Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
On May 30 2017 04:21 RvB wrote: I'm pretty sure most western countries have nukes although they're from the US. The Netherlands has US nukes at least although nobody officially admits it.
Yes, the US shared nukes are another source of nukes. But also I know that at least a few advanced countries keep disassembled nukes locked up in case of emergency. It would almost be reckless not to have that contingency.
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
I don't take you seriously at all for a long time, that doesn't change me wanting to punch you in the face most times you post.
It's not like we don't have smart minds that want to waste their brainpower on how to make nukes and missiles. And historically speaking people can work really fast if need arises. Thankfully they were slow to finalise the V2 back then. Anyway, my impression is that other nations want Germany to become a stronger force militarily rather than the country itself. Both politicians and populace.
It's less about nations and more about political preferences (federalism vs various forms of euroscepticism). I think most parties between pacifist left and conservative right in all other European countries want Germany to strengthen its military because it's supposed to be the core of European army.
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
I don't take you seriously at all for a long time, that doesn't change me wanting to punch you in the face most times you post.
Then perhaps the real issue here is a 19th century lack of impulse control from your end?
Grow up.
On May 30 2017 04:29 Artisreal wrote: Anyway, my impression is that other nations want Germany to become a stronger force militarily rather than the country itself. Both politicians and populace.
It wouldn't be, strictly speaking, a bad thing. But if it were to become a real military power, then it would have to come with some degree of independence in decision-making. The UK and US act in tandem and France has an occasional independent streak but recently (2008-ish or so) has been drifting away from that. We certainly don't need an active military Germany if they aren't properly able to understand what they want out of it because then they will just be another stooge in short sighted "coalition of the willing" operations.
I haven't found an English source, so I'll just briefly summarize this: Germany's foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel has called out the US pretty heavily today. He said that the conclusion of the G7 summit was that the US was "dropping-out as an important nation" and that "the West has become smaller, or at least weaker". He has critizised the new US politics on climate change and weapon exports into war regions, calling climate change, wars and religious expulsion the main sources of migration, and that if the US is not opposed on these matters by European countries migration to Europe will increase. Therefore "Whoever does not confront the US on these matters is guilty as well."
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
On May 30 2017 04:21 RvB wrote: I'm pretty sure most western countries have nukes although they're from the US. The Netherlands has US nukes at least although nobody officially admits it.
Yes, the US shared nukes are another source of nukes. But also I know that at least a few advanced countries keep disassembled nukes locked up in case of emergency. It would almost be reckless not to have that contingency.
"Know" is a pretty strong word. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Because that is a pretty large accusation.
I'd be highly surprised if Germany had "disassembled nukes" lying about. What we do have is enough technology and nuclear material (because of reactors) to quickly (Some months or a year from what i know) build one, should we so desire. We don't.
Disassambled secret nukes are kind of pointless anyways. The main point of nukes is deterrence. If you keep them secret too well, they are pointless. Israel, for example, is not doing that. Everyone knows that Israel has nukes, even though they don't officially say it. Thus, the nukes do their job as a deterrent.
And the US nukes are still US nukes on US bases afaik.
On May 30 2017 04:46 Sent. wrote: It's less about nations and more about political preferences (federalism vs various forms of euroscepticism). I think most parties between pacifist left and conservative right in all other European countries want Germany to strengthen its military because it's supposed to be the core of European army.
like I said last page: At least the UK apparently doesn't want Germany to be stronger on the military front. Thought arguable if a couple random posters in a comment section really speak for any kind of large portion of the country.
Israel uses a 'policy of ambiguity' as they call it because they're a small nation and keeping others unclear about their precise strength gives them an advantage against larger opponents. That's not really a viable nuclear policy for the West, we can't just gamble around with nukes, which is also why Trump's 'transactional' approach to this is horrible, we need to have a rational, predictable nuclear policy so that we don't destabilize international relations. It's even risky in the Israelian context because misjudgment on either side can escalate quickly.
On May 30 2017 04:46 Sent. wrote: It's less about nations and more about political preferences (federalism vs various forms of euroscepticism). I think most parties between pacifist left and conservative right in all other European countries want Germany to strengthen its military because it's supposed to be the core of European army.
like I said last page: At least the UK apparently doesn't want Germany to be stronger on the military front. Thought arguable if a couple random posters in a comment section really speak for any kind of large portion of the country.
I was thinking about EU member states which aren't in the process of leaving. Britain's ruling party also falls outside of the "between pacifist left and conservative right" scope. I assume those Remainers who support federalization and don't belong to pacifist left wouldn't mind if Germany chose to strengthen its military.
On May 30 2017 04:46 Sent. wrote: It's less about nations and more about political preferences (federalism vs various forms of euroscepticism). I think most parties between pacifist left and conservative right in all other European countries want Germany to strengthen its military because it's supposed to be the core of European army.
like I said last page: At least the UK apparently doesn't want Germany to be stronger on the military front. Thought arguable if a couple random posters in a comment section really speak for any kind of large portion of the country.
I was thinking about EU member states which aren't in the process of leaving. Britain's ruling party also falls outside of the "between pacifist left and conservative right" scope. I assume those Remainers who support federalization and don't belong to pacifist left wouldn't mind if Germany chose to strengthen its military.
yeah I got that, it was more of a "well, you can't please everyone" sentiment. I don't think (or hope?) people in the EU would be mad about Germany getting a bigger military. At least not as long as the EU exists.
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
On May 30 2017 04:21 RvB wrote: I'm pretty sure most western countries have nukes although they're from the US. The Netherlands has US nukes at least although nobody officially admits it.
Yes, the US shared nukes are another source of nukes. But also I know that at least a few advanced countries keep disassembled nukes locked up in case of emergency. It would almost be reckless not to have that contingency.
"Know" is a pretty strong word. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Because that is a pretty large accusation.
I'd be highly surprised if Germany had "disassembled nukes" lying about. What we do have is enough technology and nuclear material (because of reactors) to quickly (Some months or a year from what i know) build one, should we so desire. We don't.
Disassambled secret nukes are kind of pointless anyways. The main point of nukes is deterrence. If you keep them secret too well, they are pointless. Israel, for example, is not doing that. Everyone knows that Israel has nukes, even though they don't officially say it. Thus, the nukes do their job as a deterrent.
And the US nukes are still US nukes on US bases afaik.
Same here, i would also love any sources on those Dutch nukes. And no Amrerican nukes held in american base on dutch soil do not count. This is something completly different.
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
On May 30 2017 04:21 RvB wrote: I'm pretty sure most western countries have nukes although they're from the US. The Netherlands has US nukes at least although nobody officially admits it.
Yes, the US shared nukes are another source of nukes. But also I know that at least a few advanced countries keep disassembled nukes locked up in case of emergency. It would almost be reckless not to have that contingency.
You "know" counties have secret nukes?
What are you smoking?
The only point of nukes is M.A.D and that does not function without the enemy knowing you have them. The whole point of nukes is to shout off the rooftops that you have them.
You "know" countries have secret nukes. Despite such knowledge (fake as it is) would require the utter highest of security to "know".
On May 30 2017 04:17 opisska wrote: That's just another case of LL projecting his 19th century logic on others. I am pretty sure Germany doesn't have any clandestine nukes ready in the basement, because Germany is an advanced civic society, where shit like that just doesn't fly. If it was true and ever surfaced, then every politician that ever came near to it and their party is done for good.
Comments like these are why I don't take you seriously as a poster anymore.
On May 30 2017 04:21 RvB wrote: I'm pretty sure most western countries have nukes although they're from the US. The Netherlands has US nukes at least although nobody officially admits it.
Yes, the US shared nukes are another source of nukes. But also I know that at least a few advanced countries keep disassembled nukes locked up in case of emergency. It would almost be reckless not to have that contingency.
"Know" is a pretty strong word. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Because that is a pretty large accusation.
I'd be highly surprised if Germany had "disassembled nukes" lying about. What we do have is enough technology and nuclear material (because of reactors) to quickly (Some months or a year from what i know) build one, should we so desire. We don't.
Disassambled secret nukes are kind of pointless anyways. The main point of nukes is deterrence. If you keep them secret too well, they are pointless. Israel, for example, is not doing that. Everyone knows that Israel has nukes, even though they don't officially say it. Thus, the nukes do their job as a deterrent.
And the US nukes are still US nukes on US bases afaik.
Same here, i would also love any sources on those Dutch nukes. And no Amrerican nukes held in american base on dutch soil do not count. This is something completly different.
My dad always said he used to the guard the base with the nukes, but those were American nukes and he wasn't allowed in the portion of the base that held them. I very much doubt that the US would give up having direct control over any of their nuclear weapons - with maybe the exception of giving them to Israel.
The US nukes stationed abroad generally are under US control. In Germany the airbases holding them are protected by American personnel, the US holds the codes to arm them, and so on. They're only here because they can be delivered with German Tornadoes and to reduce the distance.
On May 30 2017 07:04 a_flayer wrote: My dad always said he used to the guard the base with the nukes, but those were American nukes and he wasn't allowed in the portion of the base that held them. I very much doubt that the US would give up having direct control over any of their nuclear weapons - with maybe the exception of giving them to Israel.
Wouldn't surprise me if they gave them to Japan or South Korea either with the tensions running high with China from time to time.
There is no point to giving them away though. It just removes a handle in relations, if you guarantee their independence as a major power you have a decent negotiating position to start from.
On May 30 2017 04:46 Sent. wrote: It's less about nations and more about political preferences (federalism vs various forms of euroscepticism). I think most parties between pacifist left and conservative right in all other European countries want Germany to strengthen its military because it's supposed to be the core of European army.
like I said last page: At least the UK apparently doesn't want Germany to be stronger on the military front. Thought arguable if a couple random posters in a comment section really speak for any kind of large portion of the country.
Tbh I'd be surprised if England wanted Germany to be stronger on any front. For some reason the WW1 and 2 animosity still runs deep in some parts of England. I would also be surprised if the smaller eastern EU countries like Lithuania weren't strongly for a bigger German military.
The question is: how does Germany benefit from increasing their military budget? Outside of the hope of a more centralized EU I don't think Germany has really anything to gain. Serious threats for the EU are nonexistent atm, so building up a larger centralized army would mainly serve as a threat to Russia and maybe Turkey. Sure, we could bomb some Arabs a bit more efficient, but there are enough other nations that love doing this. So the talk about an army seems mainly about the election.
Not that I'm against the basic idea, I just don't see why we should go the American or Russian way and put 3 to 6% of our GDP into an army that isn't going to conquer or vassalize anything to begin with when the number of countries that are an actual threat is almost zero.
On May 30 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote: Daughter of a fascist (who is herself merely an opportunist) would probably have been better, yeah. Though I can respect and understand why people think otherwise. The "lesser evil" issue is more one of trying to claim a win to be more than it actually is. Macron won because he was preferable to Le Pen, not because "we love Europe and want so much of it that we can drown in it" like the Europhiles want it to be.
Over the years, I've gotten to know Merkel's MO on European unity: everyone is an ally and a dear partner until they decide they really aren't too fond of her specific policy prescriptions. List of evil people include Jar of Coleslaw Kaczynski, Viktor Orban, Theresa May, Alexander Tsipras, and many others who aren't "Europe" material, within and without the EU, unless of course they back down and return to the proper political affiliation of course. Trying to pretend that that's unity is definitely properly described as delusional.
Personally I think that the Euro-populists who tied their fortunes to Trump were wrong to do so. That will probably bury the current batch until a more sane batch siphons their voter base.
Wstrzymał Słońce by Ziemię poruszyć "He held the sun in place in order to move the world"
Indeed Jaroslaw Ka is the Polish manifestation of god...
If I were a mod I'd have banned you. You consistently come off as some sort of tsarist shill.
Its gotten to the point where I no longer want to read your comments as I know exactly where they are going every time.
In principle, there's nothing wrong with Germany militarizing. They certainly have the right and the capability to do so, and we (by "we" I mean us Brits, if it wasn't clear) hardly have any justification to stop them. While there are certain tendencies of Germans and Germany that I find troubling, it would hardly be fair to say that they are the same people who followed Hitler into a massive war on top of one of the worst crimes of humanity ever committed. But before they have one, it's important to understand why they even want one.
Hot wars between major powers aren't a particularly common sights these days; it's mostly just soft power wars and proxy conflicts. Having a powerful military is both an expensive undertaking and a means by which to have independence in FP decision making and to have a means by which to enforce your interests abroad. Not an easy or simple thing to have, but it can matter and be useful.
The question that really has to be asked though, is why does Germany need a military? What do they hope to accomplish by having one? If they have no particular idea for what they're going to actually do with it, it'll just be an expensive means by which to wave their dick around for no particularly good reason. They'll just join in on stupid short-sighted ventures and get no good out of it. Given that the German populace doesn't seem to see a reason for having one, I'm inclined to say that Germany probably doesn't need to militarize and shouldn't do it.
EPT
