posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
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
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.