RAR! Germany decides to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

[The Romulan Republic]

Inspired by recent comments by German leader Angela Merkel to the effect that Germany/Europe can no longer count on their traditional allies (i.e. the US and UK). Without who's support, the entirety of Europe's "nuclear deterrent" against Russia would be... France.

Now, before we go any further, I am not arguing that the scenario in this thread is likely, nor that it would be advisable. Those are interesting discussions in their own right, of course. But the scenario is more about asking: what would the political effects/implications be if Germany, realizing it could no longer count on American/British military assistance, decided to develop its own nuclear deterrent to counter Russia?

[Sea Skimmer]

The Russians strike first and nobody helps the Germans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind this? I'm not saying I disagree, but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining the rest of Europe simply standing by while Russia launches such a first strike (presumably a nuclear one, since there is no land route by which they can physically invade Germany?). Especially since they would have to know, in that scenario, that they would be next.

Even if we imagine a world where Britain and the US would permit such a thing to happen (which no longer seems so hard to believe, sadly), France has a nuclear arsenal of its own (if a much smaller one).

[Sea Skimmer]

You're talking about a giant alien mind control ray level of right wing shift affecting maybe 90% of the German population for this to happen. That causes Nazi alarms. The rest of Europe would either stand by, or join the attack as Poland might well do, or even launch one itself first. I had in mind BTW a conventional first strike with ballistic and cruise missiles because Russia can do that now and Europe has done fuck all about it in RL. Berlin is defended by nothing in real life for example, if a Russian Iskander missile is fired from Kaliningrad. Of course this is part of why building nukes is so insanely absurd as a policy, something you said you didn't want to talk about. The German conventional military is so weak that the only possible purpose for nuclear weapons would have to be to mount a surprise first strike on Russia. It makes no sense otherwise. That's why Russia would just attack to cripple the German economy and force a change of policy while still holding its own nuclear arms in reserve. After all the US already established precedent for this.

The long term implications wouldn't matter to the Russians; them deciding to attack is a vastly more logical and plausible choice then Germany going nuclear. These are the same people who voted to phase out all nuclear power and refused to use DU in their tank shells even to prevent total physical Russian takeover of the country in the first place, and whom believe foreign aid to Afghanistan is the same difference as military strength vs Russia, which I dare say, might just happen to be a different country!

If your confused by the on and off webtalk about German nukes recently, its meaningless chatter by the German versions of sub Fox news. The 1990s Western European Union proposal to build its own strategic ABM system had more frigging chance of being a thing, and who the hell ever even heard of that one?

[The Romulan Republic]

I sometimes forget how demilitarized modern Germany is, and how deep an imprint the memory of World War II still leaves on Europe in general (to the point of people still being paranoid about a resurgent Nazi Germany, apparently).

[Alyrium Denryle]

I sometimes forget how demilitarized modern Germany is, and how deep an imprint the memory of World War II still leaves on Europe in general (to the point of people still being paranoid about a resurgent Nazi Germany, apparently).

It isn't so much that anyone is worried about it right now because Germany is the leader of the free world a liberal democracy where right wing populism is not especially popular and what far-right parties they do have are either illegal or constantly under investigation by their constitution police. It is that if there IS a rise in that sort of thing that say... forms the major partner in a coalition (rather than having the SPD and CSU coalition) the alarm bells that have long collected dust would be ringing in everyone's ears.

[Elheru Aran]

In relative terms, WWII really wasn't that long ago, within living memory for a lot of people. Hell, the head of state of a former Allied nation served in her country's military when that happened (I refer of course to Elizabeth II)!

So it's absolutely unsurprising that the events surrounding WWII would leave a dent in the collective memories of the various countries, particularly with postwar efforts like de-nazification, and that if it appeared that Germany was heading that way again, they would likely be swiftly opposed by almost all the surrounding countries. Armament efforts would be one such indicator.

[The Romulan Republic]

So if its just a question of the historical baggage around Germany, then I wonder how the reactions would compare if:

a) France (which already has a modest nuclear arsenal) decided to engage in a substantial military build-up, including increases to its nuclear arsenal (and yes, I recognize that this would likely require cuts to other programs, i.e. social programs, and that this would doubtlessly meet with political opposition in real world).

b) France negotiated for some of its hypothetical new nuclear arsenal to be based in Germany.

[Thanas]

I have to crack a bit of a smile at all the ignorant comments about Germany needing to go fascist in order to develop nuclear weapons.

Apparently the relevations of Adenauer attempting to create a joint program with the french are not common knowledge. Nor the current debate in Germany, where people are questioning the need for nuclear deterrents in case the USA continues to not honour its obligations and continues to be as unreliable as it currently is.

So I would not really say it is politically impossible. It is very highly unlikely, but there is a current debate about it, especially because at least one other nation (Poland) is pushing for a joint European program at the moment.

[Darth Tanner]

especially because at least one other nation (Poland) is pushing for a joint European program at the moment.

Could the EU not simply subsume use of the existing French one... Macron after all is a key win for the EU and with the UK out of the way there probably wouldn't be too much rejection of much closer military ties between states. I think Macron has taken some steps towards this with Goulard but they have been little more than PR at present? France atleast I'm sure would be happy to share some of its defence burden around or count it towards EU contributions.

The idea of Germany or Austria allowing anything with nuclear in the title to progress is laughable though under current political situation, I'm surprised the currently operating power plants have survived as long as they have.

[Thanas]

especially because at least one other nation (Poland) is pushing for a joint European program at the moment.

Could the EU not simply subsume use of the existing French one...

Having all EU nation subsidize a national french one would probably not go down well in any electorate.

[Pelranius]

especially because at least one other nation (Poland) is pushing for a joint European program at the moment.

Could the EU not simply subsume use of the existing French one... Macron after all is a key win for the EU and with the UK out of the way there probably wouldn't be too much rejection of much closer military ties between states. I think Macron has taken some steps towards this with Goulard but they have been little more than PR at present? France atleast I'm sure would be happy to share some of its defence burden around or count it towards EU contributions.

The idea of Germany or Austria allowing anything with nuclear in the title to progress is laughable though under current political situation, I'm surprised the currently operating power plants have survived as long as they have.

Well, there's those 20 US owned B-61s at Buchel, for use by German Tornado strike aircraft, the last time I checked (granted, not too recently). But with the Tornadoes being phased out, I don't know who will take over that role.

But of course, sharing 20 tactical nukes is planets away from having a wholly domestically built and owned production, delivery and command system.

[Zaune]

Well, there's those 20 US owned B-61s at Buchel, for use by German Tornado strike aircraft, the last time I checked (granted, not too recently). But with the Tornadoes being phased out, I don't know who will take over that role.

But of course, sharing 20 tactical nukes is planets away from having a wholly domestically built and owned production, delivery and command system.

Assuming Germany plans to keep them, the role will probably be passed on to the Typhoon. And it wouldn't be easy or cheap, but Germany undoubtedly has the necessary industrial base and technical knowledge to start producing fissile material within a couple of years, and twenty working examples to take apart and reverse-engineer if they can't get some technical assistance from the French.

Oh, and Sea Skimmer is probably wrong. The Russians would undoubtedly not be all that pleased, true, but it's more likely to be Britain that pre-emptively nukes Germany. Most of the Brexit hardliners have been looking for an excuse to do that since reunification anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

especially because at least one other nation (Poland) is pushing for a joint European program at the moment.

Could the EU not simply subsume use of the existing French one...

Having all EU nation subsidize a national french one would probably not go down well in any electorate.

"Subsume" doesn't mean "subsidize," it means "take over." I'd think the more likely obstacle would be internal French politics, not the politics of other EU nations.

[Patroklos]

I have a hard time imagining the rest of Europe simply standing by while Russia launches such a first strike (presumably a nuclear one, since there is no land route by which they can physically invade Germany?). Especially since they would have to know, in that scenario, that they would be next.

And you shouldn't believe that. Yet you still state...

Even if we imagine a world where Britain and the US would permit such a thing to happen (which no longer seems so hard to believe, sadly),

...which is even more ridiculous to believe.

Merkel is fear mongering. even if NATO didn't exist at all there is zero chance of either the US or the UK not retaliating against a nuclear attack on Germany. Not necessarily because we care about Germany, but because a world in which Russia feels secure enough to nuke first world Western powers, let alone one where it did do so with impunity, is a world in which the US literally can't exist in (in any form that resembles its current state).

Throughout most of the cold war most countries in the world, to include all the countries major armed conflict took place in often with the participation of some nuclear power's forces, did not have formal or even informal guarantees of coverage by either side's nuclear umbrella. Yet neither the US nor the Soviets went around nuking these third parties due to that lack of formal coverage.

The simple fact is Germany could reduce its defense GDP spending to 0% and it still gets US nuclear umbrella coverage. Free rider and all that.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm gonna be honest, in a world where president Trump is a thing, given how he's behaved over the past several months, I can totally understand the Germans believing that the US will not go to nuclear war on their behalf.

Have you ever read Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War, from around 1960? It devotes considerable time to analyzing the problem of how to convince an ally you're willing to join a nuclear war for them. A war that could destroy, or even would destroy, your country. It isn't an easy problem. It comes down to asking "how do we convince the Germans that we're willing to sacrifice New York to avenge Berlin?" Arguably there is almost no scenario where it is truly a rational act for the US to do this after the nukes have flown... And yet, to preserve a world order in which the first world nations can exist in reasonable security, the US has to commit to an act that seems so very irrational- entering a war that could kill tens or hundreds of millions of its own citizens to avenge the deaths of a bunch of foreigners.

It's hard to make other people believe we'd do that. It's like the prisoners' dilemma. We have so much to gain (in terms of not-dead Americans) by simply not shooting. The only way for us to convince others that we're actually willing to go with the "cooperate" option in the prisoner's dilemma is by playing up our own reputation for reliability and commitment to our allies.

This is exactly why we've had 60 or 70 years of NATO constantly emphasizing their commitment to one another. Because as soon as there is doubt as to whether the big nuclear-armed members of the alliance are actually willing to go through with "cutting off their nose to spite their face" in a nuclear war fought on behalf of an ally... The whole collective security guarantee collapses.

...

Thing is, Trump has done a 180 on that stance. He routinely expresses active contempt for our allies, unwillingness to sacrifice his interests or 'winning' on their behalf, and pretty obviously seems to think we'd be better off without them. If you were (for example) a Frenchman, would you believe that Donald Trump would actually accept nuclear missiles landing on Pittsburgh in order to avenge the destruction of Paris? He literally just said that his priorities run the other way around, so it's highly doubtful that he'd suddenly see the importance of NATO allies in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, when it's not just the welfare of American cities but his own personal survival on the line.

Thus, other NATO countries have every reason to think that while the US might fight conventional war against Russia on their behalf (because Trump might see himself compelled to do that by politics or ego). For at least the next four years the US might well NOT fight a nuclear war against Russia on their behalf. Because when the chips are down, Trump is... fairly likely... to pick the option that one, doesn't result in Russian nukes falling on him personally, and two, doesn't result in him guaranteeing the deaths of huge numbers of Americans for some long term abstract 'greater good' like keeping a promise or ensuring a future in which the free world is a viable concern.

And if we can elect a president whose reliability on such matters is so low once, the Germans may tell themselves... We can do it again.

[Tribble]

Ya, if Trump had his way I honestly don't think he'd protect Europe. Hell I don't think he'd protect anyone apart from himself. Maybe if he's pushed, but certainly not out of his own accord. IMO the EU can no longer assume it will be protected by the USA and it needs to start developing its military and nuclear arsenal.

[TimothyC]

It's hard to make other people believe we'd do that. It's like the prisoners' dilemma. We have so much to gain (in terms of not-dead Americans) by simply not shooting. The only way for us to convince others that we're actually willing to go with the "cooperate" option in the prisoner's dilemma is by playing up our own reputation for reliability and commitment to our allies.

This, but this also feeds into something else. Europe has to be a reliable partner in spending to keep themselves safe, and in the current climate, the attitude of "If they won't pay to defend themselves, why should we pay to defend them?"

I'm not disagreeing with anything Simon has said, simply adding to it.

[Simon_Jester]

The conventional war issue is largely separate from the nuclear war issue.

Standing down the bulk of one's armed forces in favor of a collective security against invasion ensured by a nuclear deterrent is a valid national strategy, even if it's inconsistent with the prevailing idea that a strong nation should be able to project conventional armed power to secure its goals and interests in other parts of the world.

It's hard to make other people believe we'd do that. It's like the prisoners' dilemma. We have so much to gain (in terms of not-dead Americans) by simply not shooting. The only way for us to convince others that we're actually willing to go with the "cooperate" option in the prisoner's dilemma is by playing up our own reputation for reliability and commitment to our allies.

This, but this also feeds into something else. Europe has to be a reliable partner in spending to keep themselves safe, and in the current climate, the attitude of "If they won't pay to defend themselves, why should we pay to defend them?"

I'm not disagreeing with anything Simon has said, simply adding to it.

I can understand the mindset. The problem is, even after they increase their defense budget, their ability to rely on our willingness to fight a nuclear war on their behalf is permanently damaged. Trump's probable unwillingness to fire ICBMs at Moscow to avenge a nuclear attack on Berlin or Rome has very little to do with whether the European NATO states spend 1% of GDP on their militaries, or 4%.

And even if a future president assures the EU members of NATO of our commitments... well, we elected a nativist jackass once, we can do it again. That's the game-changer.

Previous presidents, liberal or conservative, didn't openly mock the relationship we have with Europe. Even if the mockery contains a core of truth, it's one of those things you can't unsay, and that damages a relationship in a way that may not heal.

So this might be a great example of Trump 'winning' in his self-assigned goal of convincing EU states to spend more on defense... at the cost of gravely damaging the relationship that makes it even desirable from our point of view for us to have a well armed Europe, because the EU will be amassing weapons while at the same time grimly concluding that they can't depend on us and that our interests no longer align with theirs.

[Lord Revan]

And what Trump and co. don't seem to get is that those weapons we're (as in EU as a collective though even Finland has increased their defense budget or at least there's talks about doing that) amassing won't be on the beck and call of Trump when he needs back up for what ever war he's going to start when rating get bad enough, not mention that being an unrelible ally to European nations might cause Japan, Taiwan or South Korea to re-evaluate how relible of an ally USA is for them.

In essense with one poorly thought out action Trump might end up loosing all traditional allies USA had, since they feel they'd little more then vassals to Trump forced to fight his wars but Trump will throw his "allies" under the bus should they need assistance of their own.

[Simon_Jester]

Trump views all interactions as a succession of deals, in which he attempts to achieve some goal and thus 'win,' with the other party optionally winning or losing or being cheated out of everything they have. Each deal is its own discrete thing; there are no "relationships" between parties that span a period of decades, or if there are, they don't really matter very much compared to the deal of the moment. Any tactic that gets the deals made is a good tactic, and anyone who's a "winner" will understand that whatever dirty trick you apply is just 'good business.' Don't hate the player, hate the game, but only losers hate the game, et cetera.

This works fairly well in American business, especially real estate, which is something of an indictment of American business. It works well for Trump because it neutralizes what would otherwise be the disadvantages of his character defects- his narcissism, short attention span, and bullying tendencies.

As I said, it works pretty well in real estate. It's almost the worst mindset possible for foreign relations.

[Lord Revan]

Hence I called it a "poorly thought action", Trump and co don't seem to get that international politics always compromices among (theoretical) equals and things like how good your relationships and relibility is matter a great deal and running international politics like it was business deal will only end with you shooting yourself in the foot (metaphorically speaking).

Also Trump doesn't seem to get that there's no real "end" to deals within the political arena, that deals in political arena are more "I help you with this and you help me with this" where "this" can be money, military support or whatever and pretty much always ongoing until it's desided otherwise, rather then the "I pay you and you give me something" type of deal Trump is more familiar with.

[Patroklos]

Thing is, Trump has done a 180 on that stance. He routinely expresses active contempt for our allies, unwillingness to sacrifice his interests or 'winning' on their behalf, and pretty obviously seems to think we'd be better off without them.

I know you are talking generally here, but specific to NATO Trump's position is no different than Obama's. In fact this whole line of thought is actually called the "Obama Doctrine." Coined by his own sycophants. Summarized it is "Some of allies are feeloaders who are intentionally shirking their responsibilities with the assumption the US will defend them anyway, and our partners can and should step up to the plate and take the lead of defense issues that fall in their lane without the US pulling them by the nose or paying the bill. Collective defense means engaging problems as together, not as either a lone cowboy (the US) or as ineffectual tokens (Europe)."

Words are wind, the true expression of contempt regarding defense (keeping this OT) is from the Europeans who are not meeting their own voluntarily declared actual treaty spending requirements. This isn't some Cold War hold over requirement mind you, this was set just a few years ago. Germany is the top offender here. Nothing Trump (or Obama) has said or done even comes close to endangering the alliance compared to the atrophy of European combat power and commitment. The question is not whether the US will honor their obligations, the question is whether Europe can honor theirs even if they wanted to.

[Thanas]

It is a voluntary commitment, the year for meeting it is 2024. Germany can quite literally double its defence budget in 2024 and still meet the goal. There are no arrears, no such thing as back taxes or whatever. In short, talking about not meeting the commitments is missing the point because there are no commitments per se, only a voluntary agreement to raise it to that amount by 2024.

So yeah, being fucking granstanding about it while standing in front of a monument for US wars that EU nations have sacrificed soldiers for migh not be the greatest idea.

. Germany is the top offender here.

That would actually be canada.



And while we are at it:

The UN has set a target of 0.7% of GDP to be spent per nation on development aid. Guess how much the US spents? 0.17. Whoops. Turns out there are multiple voluntary agreements on spending that nations can perfectly chose to ignore if that suits them.

Singling out an ally over this is quite stupid unless you have your house in order first.

[Patroklos]

It is a voluntary commitment, the year for meeting it is 2024.

1.) Everything about NATO is voluntary. There isn't even any requirements about what Article 5 commits a country to.

2.) The commitment is 2% now and has been for awhile, with the caveat if you are failing (ie already a shirker) to meet your commitment now you must do so by 2024. So no, that is no excuse and you are either deliberately lying or woefully misinformed.

3.) The 2% goal was REAFFIRMED in 2014. The goal actually comes from 2006. What's your excuse for 2006-2014?

So yeah, being fucking granstanding about it while standing in front of a monument for US wars that EU nations have sacrificed soldiers for migh not be the greatest idea.

This has been a problem since 1991. It is irrelevant what smoke screen of hyper contemporary excuses you want to hide your decades long shame behind. What was your excuse when Obama was saying the same thing six months ago?

would actually be canada.

Congratulations?

You seem to be implying that every NATO ally is equally important or relevant. That while all of them have the same obligations it is not more valuable to the alliance for some to be on the ball than others. This is obviously, as you should know, not the case.

As far as I know no US president has made any caveats that its okay for any member nation to not meet its spending goals (Canada has been called out as well given its recent decision to basically not have a modern airforce. The Baltic states, essentially irrelevant no matter what portion of GDP they spend, have received especially harsh criticism), but Germany has rightfully been called out more often and more vehemently because it is simply more important.

And while we are at it:

The UN has set a target of 0.7% of GDP to be spent per nation on development aid. Guess how much the US spents? 0.17. Whoops. Turns out there are multiple voluntary agreements on spending that nations can perfectly chose to ignore if that suits them.

Singling out an ally over this is quite stupid unless you have your house in order first.

That's nice, except German's OECD ODA number (2015) is 0.51 so...

Oh. You didn't know?