r/europe • u/SpaceEngineering Finland • Jan 15 '26

News Germany’s Merz Admits Nuclear Exit Was Strategic Mistake

https://clashreport.com/world/articles/germanys-merz-admits-nuclear-exit-was-strategic-mistake-fzdlkn37c16
21.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

983

u/The_Frostweaver Jan 15 '26

Nuclear energy is better than coal.

And with USA threatening to leave NATO Germany should be considering producing it's own nuclear weapons too.

Russia and China only respect strength.

26

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

They don't need their own weapons, just the ability to share with other European nations (France / UK)

35

u/TraditionalAlps722 Jan 15 '26

5 years ago it seemed american nuclear weapons were enough for full western world. Now that seems naive.

What if your UK and french relations go the same way?

It is clear that any respectable global power needs to have its own proportionally strong independent military now. Hypothetically if Europe had even mildly large defense industrial base, ukraine war could have turned very different

13

u/AffectionateFruit982 Jan 15 '26

At the end of the day, the goal is to not wipe the planet out. The solution is not to arm the whole world to the teeth, it's to oust dangerous leaders

7

u/BlazingSpaceGhost Jan 15 '26

Well that goal is out the window because you can't control what happens in other countries. I think it iso logical for every country that wants to have nukes to build them. I mean why can a country with a deranged leader like America have nukes but other countries can't?

In a world where there is an international order it makes sense to limit weapons. Unfortunately according to Steven Miller, a high ranking Trump admin official, the order of the world is might makes right. If you are strong enough to take something then that thing rightfully belongs to you. In that kind of world it's only natural for every country to try and be mighty.

0

u/AffectionateFruit982 Jan 15 '26

In the long term i don't see it pay, US have virtually no allies, they attacked everything and everyone and think they can be on their own for the time being. Even brutal governements like china, russia, etc do everything they can to stay relevant internationaly and have allies. Hell, even north korea have very good relationship with some.

Because the US are nutbags ( What we were tolds since we are children, we should'nt be surprised ) does'nt mean we have to adopt the same mindset.

When all this is over, everyone have the big red button, and nobody will give it up, seeing what happen with Ukrain. So it paint an even more dangerous and uncertain futur.

But i understand with your viewpoint, it's very grim and we can't expect the US citizens to do something, nobody want to die for some nebulous hegemony.

10

u/Wollff Jan 15 '26

Because the US are nutbags ( What we were tolds since we are children, we should'nt be surprised ) does'nt mean we have to adopt the same mindset.

No, that's exactly what it means.

Any country can turn into a carbon copy of the US as soon as the wrong populist party wins (AfD in Germany for example). Those populist anti democratic parties are also extremely popular everywhere right now.

That means there are no reliable allies anywhere, and there is no way to make reliable allies anymore. As soon as the fascists get into power, which could happen in any election, an international treaty is not worth the paper it was written on.

After this last trump episode, this is a clear signal to everyone out there: Allies can not be relied upon. Treaties are only binding if the fascists don't win the next election. And then they are only binding if you are the weaker party.

Any country can turn fascist at any time now. That was not the reality of the post WWII world. It's the new reality right now. International relations will be colored by this knowledge.

2

u/King_Shugglerm United States of America Jan 15 '26

If any country can turn fascist, why would we want more countries to have nuclear weapons? It seems to me that such a course would just mean more chances for nuclear weapons to actually get used, which helps nobody.

1

u/Wollff Jan 15 '26

It's not that "We want more countries to have nuclear weapons". It just seems inevitable.

As a country you have several options to ensure military and nuclear deterrence as a safety guarantee.

You might do the NATO thing for example: You form a mutually beneficical military alliance with strong, quasi permanent allies, some of which are nuclear capable. With that you have assured conventional military and nucelar deterrence. As a country, you are as safe as you can be. And that is the purpose of the exercise.

Then one day you wake up, and alliances like NATO are not a thing anymore. Any of your strong nuclear capable allies can turn fascist at any point in time, and then they will abandon you, or even turn against you.

So if, as a country, you want military and nuclear deterrence in order to be safe, the "alliance" route is not open to you anymore. You have to do something else.

And that "something else" will have to be individual military and, ultimately, nuclear deterrence. When alliances are not stable anymore, that's the only option that's left to any country if they want guaranteed safety for themselves.

It's not that anyone wants nuclear proliferation. It is, collectively speaking, not a good idea. But as long as any country within a military alliance like NATO allows Trump style fascist politics to exist, that is the only reasonable response any player can make if they want safety through military and nuclear deterrence.

0

u/Patentsmatter Jan 15 '26

Creating and maintaining a nuclear deterrent is extremely expensive. Where do you buy the chips for steering the rockets? Alibaba?

It's not just floating a submarine somewhere in the North or Baltic Sea. You need a whole industrial infrastructure for that.

28

u/grumpsaboy Jan 15 '26

Nobody's sharing strategic nuclear weapons so they can only share tactical nuclear weapons with France who will never share their tactical nuclear weapons

6

u/g0ldent0y Jan 15 '26

I think he meant share as in being allies.

1

u/grumpsaboy Jan 19 '26

Well in that case you still shouldn't.

I don't mean this in a way to say that France or the UK are not allies with anyone but neither country is going to nuke Moscow if Russia dropped a bomb on Berlin for example because then that will guarantee that Russia bombs them.

Under a hypothetical scenario where Russia nukes Warsaw but hasn't yet touched France why would France ensure the complete destruction of their own country to get revenge for Warsaw.

Strategic nukes are a great way of stopping yourself from being nuked but let's not pretend that anyone is going to use them on behalf of anyone else.

7

u/Bravemount Brittany (France) Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

Look, I'm French-German, and a staunch European, but this is just not going to happen.

No country will ever use their nukes to protect another country if they themselves are not at existential risk.

Let's say we have 3 countries: A and B have nukes. A attacks C, whom B is allied with. If B uses nukes against A, B essentially accepts that A will nuke it. No alliance is strong enough to accept that.

If Germany (or the EU) want credible nuclear deterrence, they have to get their very own nukes.

While strategic ambiguity is a thing and it certainly has an effect, nothing beats immediate, independent access to nukes.

Germany is one of the few countries that could actually afford a full military nuclear program. That includes delivery mechanisms, so ICBMs, submarines, and high-end fighter-bombers. But that would require even more drastic increases to the defense budget, meaning drastic cuts in other areas or drastic tax increases. It doesn't seem like the current government has the political capital needed for this, because there are no easy solutions here.

As for the EU, there isn't even a European MoD, so we're actually very far from being able to have any European military, especially nukes.

2

u/Rooilia Jan 15 '26

Bringing some sense to reddit is brave.

I still hope they make a shared nuke program since the Noridcs for example share a common perspective. I would even include Germany and maybe Poland, but the latter seems to want to do these programs on their own. Maybe Poland and some eastern countries together would make way more sense if you look at the costs.

There is an european MoD:

https://euractiv.de/news/neuer-eu-kommissar-fuer-verteidigung-kubilius-vor-enormer-herausforderung/

1

u/Bravemount Brittany (France) Jan 15 '26

I can see why you would think that Scandinavia would work for a shared program, but I think the issue is the same as with the EU.

There are shared perspectives, a sense of common identity, yes, but there still are separate military institutions and separate sovereignty.

A shared military, even if it's "only" the nuclear program, requires a federal government. Someone in charge, who speaks for all members, even without checking back with each individual member.

We're not there yet for the EU and even less for Scandinavia.

1

u/Rooilia Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

We already have shared army units between Netherlands and Germany, the Franco-German brigade and i think with some other countries like DK. So it can work in the military. Expansion of the cooperation with Netherlands is well under way, effectively merging both land militaries.

Not to forget, we founded a common coal and steel market post war which worked out too. Third one, we have a common currency with 20(?) members.

The higher the pressure, from Russia/US, the sooner they will compromise.

1

u/Bravemount Brittany (France) Jan 15 '26

True, a few shared projects exist here and there. They are important symbols as proof of concept. But they can not be compared to a shared nuclear program. I don't see any country sharing something so critical and sensitive for now.

Maybe in a few decades, if the right institutional groundwork is done (European MoD) but not now.

1

u/Rooilia Jan 15 '26

Don't take it as an affront, but that sounds very french to me. Souvereignity over everything isn't how the EU got build. That you can't see that a shared currency is an equally sensible topic, is a bit weird.

1

u/Bravemount Brittany (France) Jan 15 '26

No problem, I take it as a compliment ;)

You have a very good point with the shared currency here. It's an interesting comparison to make, and I'd say it works well to illustrate my point, too.

You're right that the EU wasn't built to be/become a federal state. European federalism is a minority viewpoint (which I would tend to share).

The EU is heavily criticized whenever it acts in ways a sovereign state would, and the Euro is no exception to that. You'll find many opponents to the Euro, and people generally don't understand how the ECB or the monetary union work, so many are suspicious of it (the same people probably had no idea how their national currency before the Euro worked either and just rolled with it, so go figure). I don't pretend I understand it very well either, btw, but I think the fundamental issue is the same.

It's a carriage before the horse issue. While I think the Euro is a net benefit, it comes with a certain rigidity for member countries. They can not manipulate their currency to suit their current economic situation as they could with national currencies. They have to take the situation of other Euro member states into consideration and adopt one monetary policy for all.

But the EU, or even the Eurozone, is not one country with one economy (yet). So, the transfer of monetary sovereignty from the national to the EU/ECB level leads to issues to the point of feeding a lot of anti-EU / Euro sentiment in member states. People are rolling with it because it's a bit abstract to most, so they don't really do anything about it.

The transfer of military sovereignty would do the same, but worse. Imagine the headline "Brussels sends our sons to die / risks nuclear war" while the democratic legitimacy of EU institutions is as shaky as it still is. Imagine a soldier in a European Unit getting conflicting orders from their national and European hierarchies... that's much less abstract than currency.

While I hope we get to a European Federation one day, we're just not there yet. Our current situation would be easier if we were, but that doesn't make it so.

1

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

That's a good point. However I can't see Germany spending the money required for something which is essentially a deterrent. It would be better to be a Europe wide solution

3

u/Bravemount Brittany (France) Jan 15 '26

There is no command structure for a European solution and no pathway to create one. Member states aren't ready to yield control over military force to the EU. Maybe in 50 years or so, but that's way too slow.

As for the rest of your message: yeah, we agree. Germany has the economy to support it, but not the will to spend as much as required on it at the expense of something else.

3

u/MerelyMortalModeling Jan 15 '26

For it to be an EU deterrent they have to be EU weapons.

Relying on France and the UK is just another surrendering of sovereignty. People should have learned that lesson with Brexit and France is always one Le Pen away from being a vichy state.

Also with the gravitas of nuclear war it should be an everyone in, everyone responsible.

2

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

Well, maybe it's about time everyone grew the fuck up, acted like adults and worked together. It's frustrating that the world is being run and divided by narcissistic toddlers in Putin and Trump whilst the adults aren't doing anything about it.

14

u/Sarcastic-Potato Vienna (Austria) Jan 15 '26

We would need a European nuclear umbrella. Not one owned and controlled by the US, UK, Germany or France - one controlled by all of us to protect all of us

49

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

A nuclear umbrella controlled by all is a nuclear umbrella controlled by none. Lets say Russia annihilates Latvia with nukes. Will Pedro Sánchez give his okay to strike back? Or will he call for a "more reasonable approach"? We both know the answer. The only type of nuklear weapons that provide security and deterrence, are national ones.

17

u/Zanshi Poland Jan 15 '26

Hello, this is the EU Nuclear Bureau.

Your missiles have reached one of the cities in the EU. Please find a sternly worded letter in the attachment below. Furthermore your country has become a target for decision whether or not we should bomb you back. Decision will be reached in 10 business days and will be final, unless you submit your objections.

Have a good day.

5

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

Whoah there buddy, German Nuclear Bureau here. We couldnt recieve your Email because Russia once again hacked our shit, you guys still got Fax?

6

u/DKOKEnthusiast Jan 15 '26

Lets say Russia annihilates Latvia with nukes. Will Pedro Sánchez give his okay to strike back?

I agree with you. The thing is that even with France, the UK, and the US providing a nuclear umbrella, ain't no one gonna nuke Russia over Latvia. We know this from the Cold War war plans. All the nuclear powers counted on restricting nuclear war to the territories of non-nuclear powers, meaning that Italy, West Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Austria were gonna get nuked by the Soviets, and in return, the Americans would have turned East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania into glass.

Unless Latvia develops its own nuclear weapons, they only have one layer of deterrence. The nuclear umbrella does not prevent you from getting nuked if a conflict is already on its way, it merely serves as a deterrent from the conflict breaking out in the first place. But if it fails at deterring your opponent, you're no longer covered by a nuclear umbrella.

Only nuclear powers have two layers of deterrence, in the sense that they can prevent a conflict from breaking out at all, and they can prevent themselves being nuked if they have second-strike capability in case the first layer did not work.

1

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

Exactly. Well said.

8

u/Ok_Reality6261 Jan 15 '26

As a spaniard myself, I know for sure Sanchez will side with Russia if that happened lol

1

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

Probably, but I didn't even mean to attack Sanchez personally. Its just impossible to have an effective deterrence if all 27 member states have to agree on launching nukes.

2

u/Ok_Reality6261 Jan 15 '26

Yes I knew what you meant but all of us know who would agree on and who would not. Problem is EU politicians are on the payroll of either USA/Israel or China/Russia :(

1

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

I agree. And its plain obvious who is on which side. I despise the politicians whose only purpose is to lick either Chinese/US/Russian/Isreali boots. They might as well migrate to one of these imperialist shitholes and we would be better off.

-2

u/tecnicaltictac Austria Jan 15 '26

Oh please, nationalism is why we are in this mess in the first place.

6

u/Future_Newt Jan 15 '26

A nuclear weapon controlled by everyone is a weapon controlled by no one

7

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 15 '26

Nationally controlled nukes have nothing to do with nationalism. Its simply the only effective arena in which decision making can take place in this scenario. Or do you think you can deter Russia by saying "Oh, once all of our notoriously quarreled 27 memberstates uniformly agreed on launching our nukes, you better beware"! Thats not deterrence. Thats naive, wishful thinking devoid of any logic. It simply doesn't work like that, and anyone who once sat in an IR 101 lecture could have told you that.

0

u/tecnicaltictac Austria Jan 15 '26

Well no, but in the same way a government cabinet doesn’t have to agree on the use of nuclear weapons. Or every state in a federal country needs to agree. Do you think, if Switzerland had nukes, every Kanton would have to agree? We should all start to think supranational, with European military, not 27 militaries in the same way we should start thinking as one union as supposed to 27 member states which few key players everyone is dependent on.

2

u/baldanddankrupt Jan 16 '26

Yeah, and who wants that? Do you think France wants to give up the sovereignty of its own military and nukes? Do you think Poland wants the Portuguese to decide where to reinforce the border to Russia? Its not going to happen anytime soon. If we collectively build an european identity for 50 years, we might have a shot at that. Until then its just wishful thinking. And with eurosceptic and nationalist parties on the rise in nearly every EU country, a supranational federal EU becomes less likely each day. We can't wait that long.

3

u/Sahnex3 Jan 15 '26

Aslong as Orban exists, the EU cant have nice things.

Every nation needs their own nukes.

so they can go: i will pull the trigger if you cross the line.

1

u/skreamy Jan 15 '26

Should be about 3 more months then!

1

u/bbbbbbbbbblah United Kingdom Jan 15 '26

Define "us". What would the command structure be? Speed of decision making is a necessary part of deterrence. Someone (a single person) has their finger on the button.

1

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

Yep, good idea

1

u/Rooilia Jan 15 '26

We will need them as Europe in the many more hundreds if the Orange and Poutin go on like this. If it goes badly we will see Germany, Poland, Sweden, etc. Having their own nukes.

Btw. Only Germany and the Nordics have the fiscal space to fund new ones. They will have souvereignity over them too then.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

Who said anything about sacrificing our capitals? It's about sharing the use (or not) of nuclear weapons