Skip to comments.
Germans aim to grab British Nukes for EU Army
THESUN ^
| 10/24/03
| GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Posted on 10/23/2003 7:36:13 PM PDT by Pikamax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: McGavin999
"someone has to PAY for developing that military."
Right, and they expect to get our past investment in bases, our past investment in armaments, and our continued investment in Nato operations.
Not gonna happen. I hope Tony is seeing through this and will not succumb.
41
posted on
10/24/2003 5:09:11 AM PDT
by
AMNZ
To: Pikamax
I'd like to get a copy of the report and see what it says.
To: Pikamax
Hey the Frogs are a nuclear power--why not grab the force de frappe?
To: Michael81Dus

Germany signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
44
posted on
10/24/2003 9:11:24 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Torie
They only have to worry about sustaining this level of freebies as long as they have to worry about elections...
To: Southack
IIRC, there was another treaty that Bonn ratified in the 1950s that renounced nuclear weapons.
Incidentally, the German signature on the NPT was caveated with a proviso favoring a the right of the Euro-Peon Union to have nuclear weapons.
46
posted on
10/24/2003 9:17:40 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: joesnuffy
Agree completely.
If this is true, this is a little scary. European hegemony for Germany through Brussels?
If I were Italy and the UK, I'd be pulling up stakes.
To: Southack
Yep, and who cares??
That paper can be easily declared null and void by our parliament. And I promise you: this is going to happen the day after the U.S. government takes back its security guarantee (which is still valid), to defend the Federal Republic of Germany with nuclear forces in case of an nuclear attack.
To: Michael81Dus
"That paper can be easily declared null and void by our parliament."
Ah, but what will the news media say about such a "unilateral" action?! What about all of the bleatings that will be heard from news commentators about Germany no longer having any respect for "international will and law"?!
< /Kidding! >
49
posted on
10/24/2003 9:28:46 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: RinaseaofDs
Bull$#it! Germany does not strive for hegemony, the French eventually do...
To: Southack
LOL, the actual reason why we have no nukes (one could wonder) is not that we lost WW2, it´s because the USA didn´t want us to have them.
In the end of the 50´s, just right after we got armed forces again, the West German government asked the parliament to allow the development of nuclear weapons.
Against the votes of the Social Democrats (they were always on the side of the losers), the permission was granted. But then, the U.S. government thought it might be not a good idea because then all the satellite states of the USSR would want nukes on their own too, so they gave us the promise to destroy all enemies who dare to nuke us. This promise is still valid (and I hope it will last many many years to come), and it´s the real reason why we don´t have nukes.
To: Pikamax
England should just offer to sell Europe its nukes at a fair price, and that would shut them up.
52
posted on
10/24/2003 9:36:38 AM PDT
by
krb
(the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
To: Michael81Dus
"...the U.S. government thought it might be not a good idea because then all the satellite states of the USSR would want nukes on their own too, so they gave us the promise to destroy all enemies who dare to nuke us. This promise is still valid (and I hope it will last many many years to come)..."
It's safe to say that we'll keep our military defense promises, especially in regarding to taking the opportunity to bash our foes.
The U.S. never backs down from a fight, after all (a concept that gets repeatedly lost on generation after generation of our antagonizers; Ba'athists in Iraq and Talibans in Afhganistan come to mind, for instance).
53
posted on
10/24/2003 9:40:09 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Cronos
Tommies = Englischers (after the Tommy guns). Bzzzzt. Nope. Tommies = Englischers (after Tommy Atkins).
54
posted on
10/24/2003 9:41:56 AM PDT
by
LTCJ
(Killing threads singlehandedly since June 2001)
To: Southack
And despite the differences between our governments... I could never imagine that the U.S. would not strike back when somebody dares to attack the NATO territory with nuclear weapons! Deterrence must be serious and credible... I never felt that the U.S. foreign policy was not like that.
To: LTCJ; Cronos
And why do you call the Germans Jerries? I mean, it probably doesn´t come from Tom & Jerry, does it? :-)
To: Michael81Dus
The EU is the worse thing that could possiably happen to Great Britian
57
posted on
10/24/2003 10:04:48 AM PDT
by
Veritas01
(Veritas)
To: Michael81Dus
WEll, thats' what I thought when I had heard it for the first time too ;-P
58
posted on
10/25/2003 9:59:33 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(W2004)
Comment #59 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson