Posted on 01/26/2006 1:09:45 AM PST by 12B
Former Defense Minister Rupert Scholz (CDU 1988 - 1989) said Germany should consider building its own nuclear deterrence force if it could not get binding guarantees from NATO that it would protect Germany in case nuclear threats were directed at the country.
Forgot to mention, is in German press reports, only English language article is in Bloomberg.
under the armistice agreement germany is barred from developing nuclear weapons or a major navy, even though the technology has been there since WWII.
Germany may very well develop nuclear weapons. It has voluntarily joined the NPT, but it can leave that treaty within a year. Also, why should Russia, France, Britain or America enforce the special article of the 2+4-treaty, saying that Germany will not develop NBC-weapons? Do you really think that anyone of these four countries would have objections against a nuclear-armed Germany?
Isn't that the entire purpose of Article V of the NATO Charter?
NATO was founded as a defense community against the Soviets, but Art. V demands just a form of support. That may be a letter expressing condolences or a nuclear response.
Russia would allow it. Russia has nothing to fear - after all, nukes are in Germany since 60 years, so nothing would change really.
Okay, okay, okay!... But they can only build one, and they have to use it to carry out the order Hitler gave von Choltitz.
smart guy this ex defense minister, trying to con the big bad americans into protecting poor little germany against their bad new bully named iran. nuclear weapon, probably about 40 million, hearing leftists beg for protection, priceless.
Just to quote what Scholz actually said:
"Wir brauchen von unseren Partnern und der NATO bindende Zusagen, dass sie Deutschland auch vor einer nuklearen terroristischen Bedrohung oder Erpressung mit dem Einsatz von Atomwaffen schützen.
Translation: "We need binding guarantees from our partners and from NATO, that they will protect Germany also in case of a nuclear threat or blackmail with the use of their nuclear arsenal."
He continues:
"Wenn solche Zusagen nicht erreichbar sein sollten - dazu müsste gegebenenfalls auch die NATO-Doktrin in entsprechend klarstellendem Sinne geändert werden - müssen wir die Frage ernsthaft diskutieren, wie wir auf eine nukleare Bedrohung durch einen Terror-Staat angemessen, im Notfall also sogar mit eigenen Atomwaffen, reagieren können."
Translation: "If such guarantees should not be attainable - because for such guarantees NATO doctrin would have to be rendered more precisely in a certain sense - we have to seriously discuss the question of how we can react to the nuclear threat of a terror state, in case of emergency even with own nuclear weapons."
"Okay, okay, okay!... But they can only build one, and they have to use it to carry out the order Hitler gave von Choltitz."
Muahahahaha! Good one!
But seriously. Right now Germany probably only has enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for one or two bombs maximum (legally, by the way, it's used in research reactors).
Yeah, not bad at all. But hey, why shouldn´t you help us? Back in the 50´s, it was Washington having plead that Germany shall not develop nukes in order to avoid more tensions with the Reds. Our parliament had already authorized the government to build a nuclear force... that was the beginning of the US´ security guarantee for Germany.
well, i really dont like to keep bringing up old news as especially germany has righted much of her past mistakes. however, the fifties was very close the forties and at that time the past was more relevant, i think you might agree? the real reason we did protect you was because if you had done nukes in the fifties, russia would have swallowed europe whole or the world would really have had a real nuclear war. russia while pretending to be nervous about resurgent fascism was just waiting for an excuse to take europe and isolate the usa, which we sucessfully defended against by defending you and others.
So you basically say, that if then-Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (voted to by the greatest German last year) had continued his plan for a nuclear Bundeswehr, we would have had a hot war with the Union of the Sovereign Soviet Republics? Nah, you and I know that the Soviets wouldn´t have been that dumb. But it surely could have harmed the West on minor sceneries in the world (such as Berlin, Cuba, seas).
Btw, was my English grammar correct in this post? I still feel insecure on the "would"-cases in the past.
yes sir, your grammer was correct and indeed you write english very well, congrats to you. with regards to a hot war with the soviets, i think they would have tried if they thought the situation proper. look at the berlin airlift, im sure they were just confounded on how it was handled, again look at hungary, more violent tactics ala moscow style. by the way, you may rest very tranquil in all seriousness that if iran hits germany with a nuke, the usa will reduce iran to rubble. we understand the concept of layered battle management very well. good night to you and stay well.
The problem is as they get nukes in their arsenal they are becoming a more muslim nation.
As they become more muslim and more muslims continue to flood into Germany, there will be more muslim voters (legal) and then you know how that goes. They will put some nutcase in office and oh yeah, he would have control of nuke in Europe.
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
September 12, 1990ARTICLE 3
(1) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.
It's seems to me that there's an obvious and probably intentional loophole, since the NPT did continue to apply after the reunification of Germany, but the Final Settlement doesn't say it will continue to apply forever.
yap - and your country is getting a hispanic nation - should we allow mexicans to have nukes ?
Sorry I don't have the actually valid prejudice about mexicans but I am sure there is one.
The way you want to write that second sentence is as follows:
"Sorry, I don't have actual prejudice against Mexicans, but I am sure it exists."
In other words leave out the "valid" part. The way you wrote it, it sounds as if you're saying there's good reason for prejudice against Mexicans, and I don't think that's what you want to say!
And I assure you it does in fact exist!
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.