Beatmaster
New Member
Hello all
I was reading this post and i got some serious questions about this matter and because most guys on this forum do have good knowlegd about these issues, i was hoping to get some good dialog going on this topic:
BERLIN — The German government’s effort to remove the remaining American nuclear weapons on its soil has been sharply criticized by a former leader of NATO, who said the move was driven more by populist sentiment than any long-term strategic goal.
In a report to be published Tuesday by the Center for European Reform, in London, George Robertson, who served as NATO secretary general from 1999 to 2004, says Germany cannot remove the missiles and still expect to enjoy the protection of U.S. nuclear forces.
“For Germany to want to remain under the nuclear umbrella while exporting to others the obligation of maintaining it, is irresponsible,” the report says.
It is highly unusual for a NATO country’s government to announce that it wants to remove U.S. nuclear weapons from its soil. The 2,000 or so U.S. weapons that were based in Europe at the end of the Cold War had been reduced to around 200 by last year.
The report reflects concerns among European Union and NATO countries that Germany is adopting more unilateral policies while, as Europe’s largest economy, it should be wielding its political influence by helping to direct the changing role of NATO and pushing for further expansion of the Union.
The German Foreign Ministry said it would not comment on the report until it was published.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition of conservatives and Free Democrats agreed four months ago to rid Germany of the remaining American nuclear missiles, which number around 20, government officials said.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, leader of the Free Democrats, had insisted that the withdrawal of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany be included in the coalition agreement. It states that “we will, both in the Alliance and toward the American allies, pursue the withdrawal of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany.”
At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Mr. Westerwelle said the last remaining nuclear weapons in Germany were “a relic of the Cold War. They no longer serve a military purpose.”
Previous German governments adopted much more discreet stances in their efforts to reduce the American nuclear arsenal.
If Berlin pursues this new stance, the Center for European Reform report argues, it will allow Germany to “have its cake and eat it.” Germany would be contributing to President Barack Obama’s quest for nuclear disarmament, the report says, but could still rely on the NATO countries that deploy the remaining 180 U.S. weapons — Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — to provide it with a security umbrella.
The report, “Germany Opens Pandora’s Box,” written by Mr. Robertson, Franklin Miller and Kori Schake, also suggests that some NATO members, particularly the Baltic States, could feel vulnerable without the nuclear protection of Germany.
I was thinking after the end of the coldwar its not needed to have a large army (regular used during coldwar times)
Now here in this post its written that Germany wants to get rid of their stored US nukes, also in the Netherlands there are serious questions abouts having some nukes on Volkel AB.
Lets say for a second that Germany removes those nukes from their soil what impact would that have on the NATO defence and overall power incase of a large scale conflict?
Also what would it bring NATO if the Netherlands are going to remove them as well?
And would it be possible for France and the UK ( As the 2 offical nuke powers within the EU) to provide NATO/EU with a umbrella? (Assuming that UK & France are capable of striking around the globe with tactical nukes and ICBM's)
Because now there are a number of nations in the EU that host tactical nukes but is there still any reason to keep those nukes around?
IMHO Germany, UK and France are the backbone of the EU/NATO when it comes to overall army power So perhaps it would be an idea to assign certain nations to play a fixed role during a serious conflict.
Lets say for example that UK & France provide a Tactical umbrella while Germany and most other countries keep it conventional....
I know that some nations are assigned to specific army/naval and air groups to operate around the world in NATO groups but thats not my point i mean the big picture, basicly let each nation do what its capable to do within their arsenal and material/Systems.
Anyway besides the fact of having nukes is a good thing or not they sure do have a tipping edge during a war and can provide a victory or at least a draw if a war really gets out of hand, but are they still needed on soil of host nations who offically do not have nukes by their own and would it not better to leave this to nations who offically have the status as nuke power like US, UK, France, China, India, Israel and russia (And the other nations i do not know of)
IMO today compared to 30 years ago it seems to me useless to maintain the "cold war" Defence structure specially because the global situation calls for a more advanced and indept strategy IMO the shock and awe times/situation as in the cold war era is a little outdated ill guess.
So is the NATO/EU tactical defence situation not a bit outdated?
I was reading this post and i got some serious questions about this matter and because most guys on this forum do have good knowlegd about these issues, i was hoping to get some good dialog going on this topic:
BERLIN — The German government’s effort to remove the remaining American nuclear weapons on its soil has been sharply criticized by a former leader of NATO, who said the move was driven more by populist sentiment than any long-term strategic goal.
In a report to be published Tuesday by the Center for European Reform, in London, George Robertson, who served as NATO secretary general from 1999 to 2004, says Germany cannot remove the missiles and still expect to enjoy the protection of U.S. nuclear forces.
“For Germany to want to remain under the nuclear umbrella while exporting to others the obligation of maintaining it, is irresponsible,” the report says.
It is highly unusual for a NATO country’s government to announce that it wants to remove U.S. nuclear weapons from its soil. The 2,000 or so U.S. weapons that were based in Europe at the end of the Cold War had been reduced to around 200 by last year.
The report reflects concerns among European Union and NATO countries that Germany is adopting more unilateral policies while, as Europe’s largest economy, it should be wielding its political influence by helping to direct the changing role of NATO and pushing for further expansion of the Union.
The German Foreign Ministry said it would not comment on the report until it was published.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition of conservatives and Free Democrats agreed four months ago to rid Germany of the remaining American nuclear missiles, which number around 20, government officials said.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, leader of the Free Democrats, had insisted that the withdrawal of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany be included in the coalition agreement. It states that “we will, both in the Alliance and toward the American allies, pursue the withdrawal of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany.”
At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Mr. Westerwelle said the last remaining nuclear weapons in Germany were “a relic of the Cold War. They no longer serve a military purpose.”
Previous German governments adopted much more discreet stances in their efforts to reduce the American nuclear arsenal.
If Berlin pursues this new stance, the Center for European Reform report argues, it will allow Germany to “have its cake and eat it.” Germany would be contributing to President Barack Obama’s quest for nuclear disarmament, the report says, but could still rely on the NATO countries that deploy the remaining 180 U.S. weapons — Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — to provide it with a security umbrella.
The report, “Germany Opens Pandora’s Box,” written by Mr. Robertson, Franklin Miller and Kori Schake, also suggests that some NATO members, particularly the Baltic States, could feel vulnerable without the nuclear protection of Germany.
I was thinking after the end of the coldwar its not needed to have a large army (regular used during coldwar times)
Now here in this post its written that Germany wants to get rid of their stored US nukes, also in the Netherlands there are serious questions abouts having some nukes on Volkel AB.
Lets say for a second that Germany removes those nukes from their soil what impact would that have on the NATO defence and overall power incase of a large scale conflict?
Also what would it bring NATO if the Netherlands are going to remove them as well?
And would it be possible for France and the UK ( As the 2 offical nuke powers within the EU) to provide NATO/EU with a umbrella? (Assuming that UK & France are capable of striking around the globe with tactical nukes and ICBM's)
Because now there are a number of nations in the EU that host tactical nukes but is there still any reason to keep those nukes around?
IMHO Germany, UK and France are the backbone of the EU/NATO when it comes to overall army power So perhaps it would be an idea to assign certain nations to play a fixed role during a serious conflict.
Lets say for example that UK & France provide a Tactical umbrella while Germany and most other countries keep it conventional....
I know that some nations are assigned to specific army/naval and air groups to operate around the world in NATO groups but thats not my point i mean the big picture, basicly let each nation do what its capable to do within their arsenal and material/Systems.
Anyway besides the fact of having nukes is a good thing or not they sure do have a tipping edge during a war and can provide a victory or at least a draw if a war really gets out of hand, but are they still needed on soil of host nations who offically do not have nukes by their own and would it not better to leave this to nations who offically have the status as nuke power like US, UK, France, China, India, Israel and russia (And the other nations i do not know of)
IMO today compared to 30 years ago it seems to me useless to maintain the "cold war" Defence structure specially because the global situation calls for a more advanced and indept strategy IMO the shock and awe times/situation as in the cold war era is a little outdated ill guess.
So is the NATO/EU tactical defence situation not a bit outdated?
). Don't know the current status on this situation.