It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why hasn't Germany got nukes?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
[Thats intersting, I hadnt' realized that it required that much electricity!


The centrafuges required tons of it. One forgets though that Germany had acess to the worlds bigest supply of heavy water till the British took it out. They might not have needed as much electricty as the US did




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
LoL !!
It's always a blast to see how unbelievable arrogant some americans are ......
as a matter of fact, if it wouldn't have been fore Einstein(oh a german ...)
u would have never knew about the attempts to build a nucleaer bomb and u would never have built the first one.


So pls don't u dare tell me germany isn't capable of building some if needed.
Why we don't have them now ?
Why should we ??? It's a waste.
Everybody is reducing their stock pile .
We are not hillbilliies who need to compensate something with nukes ;-)
As a matter of fact Germany is one of the countrys who uses nuclear technology the wisest.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phate87
LoL !!
It's always a blast to see how unbelievable arrogant some americans are ......
as a matter of fact, if it wouldn't have been fore Einstein(oh a german ...)
u would have never knew about the attempts to build a nucleaer bomb and u would never have built the first one.

Apparently, your own arrogance has forgotten to include Niels Bohr, Ernest O. Lawrence, Ernest Rutherford, huh?





seekerof



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Hmm u might wanna read my text carefull
i'll give u a hint , read the word choice carefully in your quote of me

No Einstein --> no letter to the president --> no knowledge of the attempts of the Nazis to build a nuclear bomb --> ur Atomicbomb project wouldn't have started to cranck it up or even start( i'm not sure if there already was a project to build an a-bomb but it definitly would have taken u longer than the germans)

therefore my point is proven.

All that is backuped by an american 2 World Wars teacher ;-)



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phate87
Hmm u might wanna read my text carefull
i'll give u a hint , read the word choice carefully in your quote of me


oh boy
here goes .



No Einstein --> no letter to the president --> no knowledge of the attempts of the Nazis to build a nuclear bomb -->


you are making the error of assuming that einstein was the only sorce of intel regarding german A-bomb development , and the sole instigator for american interest in this feild , neither are true

it is true that einsein wrote the 1939 letter , but only after consultation with others -- he had the help and support of numerous other scientists

and without einstein , another would have been pushed forward as spokesperson

the brittish were monitoring the german devoplments in neuclear physics too you know -- and developed the " tube alloys " project , independantly of both US and german



ur Atomicbomb project wouldn't have started to cranck it up or even start()


aigain , false , you assume that no einstein = no bomb . nothing could be further from the truth . the world DOES NOT revolve around einstien .

never has either -- even e= mc^2 was independantly concluded by a italian physicist

there is even a logical falacy for you line of reasoning , namely :

A was directly responsible for B occuring
thus with out A , B would never have occured

it may be in your interest to look this up , as an exercise in thinking



i'm not sure if there already was a project to build an a-bomb but it definitly would have taken u longer than the germans)


now you are hand waving ,

#1 - even without ANY american bomb project - the abilities of the NAZIs to produce thier own bomb was fatally flawed

thier rejection of " jewish physics "

thier flawed results from graphite moderator experiments [ contaminated samples ]

thier reliance on heavy water from an occupied sattalite

the appapling missmanagement of resources

the attrittion of allied bombing

etc etc etc


#2 you are assuming the germans woukd succeed -- and history tells us they did not

please stop to consider what the effect of no manhattan proiject would have been on the conventional war effort -- it is possible that the money , materials and man power could have been re directed i to other areas which would have had a real impact on germany and the axis powers [ as it was manhattan did nothing for the war in eiroope ( ecxept create security headaches ) ]




therefore my point is proven.


only in your own mind




All that is backuped by an american 2 World Wars teacher ;-)


yeah dawgs
IF your teacher supports that line of thinking -- it says a lot about the state of education in your country



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
From what I understand, Einstein urged the president to take nuke weapons into consideration, he didn't come up with the idea. Also notice that einstein wasn't part of the manhattan project. The general idea of taking the incredible energies contained within the atom and releaseing them by splitting it, it was something that every phsyicist at the time would've though about, no?

Here is a recent article about the nazi bomb
physicsweb.org...

Preventing NAZI A-Bombs "McNair Paper Number 41, Radical Responses to Radical Regimes: Evaluating Preemptive Counter-Proliferation, May 1995 "


[edit on 3-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
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.


If You would read my first post, You would get that I wrote storing for the states.....Roger ?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Probably because, 60 years later, still no one trusts Germany to possess nukes.

EU or no, Im pretty certain that 90% of Europe would pbject to the idea.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Infact an Servian assasinnation (paid by by russia) of the Austrian Crownprince lead to WWI Germany had an alliance with Austria so they had to help them.
Only because the English,France and Us won the war the Germans looked like the aggressor.

YES, it is a fact that WWII was started by hitler Germany but would there have been a WWII without a WWI?
I'm Dutch btw.
I'm a proud European Citizien we need peace not war you stupid ***** talking about war and mistrust makes me sick. I hope you Americans and Russians joke in all your nukes the hell with same we have special weapons u don't know about Germany need no nukes cuz france has them.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
Germany is more than capable of developing nuclear weapons so why havn't they got any yet? Even South Africa has developed them.


Hmm good question....

Well Let's see. Oh yeah they started two worlds wars within three decades... I think its more a matter of big brother saying "no you CAN'T have those".

Well that and they lease US nukes Germanys has them but the US controls them.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Madman

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
Germany is more than capable of developing nuclear weapons so why havn't they got any yet? Even South Africa has developed them.


Hmm good question....

Well Let's see. Oh yeah they started two worlds wars within three decades... I think its more a matter of big brother saying "no you CAN'T have those".


No it isnt. It was a political decision by Germany itself not to develop an own nuclear capability. Yes, this decision was made to ease french resistance (not the "Big Brother´s" resistance ) against german sovereignity and adoption into NATO in the course of the Paris Treaties of 1955. At several points in younger history Germany was on the verve to a decision to develop its own nuclear potential (also because it became apparent that NATO wasnt capable to field the planned 96 divisions in the case of a Soviet attack), but this was rejected by the W. German politicians themselves. Thats not to say that the Allies would not have rejected it (USA might not have opposed it at all judging from the US--German nuclear cooperation), but still it never came to this question because all these nuclear asperations were already stopped domestically.

Nowadays Germany arguably could develop a nuclear potential without a say of the former Occupation powers because Germany reached full sovereignity again following the "2+4 Treaties" that set the legal framework of the german Reunification.

Anyway, the NATO strategy papers MC48 and MC14/2 were very reliant on the then-nuclear dominance of the West, but already in 1962 McNamara was aware that the Soviets were closing that gap, and that nuclear arms spiral had to be regulated. This subsequently led to the French withdrawing from NATO as active force, and in 1968 spawned the nuclear NPT which was almost immediately signed by Germany - a treaty that Germany stuck to.

So in short, there never was a direct and official rule by the West that would have forbidden sovereign Germany to develop nuclear arms. Nowadays the question is only theoretical one. The use of domestic tactical atomic weapons would never be accepted because they don´t exactly act as a defensive tool. Strategic nuclear weapons as a deterrent can only be used from dedicated delivery methods like large bombers, ICBMs or nuclear powered ballistic submarines. All these don´t exist in the Bundeswehr and the german parliament would never ratify their development/procurement. And as I said, the nukes themselves would breach the NPT.


Well that and they lease US nukes Germanys has them but the US controls them.


No they aren´t "leased". They are stationed under the offiicial NATO "Nuclear sharing" program. And yes, the US controls them and their codes in peacetime, but they were specifically and officially intended to be given to german control and use in case of war.

Anyway this time is nearing its end "through the back door". Though neither Germany nor the USA seem to be willing to make the first step to dismantle the remaining arsenl of ~500 weapons, their time WILL end when Germany phases out the Panavia Tornados. These planes are the last modern nuclear delivery system Germany has, since the Typhoon has no nuclear capability.

[edit on 26/6/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
American Madman
How hard is it to understand that Germany didn't start WW1 it only stepped in because of a treaty with Austro-Hungarians.

They did start WW2, but Soviets weren't too innocent on that too, if you've ever heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal... and the '39 winter war etc.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24



Well that and they lease US nukes Germanys has them but the US controls them.


No they aren´t "leased". They are stationed under the offiicial NATO "Nuclear sharing" program. And yes, the US controls them and their codes in peacetime, but they were specifically and officially intended to be given to german control and use in case of war.

Anyway this time is nearing its end "through the back door". Though neither Germany nor the USA seem to be willing to make the first step to dismantle the remaining arsenl of ~500 weapons, their time WILL end when Germany phases out the Panavia Tornados. These planes are the last modern nuclear delivery system Germany has, since the Typhoon has no nuclear capability.


i was under the impression that this ordinance were not nuclear bombs/weapons
but were termed 'atomic demolitions'
and they were housed in 'conex-containers'
which made the delivery method either a 'Duce-&-1/2' truck or another US or German military vehicle...i.e. aircraft or missiles were never figured to be delivery systems for those NATO sponsered atomic demolition munitions in W.Germany

i would be floored if this program still existed in any form,
especially after many of the former east european soviet bloc has joined the EU and even NATO...and the threat of overwhelming soviet attack doesn't exist now.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

i was under the impression that this ordinance were not nuclear bombs/weapons
but were termed 'atomic demolitions'
and they were housed in 'conex-containers'
which made the delivery method either a 'Duce-&-1/2' truck or another US or German military vehicle...i.e. aircraft or missiles were never figured to be delivery systems for those NATO sponsered atomic demolition munitions in W.Germany

i would be floored if this program still existed in any form,
especially after many of the former east european soviet bloc has joined the EU and even NATO...and the threat of overwhelming soviet attack doesn't exist now.



Muhaha... HELL NO


Don´t get me wrong, I appreciate that you are aware of the US-German nuclear coop, since not many nowadays realise how deep this relationshp actually was (and is), andwhyit was such an exceptional same that the "Bush the Younger" government chose o pretty much kill a lot of this trust with ther reent unilateralism and their downright insults.

Yes, Germany/the US Forces in Germany had atomic demolitions, even something that can be described as "nuclear landmines"... but even more important, there were hundreds of nuclear freefall bombs - Germany at one point chose to buy that widow maker F-104 Starfighter over the superior Mirage III, specifically because the F-104 could carry these bombs and the Mirage couldnt (ok, there was also some bribery by Lockheed inolved...). The largest of these weapons allegedly had a yield of more than 1 megaton TNT equivalent. To this day there at least a few dozen B-61 nukes stationed at the Tornado JaBo33 squadron in Büchel - btw a highly praised andexceptionally abe squadron at that..

And there was even more... the Bundeswehr had nuclear capable surface launched short-range cruise missiles, and - quite officially - also Pershing 1 and 1A ballistic missiles. The warheads for all these were readily available in at least 4 storage facilities. By the sheer numbers, Germany probably had the largest nuclear stockpile in Europe, more than France and the UK. And these were only the nukes intended for use by Germans!

For further reading search for "NATO nuclear weapons sharing" or follow this link for a detailed analysis

[edit on 26/6/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
American Madman
How hard is it to understand that Germany didn't start WW1 it only stepped in because of a treaty with Austro-Hungarians.


Darn no sense of humor what so ever.

Yeah I know Arch duke ferdinand. I know the history...



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phate87
Hmm u might wanna read my text carefull
i'll give u a hint , read the word choice carefully in your quote of me

No Einstein --> no letter to the president --> no knowledge of the attempts of the Nazis to build a nuclear bomb --> ur Atomicbomb project wouldn't have started to cranck it up or even start( i'm not sure if there already was a project to build an a-bomb but it definitly would have taken u longer than the germans)

therefore my point is proven.

All that is backuped by an american 2 World Wars teacher ;-)




Einstein was just used for his famous name in this regard. He by himself had no plans to write FDR a letter at that time he didnt even realize the possibility of a Atomic chain reaction nor know anything about Germany trying to make one.

Physicists Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner realized this and had the first concern Germany could develop such a weapon. They however had no influence with those in power. So in July 1939 they explained the problem to someone who did: Albert Einstein. According to Szilard, Einstein said the possibility of a chain reaction "never occurred to me", although Einstein was quick to understand the concept

Even Einstein's biographer Ronald Clark has stated that the atomic bomb would have been invented without Einstein's letters, but that without the early U.S. work that resulted from the letters, they might not have had them in time to bomb Japan.

Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner are the real people that started off the US atmoic program.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
anyhow, you see Germany is a great country and if it wanted can go on a worl d domination campaign again, so the Allies after WWII decided to limit it's army along with Japan, and now it has limits on military spending and military build-up, etc.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
germany didn't necessarily want WWII, hitler didn't want the US in the war and dind't want even France and the british to go into this. Hitler had his eyes set to the east, on russia, he wanted to attack russia and capture but first he needed to copperate with the soviets to gain control of the Balcans and eastern europe before he could attack russai itself. but as Britain adn France saw Germany growing in power, they saw that theyre risking Europe falling out of there hands and world slipping out of there hands too, so they stepped in as the peacekeepers adn went to war with Germany. so if you look at it, the British, French, and partly the Americans weren't inncoent either, they are 50% to blame for the war, the soviets a mere 10%, and Germany can be blamed for only 40%. so as you can see nobody in that war was innocent, and please don't give me the stupid, dumba**, brain dead, unwise, and uneducated American thought of "Hitler caused WWII, Germany Caused WWII" taht's simply the most uneducated thing i ever heard.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Did the French attack Germany? Did the Brits encourage the "Osterweiterung"? Did the Americans ask the Germans to team up with the Italy and China? Sorry, but your "guilt percentages" are way off the mark. It was Germany that started hostilities. It were Germans that elected the NSDAP. It was Germany that attacked France and the SU. It has no bearing in this that neither did Hitler want a World War nor did he want the ominous "World Domination".

Anyway, this has little relevance on the topic of why Germany doesnt have nukes. I have outlined the political reasons why it is like that in this previous post.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
ok dawg, first go read your history books, china was on the allied side, or rather it was being attacked by Japan, and japan was the one that sided with Hitler, you obviously have the all american ideology, and that ideology is stupid and dumb. look now please the French and the British were the ones who declared war, no Germany, and germany didn't want war with the brits or the french!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join