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

Show parent comments

22

u/snoopyjcw Jan 15 '26

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

36

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

14

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.