German nuclear electricity supply now at ZERO.
In the 1990s it was 30% of total energy supply.
Now Germany has electricity costs 3X higher than Spain and 75% more costly than France.
The leftists/greens who did this are terrorists.
Posted on 02/04/2026 8:52:46 PM PST by Olog-hai
With the US relationship with Europe increasingly frayed, and a major nuclear arms treaty set to expire this week, longtime pacifist Germany is starting to think differently about its nuclear posture.
German Chancellor Frederich Merz recently revealed that Germany is in discussions with other European powers about establishing Europe-wide nuclear deterrence. And while it’s highly unlikely that Berlin would acquire its own nuclear weapons, European countries such as Germany are beginning to look beyond the US for protection.
Germany hopes that the French will allow discussions about their nuclear strategy on a European level, Emil Archambault, a defense expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, told Euractiv. […]
France’s President Emmanuel Macron had already offered to expand France’s nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. But the idea resurfaced now that Merz is at the helm in Berlin. …
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
They (almost all of Europe) see that they have committed suicide by immigration and energy policy and leftism in general, and they don’t want to die alone, so they want to take the whole rest of the world with them with a nice little global nuclear war.
Germany may want to think about getting its three nuke power plants back online.
Nuclear weapons are not ‘green’ and leave a large ‘foot print’.
That might be one way of putting it.
Their nihilism is very subtle, i.e. until it comes to its climax.
You *really* don’t want those reactors back on line - they’re pretty damn bad. They should instead look at licensing and building new ones along French designs.
Shockingly, Germany is pretty bad at nuclear power generation.
I have absolutely no problem with France and Britain expanding their nuclear umbrella to defend Europe. They are capable of such and make great nuclear weapons, the Brits weapons are our designs but France made their own, they work. Their Gross Domestic Product is several times that of Russia. Oddly little Italy has a GDP the equal of Russia.
EUROPE NEEDS NOT DEFENDING AS IT CAN EASILY DO SO IN TEN YEARS IF TOLD, “WE WILL NOT DEFEND YOU IN TEN YEARS. NUKES ARE QUICK AND EASY AND CHEAP. ARMIES ARE NOT CHEAP AND TAKE LONGER. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IN JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS.
A nonsense statement, based on nothing.
Whereas Israel's Samson Option is on the record.
Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
Van Crevald is saying, if no Israel, then no world. Israel will bring down the world, including the U.S. So the world better keep supporting it, because it has a nuclear gun to its head.
The big question, how many high-level Israelis feel the same way?
German nuclear electricity supply now at ZERO.
In the 1990s it was 30% of total energy supply.
Now Germany has electricity costs 3X higher than Spain and 75% more costly than France.
The leftists/greens who did this are terrorists.
The EUSSR is not interested in its own defense. That was never the idea they had behind having a united military, and they have wanted this for decades.
This article tells us that European leaders are exploring a reasonable response to their newly realized nakedness to the Bear. If France and Britain, with their limited nuclear arsenals, cannot combine effectively with other NATO nations to form a multinational shield, all these nations will be left with no option for survival but to get the bomb individually. Welcome to a new nuclear arms race.
When Trump told Europe that, in effect, NATO can no longer depend on him to defend them in the event of nuclear attack, Europeans quickly concluded that the essential structure of NATO was being deliberately dismantled by Donald Trump. His statement alone renders the deterrent power of NATO less viable.
Combine this threat with Trump's threats that he might not honor our Article 5 treaty obligation to conventionally defend European nations if they had not paid up, with Trump's blustering, bellicose threat to invade Greenland, and one can only conclude that Europe is not paranoid, rather, it is Trump who is at best ill-advised.
Russia has only a corrupt, conventional armed force that has been exposed by valiant and resourceful Ukrainians to be a pathetic threat, but Russia remains perhaps the world's second most lethal nuclear threat. In the absence of America's power and willingness to deter that threat,
Europe knows it must look elsewhere to protect itself from an aggressive Russia. Aggressive Russia has attacked country after country in the last two decades and will do so again with impunity if it has unique possession of the bomb in Europe. Uniquely armed nuclear Russia is no longer pathetic but a real conventional threat to Europe.
Russia has invaded Georgia, Syria, Ukraine (repeatedly), Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and undertaken various adventures in Africa. It is only yesterday that Russia again rattled its nuclear spears when it said that it was withdrawing from the nuclear arms treaty. Over the years since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin and his lieutenants have repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and against those who sustain Ukraine.
Small wonder, Europe feels bereft of the most essential security feature in the face of Russia's belligerence. It was predictable, as I for one have predicted, that Europe will seek protection elsewhere and that might well ignite a nuclear arms race. Consider that Turkey, a member of NATO, will feel the urgent necessity to get the bomb when European nations arm themselves. Once Turkey acquires nukes, the rest of the Middle East will inevitably follow suit, and then the world.
The consequences for American security in a world of proliferating nuclear weapons, among them unstable Middle Eastern countries and beyond into the rest of the world, are inevitable but so unnecessary.
If the world arms up, it will not be because Germany closed its nuclear power plants, or because Europe permitted too much immigration, as argued here, it will happen only because Donald Trump is blowing up NATO.
Nor is this administration's mindless policy justified because domestic policies in Europe offend Maga. Domestic policies in Minnesota also offend Maga-and rightly so. We perhaps should be aware of our own hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in national nuclear security policy is not only unseemly, it is foolhardy in the extreme. In this case, the best outcome might be we have unwittingly substituted France for America in controlling nuclear deterrence policy. Thank you, Maga.
The risks and expense of proliferating nuclear arms will have been brought upon ourselves, and no hypocritical damning of European domestic policies will make us safe or make rational our self-defeating policy.
European leaders are rationally attempting to restore a nuclear deterrence in the face of irrational American foreign policy.
You present a sober and insightful analysis, but some here will accuse you of TDS.
Thanks for your comment.
I try to refrain from accusing them of TSS because that means that I have descended to the ad hominem level that I deplore.
That seems correct. What remains is to declare to be for or against NATO continuing with the US as a member.
My bride and I look forward to this nation leaving NATO and the UN leaving these United States in time, in the same way that we have left the WHO, the Paris Climate accords and other "world" organizations.
One finds: "In Germany, electricity prices for household consumers were among the highest in the EU, averaging €0.3835 per kWh in the first half of 2025."
Stepping back from politics, the simple fact is that rising energy cost is evidencing itself in Germany. As such, industry built on energy is finding ways to migrate capital to more friendly climes.
It is instructive to note that most of the article's prose relies on SWP, a "think tank," and a "research institute."
As has been this last year, Germany complains that the US won't defend them as they themselves deindustrialize, become awash with Muslim immigration and go "green." So, logically, it's President Trump's fault, that's how the political game in played there.
What an odd formulation of your either-or.
"Long live Europe."So NATO...."The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source,” he told world leaders. “When even one person stops performing … the illusion begins to crack.”
‘The end of the world as we know it’: Is the rules-based order finished? 21 January 2026
"...us against the world" is not the only formulation, and relies fully on the definition of "us." Rather like the definition of "rules based order," which relies on who makes the rules.NATO releases 2024 Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment Report NATO, 9 July 2024
Relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific region 23 June 2025
Mark Carney let the proverbial cat out of the bag. "When even one person stops performing … the illusion begins to crack."
Gee, I wonder who that one person might be?
Nuclear weapons are both difficult to create, and maintain, they are also extremely expensive. Once you have a weapon you need a delivery system, that system will be expensive to set up and maintain. If no one has told them yet, I will, you are broke. You are someone who has lived off their credit card and now owe more each month than you bring in and your credit cards has been declined. Now is not the time to buy a new toy.
I’ve been saying this for a while and, yesterday, VP Vance broached the subject. Without confidence in its alliance with the US, we will see nuclear proliferation. Vance said our Sunni allies in the Middle East will nuke up. Now we have Germany, a non-nuclear power, committing to its own anti-missile defense and revisiting its the issue of deterrence. Think about Japan. Think about the possibility of dozens of nuclear powers and a new and multinational nuclear arms race. Think it through people. We, the US, when we were the leader of the free world, helped to prevent such a thing. We, as isolationist and treating our former allies on a transaction basis, will see a much more dangerous world.
An already outdated graph:
Now update that graph with the up-to-date $38.4 trillion in 2026. Well beyond the scale of said graph to represent the scope of the problem.
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.