Hoffentlich bauen die Schwaben nie eine Atombombe, weil irgendein Minischderpräsident würde sagen "Etz ham mer se bezahlt, etz werf mer se au ab".
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
202 points (97.6% liked)
Europe
4740 readers
1554 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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 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...
Yep. I'm really hoping we can build on the nuclear arsenals the non-US West has going already, though.
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.
I must have missed that back then. Thank you for the context.
For sure, it wasn't super widely reported at the time. Nuclear weapons and foreign policy just happen to be "special interests" for me so I tend to follow things like that.
load more comments
(2 replies)
How else are we gonna get that sweet pu238 for our deep space drones?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes. The Budapest memo and the US strategic backflip has proved non nuclear powers are deeply at risk.
load more comments
(22 replies)
The war's been over for a while and they seem to have turned into decent people, but if you think it'll help... 🤷♂️
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.
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.
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)
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s 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.
load more comments
(7 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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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)
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
The obvious answer is to partner with the UK or France and do it in the middle of fucking nowhere, south Atlantic or South Indian Ocean.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 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.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
~~AfD sagt "geil", aber wenn wir ehrlich sind sieht es in den anderen Ländern, unter deren nuklearen Schutzschirm wir uns stellen könnten, 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 für defensive Zwecke das sieht gut aus. Aber wenn Lepen oder ihr Hundchen wird Präsident sein, dann tickt das Doomsdayclock noch einmal für alle...
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes, if they want to be independent.
Guys, have a kid, buy a house. Smile on your faces. Everything is going to be good.
You need to feel like you have something for them to be able to rip it away.
Fucking obviously.
view more: next ›