Right Thinking From The Left Coast
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it - Henry David Thoreau

Nuklear Deutschland
by Lee

Oh yeah, when we’re dealing with preventing Iran from getting a nuke, this is exactly what we need to be dealing with right now.

Germany may need to build its own nuclear weapons to counter the threat of nuclear bombs falling into the hands of a terrorist state, a former German defence minister said Thursday.

“We need a serious discussion over how we can react to a nuclear threat by a terrorist state in an appropriate manner - and in extreme cases with our own nuclear weapons,” said Rupert Scholz who served as defence minister from 1988 to 1989.

Germany does not have nuclear weapons and Scholz admitted in a Bild newspaper interview that his remarks were breaking what is widely seen as a national taboo.

Scholz - who is a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) - said Berlin should first try to get binding guarantees from the NATO alliance that it would protect Germany in case nuclear threats were directed at the country.

But he insisted if such guarantees were not spelled out in a formal NATO doctrine, then Germany needed to ponder building its own nuclear deterrence system.

Such a move would clearly violate the 2+4 Treaty which paved the way for Germany’s 1990 reunification by formally ending post-World War II occupation rights in the country for the US, the former USSR, Britain and France.

Under article three of the Treaty, Germany renounces “the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.”

Rainer Stinner, a member of the opposition Free Democrats (FDP) in parliament, sharply criticized calls for German nuclear weapons.

“If we start questioning international treaties, what right do we have to demand that others adhere to them?” said Stinner, adding, “Germany’s security would be reduced - not increased - through the possession of nuclear weapons.”

Exactly right.  It’s pretty hard to go to Iran and say “You can’t have nukes” at the same time that the fucking Germans are saying, “Well, fuck this treaty, we need nukes.” And these are our allies?  Listen, Germany, none of us are going to sit back and let anything happen to you.  You just leave the big guns with the people who know how to use them responsibly, okay?

Posted by Lee on 01/31/06 at 09:24 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 01/31/06 at 10:50 AM from United States

They seriously think we would just let them come under attack? No way. Better to protect Germany than let them re-arm themselves. Sorry guys but you’ve had a bad track record there.

Posted by Nethicus on 01/31/06 at 10:54 AM from United States

How would having nukes deter some terrorist from detonating a briefcase nuke in Hamburg?  Who are you going to nuke in retaliation?  Tehran?  Islamabad?  Mecca?  Detroit?

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 12:01 PM from United States

What is wrong with these idiots? They’ve had the past year to help disarm Iran, but now its too late and they realize “oh crap, they may hurt us!”. I hate to say it, but our own Secretary of State needs to start getting some results soon instead of just telling us how bad everything is. We need superpowerful diplomats if we want to be a superpower.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 12:31 PM from United Kingdom

This is jut the start, Japan has made some noises about wanting them. With North Korea and China on your doorstep, I would as well.

Posted by InsipiD on 01/31/06 at 01:25 PM from United States

”...once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn’t happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
and they’ve hardly bothered us since then....
M-L-F
Will scare Brezhnev
I hope he is half as scared as I.” --Tom Lehrer

That aside, I would rather Germany have them than for Iran to pop one on them because they don’t.

Posted by Mister Minit on 01/31/06 at 01:34 PM from United Kingdom

It’s pretty hard to go to Iran and say “You can’t have nukes” at the same time that the fucking Germans are saying, “Well, fuck this treaty, we need nukes.”

Can’t that same criticism apply to the American militry and their development of “usable” nuclear weapons?

Posted by mikeguas on 01/31/06 at 02:18 PM from United States

Can’t that same criticism apply to the American militry and their development of “usable” nuclear weapons?

No, because the US is the superior force of this universe. The sooner Euros figure that out the better. Seriously though, this is the end result of arms proliferation. I don’t have a problem with Germany thinking this may be the way to go with an emerging threat at their door. I don’t think France was wrong for reiterating that they have the nuclear option a few weeks ago, in response to Iran. I do think it is disingenuous, however, when these two countries like to slam the US when we make such statements. Hypocrisy isn’t just an American product, no matter what the rest of the world might think.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 02:36 PM from United States

Can’t that same criticism apply to the American militry

That ship has sailed. We developed them first and have had them for a long time. It’s not the same argument as the one against a terror nation or even an ally developing them where they currently don’t exist.

It would be better if no one had them but that’s just not realistic. It’s a private club and we’re not taking any new members.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:20 PM from Canada

It would be better if no one had them but that’s just not realistic.

I don’t know why it’s not realistic.  It’s not like you are keeping the soviets in check anymore.  If Russian and the US were to reduce their warheads to only a few or no operational nukes, that could be useful and make it easier to track the materials.  That way you would know that it’s not Russion or US nukes in terrorists hands.  If a terrorist state does develope and use nukes in an attack, you most likely won’t respond with nukes anyway.  No military can stand up to a conventional attack from the US anyway.  Having nukes doesn’t really give the US an advanatage.  Also, keep up research on a ballistic defense shield.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 05:29 PM from United States

I don’t know why it’s not realistic.

Well, the cat’s out of the bag. Politicians don’t like to give up power. Some form of terrorist threat will most likely always exist. Countries will keep secret arsenals. Someone will always be making a case for keeping them in the US.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/31/06 at 07:06 PM from United States

If Russian and the US were to reduce their warheads to only a few or no operational nukes, that could be useful and make it easier to track the materials.

Making China and India the nuclear superpowers of the globe? The nations with the highest population pressure on the planet, combining to comprise almost half the planet?

Throw in the fact that every single war on the planet was because of population pressure (though you have to dig deep sometimes to find it).

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 03:56 AM from Europe

Throw in the fact that every single war on the planet was because of population pressure (though you have to dig deep sometimes to find it).

I don’t know Drum, I don’t think the Argies wanted the Falklands because they were short of lebensraum…

Posted by HARLEY on 02/01/06 at 05:55 AM from United States

no, they just wanted to show their balls off to the world, and the brit waltzed by and kicked them hard....

I do hav a theory on how the Argies could have won.....

It would require them building a few Q-ships Armed Win exocets, and putting them in the general path of the brit fleet. Damaging or sinking a flattop and a few support ships would fuck up the whole brit operation.
Add to this a airstriike fromthe Arg carried and shore base assets, even if the argies lost them, the bammage would cerntly cripple any british operation…
but that is just a theory..

Posted by HARLEY on 02/01/06 at 05:59 AM from United States

P.S. Krauts with nukes, hooking up with Frogs with nukes and in a socilist body called the EU,not a good idea.... concidering that track record they have.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 08:42 PM from United States

Who are you going to nuke in retaliation?  Tehran?  Islamabad?  Mecca?  Detroit?

Yes.

Next entry: Here Come De Justice

Previous entry: More Pictures

<< Back to main