Submitted 5 months ago by sith@lemmy.zip to [deleted]
This comment section seems to assume that just because the cold war never went nuclear, it never could have. It also seems to forget the stress of living under constant threat of nuclear war.
We need to get rid of nukes, not build new ones. One of our core projects as humanity should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. Our failure to do so is the fault of the Americans as much as the Russians, if not more. You guys sure love your bombs.
So to answer the question: Nah, fuck that.
Thank you. It makes me lose hope for the future of humanity everytime I read comments saying we should remake the mistakes of our past. If we had nukes in 1914, the world would have ended because the Archduke of Austria was shot.
The Archduke of Australia, a title that doesn’t exist anymore, was the heir to rule Austria-Hungary, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. He was killed by a Bosnian because he didn’t like being a part of Austria-Hungary. Bosnia would later become a part of Yugoslavia, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. How many nukes would have been launched to save these meaningless titles and borders?
and this sounds like and Ace Combat Zero radio call
Well, my guess is that there wouldn’t have been a WW1 if nukes were present. Also, there wouldn’t have been a WW1 (as we know it) if pre-war leaders had known it would be a trench war of attrition. Though we probably would have had WW3 if nukes weren’t present.
By the logic of mad, those countries would still exist.
But what should one do if one has a neighbor who’s constantly threatens with nuclear annihilation and who doesn’t respect anyone who’s not also a nuclear power? I feel that we’re no longer in a Nash equilibrium.
Build up defence, and a plausible threat using other less awful weapons.
Nuclear threatens the civil population. Despots like Putin might not even care all that muscha about that. What we need is targeted weapons and intelligence. Putin should expect that, if he launches a nuke, might not mean that Moscow will be transformed to ashes, but we'll take out him and his cross-within targeted strikes wherever they may hide.
The Russians have a history of burning their cities to the ground, and of sacrificing their population for strategic reasons. Targeting the civilian population is pointless. We can do a lot better with targeted strikes, and with modern technology it should be possible.
Obama made this a goal of his second term, and while he achieved some success, the relationship between the west and the other major nuclear powers has significantly worsened since then.
It’s an admirable goal, but I’m not sure it’s going to be feasible any time in the near future.
If it ever goes nuclear, it doesn’t matter. You’re toast. So nukes keep aggressors like Russia, out of Ukraine (if they had not given up their nukes)
We already have nuclear participation with the US. In case NATO decides for mutual nuclear defense, the US nuclear bombs stored in Germany exclusively for German use would be attached to airplanes of the German Air Force to be deployed onto their targets.
And what if the orange man and his friend Putin differs?
There is still the Fr*nch sub’s that Macron just offered to be a shared EU resource.
Not sure what you mean by “for German use”. The US is very much in charge of every step of the use of shared nuclear weapons. Our pilots get to deliver them, that’s pretty much all of our involvment.
What if the USA decides to side with Russia against Germany?
well if the bombs are located inside Germany it’s not all that simple
That’s how I know you’re European. America hates Russia. The cold war left generational trauma.
You do not have to worry about America siding with Russia.
If Germany can’t use the bomb without the US approbation then Germany does not have a nuclear bomb.
Germany does not have a credible deterrence.
Absolutely.
There are two ways to make sure nuclear weapons are never used in war:
#1 is never going to happen. The US, Russia, and China are for sure never ever giving up their nuclear weapons.
So #2 it is, level the playing field and give everyone nuclear weapons. A nation is far less likely to use a nuclear weapon if they know they can and will get nuked back right away.
The MAD doctrine aims to make the intentional use of nukes in war unworkable, but in doing so makes their accidental use due to mishap, misunderstanding or miscommunication much more likely, and the more people that are party to the MAD doctrine the more likely accidents are.
You don’t need to look very hard to find examples of cases where billions of people would have been killed if not for people choosing to ignore doctrine even when the information they had at hand said that they should use their weapons
New MAD doctrine: all belligerents in any international conflict gets nuked. Thank you coming to my ted talk, I have a proof but it is too large to fit in the comments.
2 only works with countries that have something to lose. Don’t assume that a deterrence strategy that works with other major powers is going to work with some small, hellish Islamist dictatorship.
I don’t really want the taliban having nukes…
They probably won’t build them.
No.
Why not? This is contingent on the US being an unreliable nuclear umbrella… And Germany deciding they will be part of the EU’s nuclear deterrence.
I don’t like the idea being part of a country that could kill thousands or even millions of people at once.
See the response of @cabbage.
Any country that doesn’t want to be invaded should acquire nuclear weapons.
We need guillotines, not nukes.
“Our” leaders start wars, and the common people suffer. We are never asked if they want that shit, but are forced to participate and kill or be killed. Fuck that. Fuck those leaders. Let’s united against bad leaders and off with their heads!
Don’t discount the amount of common people that are totally onboard with killing everyone in another tribe. There have been plenty of times when leaders are the only reason diplomacy happens in the face of a bloodthirsty population, though certainly more common that war happens because leaders channel the energy of that bloodthirst as it is easier and the benefits (to themselves first, their tribe second) are thought to outweigh the risks. Look through history and you’ll see enough instances of leaders trying to keep the peace only to be killed by their bloodthirsty population and replaced by someone who will act.
I wish we could all just get along, but so far the only effective deterrent in all of history has been the threat of destruction, either by a sufficiently powerful peace mongering leader, or MAD that nuclear weapons established. I suspect the next change in this dynamic, if MAD holds true, is some real AI that takes the reigns. It would be hard to rule break if we had an omniscient leader that could kill you within seconds.
Yes, and lots of them. Cold war is much better than actual war.
You don’t need many nowadays. They can be city killers all by themselves… a single satan 2 missile Russia is so desperate to get working would be able to wipe new York of the map…
It would additionally require a few subs for second strike capability.
I don’t think anyone should have nukes. Not even my country.
Any country can become such, but as you’ve said yourself - everyone having nukes is more realistic than nobody having nukes, and the “mass destruction” part can even have upsides.
Sadly, we are now at at point where nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent against Russia. Ukraine surrendered the ones they had and we’re living the side effects.
I guess the question would be connected with how europe is going to handle its combined military defense.
No, it’s illegal. We cannot do this because it’s illegal is I think the most German of answers.
„Die Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik bekräftigen ihren Verzicht auf Herstellung und Besitz von und auf Verfügungsgewalt über atomare, biologische und chemische Waffen. Sie erklären, daß auch das vereinte Deutschland sich an diese Verpflichtungen halten wird. Insbesondere gelten die Rechte und Verpflichtungen aus dem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen vom 1. Juli 1968 für das vereinte Deutschland fort.“
Well, then just change the question. Should it be legal?
Who the fuck is going to invade Germany?
Denmark. First they build the world with lego, than they take it.
One should never trust the Danes.
Russia.
They did it once, they could do it again.
One does not have to invade. One could just take the country hostage. Make them a puppet.
Wouldn’t work. Germans long for death at every point. Ever watch Dark?
It should, but that’s only one level.
First Germany should build a competent armed force which will participate in all the ongoing wars on the globe to gain experience.
(I’m not a German citizen nor I intend to become one.)
It’s a common misconception that using peaceful means is always more moral than fighting a colonial war.
One can imagine a simple experiment. Country A conquers country B and brutalizes country C. Would it be more moral for Germany to peacefully trade (including military goods\technologies) with country A or to use said armed force to get a piece of country B? Country B suffers in both cases, but in the latter case Germany doesn’t finance the aggressor, and also presents some competition and can make life in parts of B controlled by it better. It can also offer military help to C for some preferential treatment.
Ah, also country A already has such a fighting force, all bullies already do. A military has to fight wars to remain competent. So there’s no vegetarian way to defend from influence of bullies. And there’s no neutral way as well - either you are a bully or you actively fight bullies. Maybe both. If you are neither, then you become weaker with time, and thus simply part of supply chain for bullies. Also neutrality always helps bullies and never the victim, that’s Eli Wiesel quote, if someone didn’t know.
Good timing. youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
ValiantDust@feddit.org 5 months ago
There are far right extremists on the rise in Germany as well. The question you should ask yourself is: Do you want to risk an AfD-lead, Putin-loving, Euro- and NATO-critic government being in control of those nuclear weapons?
superkret@feddit.org 5 months ago
Starting next year, a Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government will be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
sith@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Fair point.