F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #241
I don't see why they have to rely on other nations when they can build 100 or so of their own nukes for protection.
Should Germany become a military superpower again?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
- Status
What part of "unilaterally abandoned plans for own nukes" don't you get? Germany chose not to develop nuclear weapons. Germans do not want their own nukes. The German electorate would not vote in any party which had German nuclear weapons in its manifesto.
During the Cold War, they had access to shared nuclear weapons: there were Luftwaffe aircraft & missiles for which there were dual-key nukes. Nowadays, they don't feel threatened by British, French or American nukes, & can't imagine anyone else nuking them & getting away with it.
The "nuclear arming of the Bundeswehr" was a pretty hot item back in the late 50s btw.
Gustav Heinemann, who joined the SPD over Adenauer's plans in 1957, and later became German president in 1969, was one of the most ardent speakers for the opposition to nuclear armament; among other things, he publically considered it a duty for German soldiers ordered to employ nuclear weapons to defy their orders, and determined the use of weapons of mass destruction to not be ethically possible in self-defense.
After Heinemann became president, Germany joined the non-proliferation treaty in 1969.
Another group of public opponents of nuclear arming were Germany's 18 most famous nuclear scientists, among them Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg.
During the Cold War, Germany maintained carriers for nuclear weapons under NATO nuclear sharing, culminating in over 2,000 warheads earmarked for German forces in the 80s. Among the carriers were Pershing IA SRBM, of which 12 were constantly kept ready-to-launch on QRA armed with warheads in their firing positions.
Gustav Heinemann, who joined the SPD over Adenauer's plans in 1957, and later became German president in 1969, was one of the most ardent speakers for the opposition to nuclear armament; among other things, he publically considered it a duty for German soldiers ordered to employ nuclear weapons to defy their orders, and determined the use of weapons of mass destruction to not be ethically possible in self-defense.
After Heinemann became president, Germany joined the non-proliferation treaty in 1969.
Another group of public opponents of nuclear arming were Germany's 18 most famous nuclear scientists, among them Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg.
During the Cold War, Germany maintained carriers for nuclear weapons under NATO nuclear sharing, culminating in over 2,000 warheads earmarked for German forces in the 80s. Among the carriers were Pershing IA SRBM, of which 12 were constantly kept ready-to-launch on QRA armed with warheads in their firing positions.
Well, I was going to go on some long-winded rant about relative military capabilities and how state influence in global economics could prevent Germany from becoming a conventional military superpower, let alone a nuclear one, and then I had a stunning realization... That Germany... is a member.... of the EU! Now, given the current defense policy trends in the EU, from the Lisbon treaty up to the present, I think it is fair to say that there is a high level of defense policy integration ongoing. Up until now this has been restricted to the creation of a EU security council, some EU Battlegroup HQ elements, and the creation of an EU space program and military academy. The most relevant question is therefor not, should (moral/ethical question) Germany become a superpower (which I would argue it already is, but not a hyperpower... which is an important distinction) , but for how much longer will Germany have its own foreign policy? For how much longer will the Canadians, or Americans, or any other non-EU state be dealing with countries like Germany, and not a consolidated EU?
...sorry for getting off topic...
...sorry for getting off topic...
I Sort of 'skimmed' through this thread, I hope I am not bringing up a point that has already been brought up.
But the fact that Germany is a member of NATO, means that they have all the protection they need and becoming a superpower will be a waste of Tax money and funding.
If at any point NATO falls apart or Germany leaves NATO and they do decide they want to be a super power they will under pressures from treaty that they signed.
But then again if anyone tries to use military force to keep Germany down to a certain level of pawer, they will be seen as the bad guy.
I could be wrong
But the fact that Germany is a member of NATO, means that they have all the protection they need and becoming a superpower will be a waste of Tax money and funding.
If at any point NATO falls apart or Germany leaves NATO and they do decide they want to be a super power they will under pressures from treaty that they signed.
But then again if anyone tries to use military force to keep Germany down to a certain level of pawer, they will be seen as the bad guy.
I could be wrong
My point is after WW2 I don't think the world just said
"Oh damn finally the war is over, well okay Germany start building up your military again
its all up to you guys were going to stay out of it, you guys are free to do as as you please
matthew22081991
New Member
I didn't say they have no right to be a superpower, they have tonnes of right, but they have no need nor wish too. There was a BBC poll some years ago which found Germans to be the least patriotic of all questioned nations (all EU nations I seem to recall). This is a backlash to the Second World War and the Holocaust which they are frankly embarrassed about.
That backlash is important in answering this question, because another part of the backlash was that Germans are generally distrustful of excessive military power, hence the pacifist constitution. Germans detest their countries involvement in Afghanistan, for example.
Basically, the crux of your arguement was that all countries have the right to be a superpower, I agree. However, in any democratic state that will be largely down to the electorate, and the German electorate likes their "nanny" state. Given the choice, they'll vote for welfare over military power. Using your own arguement, the Germans have the right to a welfare state as much as to a superpower status, and they've chosen welfare.
Personally being a Briton I think the British welfare system should be cut back and the armed forces either given proper funding or not sent to so many wars at once, but I would never (EVER) want to get rid of welfare, because I have seen in the US what a lack of decent welfare can do for those without money, and it isn't fair at all. But that's a seperate matter entirely
Sooooo:
Germany has right to superpower status
Germans don't want it (prefer welfare)
So Germany won't become nor wishes to become a superpower
Note:
I have not touched upon the issue of a potential EU superpower, which the French seem to be pushing the Germans towards. Hopefully it'll never happen, and if it does Britain won't have anything to do with it, hopefully... But that won't be a German superpower, that'll be a European one...
Yeah, they didn't say that in 1945. They said that ten years later, on both sides of the curtain, and the two German states started planning out standing military forces of over 600,000 men, with a wartime strength of 1.5 million soldiers and another 1.5 million men and women planned out for civil protection duties."Oh damn finally the war is over, well okay Germany start building up your military again
What nanny state? Especially compared to the nationalized welfare in e.g. the UK or Italy, the German system is almost more anti-welfare than the US.
The French? Nah. There was a proposal on the table (drafted by leaders of the German and French social-democrat parties) to effectively merge Germany and France, starting with merging their militaries into a force on a similar level with Russia, surrounded by an Allied "core europe". And their openly stated intention in doing so was to effectively cut out Britain and the other US-influenced EU members from any vital decision processes, because in the opinion of a lot of continentals, Britain - especially back then 7 years ago - was openly sabotaging any sort of joint effort.
Germany is a well respected country all over the world. it has great industrial and military capabilities. Germany has no need to become a super power. She has a military capable of challenging most other world militarys . she practically has a military worth a super power status. Germany is one of the few influential NATO countries which are not despised by Russia.
This may have been addressed already but John Mearsheimer wrote an article in 1990 I believe called "Back to the Future" wherein he argued that a unified Germany should seek and retain a nuclear deterrent. Actually from his website it is here: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0017.pdf Of course he also said the same thing about the Ukraine.
matthew22081991
New Member
Well let's not get into economics and the merits of socialism (US SHOULD HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE!!!)
Anyway, sorry for my outburst there, I can't control it!
Nah I think the Germans just don't want it. As far as I am concerned that settles the matter, they have huge contempt for the war in Afghanistan, so I can't see the German government persauding them to build themselves up as a military superpower. And the Second World War still haunts them, Germans have gotten to the point where being patriotic is too Nazi-like for them, it's almost traumatic for them.
Yeah that's the sort of stuff I am on about, don't count it out. The Germans and the French know how influential together they are, and they'll push for an integrated EU (ARRRGGGHHH!!!) and they'll want to be in charge of it. Hence why they try to keep Britain out of it and why they don't approve of Turkey joining, well, that plus racism to Turks.
Anyway, as absurd as it sounds don't count out a new, predominantly Franco-German, European superpower. Especially now Britain has ruined herself and only just got out of recession leaving her less able to stand up to it, not that Labour would have stood up to it anyway. (thank you Mr Brown).
Kato what was your opinion on the whole whether Germany should or should not thing then? Yes of no? Because I can't be bothered to go through all of this to find your previous posts if you don't mind
Last edited:
Well, in essence there are two Core Europe streamings. One is the social-democrat approach, focussing on a french-german "engine" pulling Europe forward, while the other approach endorsed by the right-wing edge of Germany's christian-democrats goes more with a "the UK and New Europe only hinder us, let's shut em out of the decision process" thinking line.
Through economic pressures, a Franco-German State would automatically assume a role in "guiding" the EU, producing a full third of its GDP (and half that of the Eurozone).
I personally prefer the leftist approach. Perhaps with some semblance of Core Europe in ultimately including Benelux. In essence, in this there wouldn't be "the inner EU" and "the outer EU", but a limited set of nations within the EU would reform into a unified state. There's a number of hurdles in that though. Mostly the clash between the centralized presidential republic structure of France and the federalized democratic republic structure of Germany, which isn't really compatible.
A merger with France would also mitigate one of Germany's more pressing issues - demography. Germany is slated to lose at least 10-15% of its population in the next 50 years, and will be surpassed by France as the largest EU member sometime in the next 30-35 years. France also has a considerably higher percentage of young citizens, mostly due to higher immigration, while in Germany, the number of people at working age (ie. paying into social insurances) will constantly fall over the next decades.
Through economic pressures, a Franco-German State would automatically assume a role in "guiding" the EU, producing a full third of its GDP (and half that of the Eurozone).
I personally prefer the leftist approach. Perhaps with some semblance of Core Europe in ultimately including Benelux. In essence, in this there wouldn't be "the inner EU" and "the outer EU", but a limited set of nations within the EU would reform into a unified state. There's a number of hurdles in that though. Mostly the clash between the centralized presidential republic structure of France and the federalized democratic republic structure of Germany, which isn't really compatible.
A merger with France would also mitigate one of Germany's more pressing issues - demography. Germany is slated to lose at least 10-15% of its population in the next 50 years, and will be surpassed by France as the largest EU member sometime in the next 30-35 years. France also has a considerably higher percentage of young citizens, mostly due to higher immigration, while in Germany, the number of people at working age (ie. paying into social insurances) will constantly fall over the next decades.
matthew22081991
New Member
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way for Europe to go. To act upon all it's talk of democracy and let us actually vote for it's President. To only be an economic body, any talk of sovereignty and as far as I am concerned Britain should either be out or fighting tooth and claw alongside the smaller nations to keep our sovereignty. The French should stop being so bossy (I am sick and tired of Gordon Brown letting them have their way with London's finances, it's our capital city and the French in the most polite terms can stop being so jealous and **** off).
Basically the EU needs to scale back it's ambitions and become more democratic, instead of the nations scrapping over who gets which job, etc.
However, in regards to the military topic of this forum, I approve of an alliance, but not of integration of the sorts France wants. For example, they wanted to "share" an aircraft carrier with Britain until they get a second one, which is utterly ridiculous, and will help the government to justify cutting back because the French will always be there to help us (I think not).
The numerous new weapons systems created by the Nazi's during the WW2 . Was it a fluke or are the Germans really capable of creating/innovating/ pushing the limits of a known weapon system?
I'm talking about the V2 Rockets, the jetfighter, the pure flying wing jetfighters, the 1st truely submarine which came late, the tiger, etc2..
If its not a fluke, it would be interesting if the Germans try to become a superpower again!
I'm talking about the V2 Rockets, the jetfighter, the pure flying wing jetfighters, the 1st truely submarine which came late, the tiger, etc2..
If its not a fluke, it would be interesting if the Germans try to become a superpower again!
matthew22081991
New Member
I am convinced it was no fluke. The Germans before the Second World War showed an aptitude for all things military, and now after the war that's expanded and they are a world-renowned force in industry. With particular focus on military industry, look at how popular their military products are abroad. They can make equipment cheaply, on budget (probably the only nation where military budgets don't spiral), and it's always very effective stuff, hence why it is so popular abroad.
As examples of the brilliance of German equipment, they have what is arguably the best MBT in the world (Leopard 2). That is a great success abroad. They are developing the new IdZ system which is a very advanced fighting system incorporating many pieces of equipment to be worn by German infantry. They sell advanced warships and submarines abroad such as Dolphin class submarines, which were bought by the Israelis, and Israel only buys good stuff (the first two were actually donated for free to keep the Israelis quiet about possibly German aid to the Iraqi chemical weapons programmes). The German Navy itself has some impressive units too, and the Germans played a major role in the development of the Eurofighter, which is obviously an excellent bit of equipment (albeit a complete waste of time for Britain...).
If Germany chose to become a military superpower I have no doubt that she could, I just doubt that she wants to.
matthew22081991
New Member
Ahh but Germany can't decide where NATO goes. NATO is, after all, only just expanding into the realms of power projection, and not doing all that well. An excellent defensive alliance, but it's qualities outside the Treaty area are dubious.
But I still feel that Germans don't want power projection, hence the unpopularity of the war in Afghanistan (it is EXTREMELY unpopular in Germany, more so than any other country).
Well NATO was created for basically three reasons put succinctly by Lord Ismay "To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" Alliances are not done purely to balance external enemies. Alliances can act to tether power of one state within the alliance. So the other states in NATO wary of German military power want to keep Germany constrained within the alliance. This is one reason, I believe that the Europeans are still eager to keep the US in NATO.
As to whether Germans want power projection or not, German strategic culture may have a say in it, but I believe as long as Germany is within NATO their ability to project will always be constrained. A good book on tethering and alliances is: Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of War - Patricia A. Weitsman
Herodotus, thanks it's a good link. I like the fact that you've taken the discussion from a personal level, point of view, to a geo-political level while taking into account the general discourse on their participation in ISAF within German society.
BTW, do you have any links on 'informal alliances' or something of such similar nature? I mean where two or more countries are not officially tied via an alliance but act in concert in defence matters. I'll be interested to learn more.
- Status