Posted on 01/26/2006 1:09:45 AM PST by 12B
Why would Nato not offer such guarantees? Seems like that ought to be a gimmee.
Count me for Mars!
I must say that my willingness to trust the Germans has decreased significantly in the past decade with the policies of the SPD and the growing anti-Americanism. I know you are not anti-American and support a generally sensible outlook on the world. However, where once I had confidence that such a view was that of the Durchschnittsmensch in Duesseldorf, the way the SPD successfully retained power through America-bashing disabused me of that notion. I like Germany and most of the Germans I've known, so I think I saw what I wanted to see. But, as an historian, and one who has devoted a significant amount of time to German history (how many other Americans do you know who know about the Historikerstreit and read people like Ernst Nolte and Fritz Fischer in German?), I think my suspicion of German enthusiasm is not ill-founded.
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."
That would be "terrorists' nuclear threat..."
Maybe they can buy 'em from Iran?
It would be silly for Germany to incur the cost of developing a
nuclear weapon (development, the delivery means, the doctrine, the screening of personnel) - there is already plenty of nuclear
weaponry to bring to bear against the most likely
threat - Iran. It wouldn't add a bit of deterrence.
If it were to become necessary to bring the weapons to bear,
France and UK already hold more than enough to cover Germany (assuming EU members are bound to mutually defend
one another).
"It would be silly for Germany to incur the cost of developing a nuclear weapon (development, the delivery means, the doctrine, the screening of personnel) - there is already plenty of nuclear weaponry to bring to bear against the most likely threat - Iran. It wouldn't add a bit of deterrence.
If it were to become necessary to bring the weapons to bear,
France and UK already hold more than enough to cover Germany (assuming EU members are bound to mutually defend
one another)."
I think many don't really understand the rationale behind Scholz' statements. But if you look at the big picture, Scholz' intention is quite clear: He thinks that we are steering towards another cold/hot war. This time not between the west and communist Russia, but between the west and a conglomerate of terrorist (often islamistic) states. He thinks that NATO needs to reinvent itself, refocus and come together again after the disagreements over Iraq. One piece in that puzzle would be to modify NATO's nuclear doctrin from MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to NUTS (NUclear Terrorist States) and probably even change the member structure, transforming NATO into a truly global alliance against terror.
His comments are aimed a German public and are rather meant to scare Germans into facing reality, which in Scholz' view is more or less like this: "Bush is right, now get over it. The alternative is we would have to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons of our own. And we wouldn't want that, would we?"
Japan could build nukes as easily as Germany.
Well said. I think the Israeli government should release a statement saying that if Iran directly or indirectly strikes Israel with a nuclear weapon that Israel will retaliate to the fullest degree, i.e. Iran's complete destruction.
And I have absolutely nothing against it. I'm preety sure Germany is the last country to use it as an offensive weapon.
It's logical, that well armed ally is better than an ally with bows and arrows ;)
The situation with Japan is pretty much the same as with Germany: Both nations have the technology and the expertise, i.e. a civil nuclear program that encompasses a significant number nuclear power plants, reasearch reactors and institutions that can also handle highly enriched uranium or plutonium (e.g. Garching) as well as a space programm. A nation that builds half of the Ariane rocket could also build mid-range to intercontinental rockets as weapons delivery systems.
A German or Japanese nuclear program would be completed in no time without any major hiccups.
No doubt about it. But the thread was not about Japan. I have no objections against a Japan with nukes.
Nice words (so warm and fuzzy), you both. Makes me wishing to fight side by side with Americans right now. :-)
You seem to be a bit confused. On the one hand, you refer to the pacifists and anti-Americans, on the other hand you mention the history of German wars. There is no special aggressive national German character. Germans weren´t more or less in favor of WW1 (everyone wanted it) or WW2 (just the Nazis and Soviets wanted it) than other nations. I think the Nazi propaganda "we never stop fighting" (which was also viewed and heard in the foreign) contributed a lot to the image of the evil German.
I think most voters cannot really explain your voting system (electorate college). And here, most voters probably cannot explain what our two votes decide about. Many people aren´t well informed, that´s a fact. However, we let them vote. Same with polls about greatest Presidents or Germans. Ok, Hitler was not among the candidates ;-), but I think Adenauer deserves this place. After all, by his decisions he influenced the fate of Europe until today!
Well said.
The idea here, I suspect, is that if enough countries threaten to meet Iranian development with their own the Iranians might blink. Whether they will or not - my guess at this point is that they will not - this would have been a much better ploy while serious negotiations were still going on with the Iranians. It's a little late now.
You're the one who raised the question of German militarism, not me. What I said was that the Germans tend to extremes, or to absolutist approaches to things if you prefer, and that I regard German radical pacifism and anti-militarism as psychologically not essentially different from the psychological attraction of both Marxism and fascism. The points are very different.
There is no question the Germans have been regarded as particularly warlike in the West at least since Tacitus. Militarism, of course is a modern term - 19th century I rather think - but one finds it applied to (primarily) the Prussians as far back as the term can be documented. Certainly, in the 18th century and before, with the Friedrich Wilhelm, the Great Elector, Brandenburg was a state known for its military character and aggressiveness. Surely, you don't think Friederich der Grosse did not continue the Prussian tradition, or that Wilhelmine Germany was not widely regarded as a peculiarly militaristic nation. Von Moltke and von Bismarck were Junker Agrarian reformers perhaps? Wilhelm II was a misunderstood cripple who craved his grandmother Victoria (von Saxe-Coburg-Goth)'s approval, but she wouldn't take him seriously?
You really need to read German history. Read von Meinecke, read Gerhard Ritter, read Ernst Nolte, read Trietscke, hell, read Golo Mann and Fritz Fischer! I have.
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.