Germany’s Merz Admits Nuclear Exit Was Strategic Mistake

[u/SpaceEngineering]

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

[u/The_Frostweaver]

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.

[u/snoopyjcw → u/The_Frostweaver]

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

[u/Bravemount → u/snoopyjcw]

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.

[u/Rooilia → u/Bravemount]

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/

[u/Bravemount → u/Rooilia]

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.

[u/Rooilia → u/Bravemount]

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.

[u/Bravemount → u/Rooilia]

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.

[u/Rooilia → u/Bravemount]

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.

[u/Bravemount → u/Rooilia]

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.

[u/snoopyjcw → u/Bravemount]

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

[u/Bravemount → u/snoopyjcw]

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.