to help.

I can name the UK, Russia, India, Israel and Pakistan off the top of my head, so at least five. I anticipate someone saying the Falklands aren't the UK, which is true but a spurious objection.

 

[Rob Battisti]

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?

 

[The XL]

I love the idea of everyone having nukes. Makes it a lot less likely that anyone gets invaded. Everyone should have skin in the game, not just young men who are forced to fight or manipulated to fight whenever governments are up to their usual BS. No more proxy wars, now if things go sideways, we're all at risk, not just young men. The way it should be.

 

[Rational Poster]

Because no one should. But while people do, less people should.

Should doesn't exist in reality.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

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?

I'm pretty firmly of the belief that the evidence shows that nukes prevent wars. Obviously if one ever did start it'd be fucking catastrophic but it seems to do a good job of putting people off. There haven't been many more long eras of peace between the big world powers than since the first nukes were dropped.

 

[Goatenstein]

Any country with the capability should build an arsenal at this point.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm pretty firmly of the belief that the evidence shows that nukes prevent wars. Obviously if one ever did start it'd be fucking catastrophic but it seems to do a good job of putting people off. There haven't been many more long eras of peace between the big world powers than since the first nukes were dropped.

That’s a terrible position and shows your ignorance of nuclear arms.

It’s true no nuclear nation has been invaded. Neither had a NATO nation — because of nukes. You don’t need every NATO nation having nukes because they don’t have the infrastructure.

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

It’s why NK having Nukes and Iran having nukes is so terrifying.

Russias satellite infrastructure is terrifyingly bad. Pakistan too.

It’s not a good idea.

 

[650lb Sumo]

It’s true no nuclear nation has been invaded. Neither had a NATO nation — because of nukes.

Fascinating.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I can name the UK, Russia, India, Israel and Pakistan off the top of my head, so at least five. I anticipate someone saying the Falklands aren't the UK, which is true but a spurious objection.

Semantics: 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.

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.

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

The last attempt to invade Israel was the Yom Kippur War in '73. I don't think Israel even had the Samson Option at that point.

In short: your argument is invalid.

 

[Source]

Because no one should. But while people do, less people should.

Should they be responsible for their own security? Before you answer that remember one of the countries that gave up their nukes for security guarantees was invaded.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

That’s a terrible position and shows your ignorance of nuclear arms.

It’s true no nuclear nation has been invaded. Neither had a NATO nation — because of nukes. You don’t need every NATO nation having nukes because they don’t have the infrastructure.

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

It’s why NK having Nukes and Iran having nukes is so terrifying.

Russias satellite infrastructure is terrifyingly bad. Pakistan too.

It’s not a good idea.

I don't think you can justifiably worry about Germany not being able to have the correct infrastructure though.