afd still exists so no
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
206 points (97.2% liked)
Europe
5089 readers
1908 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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.
How else are we gonna get that sweet pu238 for our deep space drones?
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
We never stopped.
If you think those ones we have now are leftover from the 60s, you are in for a shock.
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
(24 replies)
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.
I've read estimates that, given the technology needed for production, a country like Japan could develop a functioning nuclear device within a month.
Pretty much any country that runs a sizable domestic nuclear programme can do that. The technology is well known enough to make all sorts of nuclear devices with relative ease. A gun type (Hiroshima style) nuclear weapon is very low tech. With enough disregard for (workplace) health and safety, a backyard foundry/machine shop could cobble one together, given they have enough (and pure enough) ^235^U. The biggest obstacle is procuring suitable fissile material in sufficient quantities.
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.
this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump,
*George W Bush (and Israel in general).
What does Israel have to do with the problem of non-nuclear NATO nations no longer being able to rely on the US' promise to defend them with their nukes?
Literally no-one mentioned NATO before you, no-one referred to US protection specifically. Respond to the actual discussion, not the one in your head.
This is an article about a potential German nuclear bomb. Germany is a NATO country which so far has been provided with US nukes within the framework of nuclear sharing. The only reason for the sudden ambitions for own nukes for Germany, but also eg Scandinavia, is directly linked to the apparent unreliability of Trump's US in terms of said nuclear sharing and hence especially a concern for non-nuclear NATO members.
Again, respond to the actual discussion, not the one in your head
-
You might want to work on your tone. Check rules 3 & 5.
-
This is the discussion you chose to chime in on:
Article titled: Is it Time for a German Nuclear Bomb?
User A: Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary
User B, citing 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.
To which you chose to add, citing this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump,:
*George W Bush (and Israel in general).
Given the topic of the article (Germany) and, as mentioned by User A, the currently emerging willingsness of everyone to break the Non Proliferation Treaty, I wonder where you see the connection to "George W Bush (and Israel in general)" rather than Trump's actions that without a doubt are the source for these considerations in a country such as Germany, which, again, is the topic of this article. Maybe you can elaborate it a bit more.
load more comments
(1 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)
Hoffentlich bauen die Schwaben nie eine Atombombe, weil irgendein Minischderpräsident würde sagen "Etz ham mer se bezahlt, etz werf mer se au ab".
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)
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.
Yeah, I'm sure France and the UK would love the idea....
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yes, if they want to be independent.
~~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)
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.
load more comments
(1 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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fucking obviously.
view more: next ›