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.

 

German Rearmament

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I believe Germany should go Nuclear. If so, what systems would be viable for ICBMs, Bombers, SLBMs, and the BMD in the Russian fashion (nuclear warheads on long ranged SAMs).




posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I believe Germany should go Nuclear.


Why do you believe Germany should go nuclear?

Regards



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I believe Germany should go Nuclear.


Why do you believe Germany should go nuclear?

Regards


Mainly its more practical in today's world that a strong Germany allied with the anglican world guard against Russia and the Middle East if not China and etc.

That and I'm German and tired of that degrading society.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Anglican World Guard? Sounds cool.... What is it?

Also, how do you propose Germany could afford a Nuclear detterent when your economy is floundering, you have high unemployment and your budget deficits are so high?

Heck, we in the UK are cutting ours and it's still going to cost £25 Billion squids, that's $37,274,423,242 of your Euro's.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Anglican World Guard? Sounds cool.... What is it?

Also, how do you propose Germany could afford a Nuclear detterent when your economy is floundering, you have high unemployment and your budget deficits are so high?

Heck, we in the UK are cutting ours and it's still going to cost £25 Billion squids, that's $37,274,423,242 of your Euro's.


The nature of this post is less the policy and more the technology - for instance what to do for the BMD such as what Russia has done or should a non-nuclear BMD be developed?

As for affordation? $10 billion a year should cover build-up and maintanence and I hate to say it but if there weren't so many turks in the country unemployment would not be so high.

And finally how can Germany NOT afford a Nuclear weapons program when Russia has approximately 1/10th the economy of Germany?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I hate to say it but if there weren't so many turks in the country unemployment would not be so high.


Oh, now it's time to blame the Turks.
When does the ethnic cleansing start ?

I think the world should be trying to get rid of the nukes, not spending the peoples tax dollars to build more.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
yeah..
this thread is getting weirder and weirder by the post..
What's the agenda?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Well said anxietydisorder. This sort of strikes a distant cord in my memoury.

Unemployment rising, economy stagnant with rising inflation,
immigration from former Soviet States out of control, crime on the increase and Germans having the need to blame somebody for their misfortunes.

This was the situation that allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power in a bloodless coup and eventually become Reichsfuhrer.

A reunified Germany is one thing. A rearmed Germany needing room to expand. Well - that's what happened in 1937-45.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I think WW II is still too fresh in the minds of living history for Germany to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.
Being an integral part of the EU they really don't have any concerns about defending their country.

I looked at a few other threads by Stratrf_Rus and wonder if there is an agenda.

If he feels economically disenfranchised that's fine, I welcome his point of view. I just hope it won't go in the direction of pointing out a single geographical group of immigrants like blaming the Turks as the basis of all their problems.

Germany has people from all over the world like every other country, and most of these people are contributing members of their society. It's the racial strife that will destroy the country, we've seen it before.
Let's just hope we don't see it again.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
During the Cold War I believe many German units were trained and equipped to deploy US nuclear weapons if Warsaw Pact armor started rolling through the Fulda Gap - meaning West Germany was a defacto nuclear power already.

I'm fairly certain this is no longer the case though.

They are not the only European power that would have had US nukes at their disposal - I seem to recall an Italian Cold War CG was actually equipped with four Polaris launch tubes - the only surface vessel to have ever been so equipped. I do not believe the missles were ever actually loaded out however.

[edit on 12/21/06 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I don't think the U.S. ever put nuclear weapons under German control, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, Germany is going to have to rearm, since the U.S. plans to pull out of most of our bases there. But I think they should focus on conventional arms rather than nuclear. The EU members UK and France already have nuclear weapons and most likely would return any nuclear attack on Germany as would the U.S. It's more important to maintain security from tanks and infantry coming over the border from Russia.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yeah there is no need for nuclear weapons to rearm the German military. Though such a rearming will always give me the creeps, seeing the Iron cross on Fighter jets is just too damn eerie.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I don't think the U.S. ever put nuclear weapons under German control, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, Germany is going to have to rearm, since the U.S. plans to pull out of most of our bases there. But I think they should focus on conventional arms rather than nuclear. The EU members UK and France already have nuclear weapons and most likely would return any nuclear attack on Germany as would the U.S. It's more important to maintain security from tanks and infantry coming over the border from Russia.


Germany already has a large standing Army, with some good kit. Granted, it is made up of National Servicemen, but they certainly don't need to "re-arm" as they already are.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Yeah there is no need for nuclear weapons to rearm the German military. Though such a rearming will always give me the creeps, seeing the Iron cross on Fighter jets is just too damn eerie.


The Iron Cross was not a Nazi symbol. It's a hang over from the days of Prussia. Iron Crosses have been awarded to germans for a very long time prior to the 2nd WW.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Very true Stu M, it most certainly was.

It may also come as a shock to many, but the Swastika was originally a Jewish symbol, bastardized by the Nazis - to rub salt in to the wound, as it were - by turning it on it's side and also by reversing it.

As to Germans having control of or over US nuclear missiles, sorry, no. Never.

Having been on many, many exercises in Germany with US forces, I remember once being attached to Marines [?] or soldiers of some type of rocket force.

They were equipped with M113 carriers with a Lance[ing?] or Pershing [?] battlefield nuclear missile.

Some artillery troops also had long range 155 or 175 mm tracked self propelled howitzers that were capable of firing rocket assisted shells. These too were nuclear.

Having said that, I have never seen them - the shells, I mean! Knew they existed though.

As to the Germans allowing or tolerating the use of NBC weapons on their soil, I do believe that was a very big NO, NO!



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Hmm I will have to look up the nukes thing.

I am fairly certian I remember reading that German F-104G's were nuclear-capable, and to be armed with nuclear free-fall bombs in case of a Warsaw Pact invasion.

Were they given the arming codes to be used at their own discretion?
I doubt it.

But NATO policy was to go nuclear in case of invasion from the East, to counter the Warsaw Pact's massive numerical advantages.

Which is why the US never adopted a no-first-use nukes policy.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
During the Cold War I believe many German units were trained and equipped to deploy US nuclear weapons if Warsaw Pact armor started rolling through the Fulda Gap - meaning West Germany was a defacto nuclear power already.


This was what was known as a dual-key agreement. The US controlled the warheads but the Germans controlled the delivery systems. So the weapons could only be used if both countries agreed.
Primary delivery sytems back in the cold war were GLCM's and the Pershing MRBM.


ape

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
germany is going to have to become a nuclear detterant for any kind of foreign agression to the EU, remember everyone here thinks the EU currency and the EU will overtake america for the rest of this century so I would think they need to be prepared to protect it's investments and interests along with its new allies who are going to depend on them for economic growth etc. by depending on them I mean them remaining a stable bloc with a strong economy etc, well this all comes by projecting force and economic influence and not everyone in the world is nice and interested in your interests, you also have rising islamic radicalism growing in europe this alone could prove to be disasterous.

i also think it's funny how EU countries dont even trust each other to this day even after the formation of a union, they cant agree to a constitution and here you got a bunch of brits making fun of a fellow member countrys economy and unemployment, well I would think the EU would be united in such instead of totally drawing the lines between countries anymore. =[ I would also think germanys interests would be the Uk's aswell. to many differences and interests and distrust in this bloc for it to remain stable, they are also many passive countries who would not be willing to project power to protect interests. the EU has alot to prove it's still new sauce.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
germany is going to have to become a nuclear detterant for any kind of foreign agression to the EU, remember everyone here thinks the EU currency and the EU will overtake america for the rest of this century so I would think they need to be prepared to protect it's investments and interests along with its new allies who are going to depend on them for economic growth etc. by depending on them I mean them remaining a stable bloc with a strong economy etc, well this all comes by projecting force and economic influence and not everyone in the world is nice and interested in your interests, you also have rising islamic radicalism growing in europe this alone could prove to be disasterous.


You know, you don't have to go around blowing stuff up and slaughtering civilians to maintain power. The most successful empires in history, whilst having military power, survived by integrating locals and empowering them.

The British took India, mostly by setting the Indians upon themselves. In fact, we just sent a corporation over there to manage the takeover with a relatively small amount of soldiers.

You do not need 15 CBG to stay on the top unless your paranoid someone is going to attack you. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, no one will attack you if you don't go round pretending you run the whole damn planet. That is something the EU does not do and we arguably have more diplomatic clout in the international arena than the US ever has.

People actually are prepared to talk to EU countries, whereas they do not see the point with the US, as it's either their way or the highway as far as you guys are concerned.


Originally posted by ape
i also think it's funny how EU countries dont even trust each other to this day even after the formation of a union, they cant agree to a constitution


You seem to misunderstand what the "constitution" was, not surprising, as you demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding about the EU in general.

It wasn't some dodgy bit of nostalgic nonsense for all the school kids to memorise. It was over 300 pages worth of various different legal farmeworks.

The fact it was put to the vote is laughable, as most didn't even read it, as it was 300 pages long! It was more of a clarification of all the existing treaties already signed by EU member countries. The only reason it lost in France and the Netherlands is because of right wing groups making out it was some actual "constitution", when it wasn't. Had the Governments actually put some effort into countering the propoganda and explained that, in essence, it was merely a conglomeration of already ratified treaties, then the populace would have been much more recptive.

Also, there were some other factors which led to the failure of the "constitution" in France, namely there refusal to give up the CAP and they believed signing the treaty would cut the CAP. Partly, this was true, but the "constitution" called for a rehashing of the 3 decades old French farmer subsidies. What the French don't realise is the longer they remain reliant on the CAP, the more they're going to be left behind. They are not a competative country, economically and need a change, but the French being French resist this...


Originally posted by ape
and here you got a bunch of brits making fun of a fellow member countrys economy and unemployment,


Who's making fun? We're merely pointing out that the economic situation in Germany is hardly likely to be the best time to spend Billions of Euro's they don't have on WMD they don't need. Germany is almost as bad as France in terms of economic competativeness and needs an overhaul. Spending 35 Billion euros on Nukes is not a wise economic decision.


Originally posted by ape
well I would think the EU would be united in such instead of totally drawing the lines between countries anymore. =[ I would also think germanys interests would be the Uk's aswell.


They are, which is why our Government has spent considerable effort to convince them Germany needs to change or be left behind. They are not as bad as France, but there does need to be fundamental changes in the economy for them to drive forward.

We recognise that Germany is a major player and we want them to do well. It does us no good to see high unemployment, large budget deficits and achaic labour laws strangling Germany's competative edge.


Originally posted by ape
to many differences and interests and distrust in this bloc for it to remain stable, they are also many passive countries who would not be willing to project power to protect interests. the EU has alot to prove it's still new sauce.


That's just your typical "EU is crap" wet dream stuff, there.

I ask this honestly, have you ever even been? If so, where did you go? Why have you such a negative opinion of the EU, because for us living here, we wouldn't do without it.


ape

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
did it ever occur to you that the EU wouldnt be the one 'blowing up civilians' ?? rather them having to group and protect against aggression against their allies to prevent them from getting taken over??

I will tell you one thing, if the EU does not project itself as a force then what stopping aggressive actions from other countries outside of the EU from attacking an EU economic allies and interests and infact doing the 'blowing up' of civilians?, get with the program.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join