Why hasn't Germany got nukes?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
To put it simply, they're not allowed to have nukes, period. All because they started WW2 and we don't want it to happen again. Meh, less nukes in the world is better anyway...




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Another point hasnt been mentioned so far. Germany for one has no means of delivering a nuclear warhead, maybe apart from specific Tornado versions. Creating a nuke would be a minor problem, given the overall technical niveau in Germany and considering its among-the-top nuclear technology. But a reliable delivery method like an ICBM or cruise missile cant be pulled out of a hat.

Apart from that, though the German military does not "suffer" from extremely strict regulations like the japanese forces, it is still defined to be a homeland security force, and only to be deployed abroad on internationally approved peacekeeping missions (approved by NATO, UN or EU - the real reason why Germany would not have been part of the Iraq coalition anyway).

Because of that, a nuke would not fit into the first rule of defending the motherland: There is virtually no single place in Germany that could be nuked without directly harming the population, because none of the "big" countries is as densely populated as Germany. So if a weapon disqualifies as a defensive instrument, it will not be developed.

And on another note: even in an emergency, even IF a threat like the former Soviet Union would stand at the borders, the citizens of Germany would not approve of a nuclear arms development. This country is so restricitve and hostile against all domestic forms of nuclear technology use that it is the only of the G8 countries that already decided on a timetable to withdraw from nuclear energy. Even radioactive Tritium night sights for weapons are forbidden there.

And Locutus, just because the American forces in Germany have Nuclear armament, that doesnt lead to "Germany having nukes" as you stated. The Allied military sites are property of the respective miltaries, and technically not part of Germany in a similar way like embassies. No US commander with a nuclear arsenal would ever let a German, Italian or Brit play around with US toys.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
All of the U.S. Army's nuclear weapons were dismantled and shipped out of Germany beginning in 1991, and ending in July 1992.

The propulsion unit for a nuke would not have to be necessarily of the missile type. There were many artillery fired nukes around, from the 1950's all the way to dismantlement in the early 1990's.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Point is: Do you really need nukes nowadays? I'd say 'no'



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I think this simplifies things slightly but because the Russians would murder them for developing them.


The Russians even today are incredibly paraniod regarding the Germans due to the 2WW.


Cheers


D



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Do they still think that German will come up with another attempt of ruling the world?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leon Bokhove
Point is: Do you really need nukes nowadays? I'd say 'no'


Funny thing is that many people who are into this matter consider a significantly stronger dearmament of nuclear weapons as more dangerous than the current state we live in. The reason is that with a reduced amount of destruction potential a nuclear war becomes winnable.



Originally posted by Leon Bokhove
Do they still think that German will come up with another attempt of ruling the world?


"Ruling the world" never was a reasonably thought of objective for WW2, and WW1 never was about ruling anyone either.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Well, I think that many nation in Europe would have the equipment needed to make a nuke... But the question is why...? Not how... What good would it make... We all know that nukes are used to terrify peoples, not to blow them up... And Germany have plenty of more ways to scare peoples... Believe me...



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Perhaps other EU countries and U.S are stopping Germany from developing?? No one want a World war 3 (WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE SKIES AND LARGE MUSHROOM SEEM FROM FAR). Two world war starts by Germany.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leon Bokhove
Point is: Do you really need nukes nowadays? I'd say 'no'


Id say yes other wise China would be the clear and dominate military power on the planet. They have the population to field a 200 million man army
Without nuclear weapons even if they were armed with sticks they would be able to swarm over any country connected by land means to China.

Believe me if any nuclear power US, Russia whatever was faced with such odds they would have to resort to nuclear weapons if they wanted to win.

Nukes are also the biggest factor as to why the Cold war didnt turn into WW3.If nukes werent in the equation their would have been many winnable scenarios for both sides over the decades. Throw in nukes though and both sides lose far more then they could ever gain from a war.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
This thread's still going?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
This Thread goes again because Fredng dug it out




Originally posted by Fredng
Perhaps other EU countries and U.S are stopping Germany from developing??


Germany joined the NPT and sticks to it on her own. Noone "stops" them from developing these weapons. On the contrary, for many years the US had nuclear weapons in Germany that would have also been given to Germany to use... Germany for example had bought ICBMs, later Starfighters from the US as a delivery method.


No one want a World war 3 (WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE SKIES AND LARGE MUSHROOM SEEM FROM FAR). Two world war starts by Germany.




Nukes are first and fore most a deterrent, not an "attack" weapon when you want to conquer something... and anyone who is afraid of Germany starting another war is a fool.

BTW, the Great War was started by Austria-Hungary, the 2nd WW technically was started by the Japanese attack on China.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
the 2nd WW was started by the Japanese attack on China.

That isn't true. World War II was started by an unprovoked German aggression against Poland, which resulted in death of 6 million Poles.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by Lonestar24
the 2nd WW technically was started by the Japanese attack on China.

That isn't true. World War II was started by an unprovoked German aggression against Poland, which resulted in death of 6 million Poles.


Zibi, quote me correctly or dont quote me at all! You deliberately erased a word that was important for the cohesion of my post.


The conventional view indeed is that the war started with the invasion of Poland... but this invasion was precursed by the Japanese invasion of China and the occupation and parting of Czechoslovakia.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
this invasion was precursed by the Japanese invasion of China

We are talking about WWII in Europe. WWII in Europe has been started by Germany, who has attacked Poland.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
There were many things that lead up to WWII. Among those were the conditions set forth at the end of WWI, The aggression of the east and the appeasement of the west. The invasion of Poland may have been the trigger, but there were many, many causes to that debacle.

Just my thoughts on the subject,

wupy



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I have read “Guns of August” which laid out the background of World War 1, but frankly, I have forgotten where and by who the first shot was fired, discounting the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke and his wife in Sarajevo. It is of some interest to me to wonder how the world might have been different if the United States had joined the Paris Peace Treaty conference and later, the League of Nations. The U.S. was not ready to engage in international affairs and especially in the intricacies of European diplomacy.

I’m sure everyone has heard World War 2 called the last battle of World War 1. Which is to say, the issues raised in the 1914-1918 debacle were not settled, but merely forestalled. We are still engaged in that aspect of WW1. See Iraq and Israel and the Occupied Territories. The Ottomans had learned how to rule a very large area with a very diverse population united (and divided) primarily by religion.

The Germans not only lost 3 million men of marriageable age in WW1, but the peace imposed on Germany worked so hard on them, that by the time of the Great Depression, democratic Germany was doomed. Aging President von Hindenburg had no concept of what was needed in the post-war era. By the time the quasi-gangsters later known as the Nazis came to prominence, economic times were desperate.

Unfortunately for the German people, Hitler outmaneuvered the fragmented democratic but socialist parties. Socialism was anathema to the industrialist of Germany (and Europe, America and etc.) Capitalism was frightened by the new Soviet Union and was willing to accept anything to preserve its position. I give the major credit to the initial success of the Nazis to the capitalist who “owned” Germany. The German people were about to take a second beating in the 20th century.

The lesson is how important leaders are. The people are all too often duped by those who have an excess of power and wealth. These very people are usually able to escape the penalties they so richly deserve. The German people as has most of Europe, decided

War No More!



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
There were many things that lead up to WWII. Among those were the conditions set forth at the end of WWI, The aggression of the east and the appeasement of the west.

Yes, however it is Germany who is to blame for all those atrocities. It's Germany who has broken the Versailles Treaty and has been threatening west. And it's Germany who has started WWII in Europe by invading Poland.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
there are nuke weapons in germany. have been for years. i know several people who used to be guards in the military, who used to guard the compounds where they were kept



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by mrwupy
There were many things that lead up to WWII. Among those were the conditions set forth at the end of WWI, The aggression of the east and the appeasement of the west.

Yes, however it is Germany who is to blame for all those atrocities. It's Germany who has broken the Versailles Treaty and has been threatening west. And it's Germany who has started WWII in Europe by invading Poland.


Thats a very simplistic view of the origins of the war. yes, the war began by the invasion of Poland, but there were many reasons that led to this eventuality.

Germany did have legitimate claims to some of the territories of Poland, Czechslovakia and Austria, as it lost them due to the Versailles Treaty. This treaty could be argued that it was unduely harsh on the Germans, blaming them for a war in which everyone of the Old Powers shared blame. Had the Treaty or the end of WW1 been less harsh on the Germans and been much like any other war prior to WW1, then WW2 would not have happened.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join