Sadly, we are now at at point where nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent against Russia. Ukraine surrendered the ones they had and we're living the side effects. This sucks, man!
There are far right extremists on the rise in Germany as well. The question you should ask yourself is: Do you want to risk an AfD-lead, Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government being in control of those nuclear weapons?
Starting next year, a Putin-loving, EU- and NATO-critic government will be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Fair point.
This comment section seems to assume that just because the cold war never went nuclear, it never could have. It also seems to forget the stress of living under constant threat of nuclear war.
We need to get rid of nukes, not build new ones. One of our core projects as humanity should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. Our failure to do so is the fault of the Americans as much as the Russians, if not more. You guys sure love your bombs.
So to answer the question: Nah, fuck that.
Thank you. It makes me lose hope for the future of humanity everytime I read comments saying we should remake the mistakes of our past. If we had nukes in 1914, the world would have ended because the Archduke of Austria was shot.
The Archduke of Austria, a title that doesn't exist anymore, was the heir to rule Austria-Hungary, a country that doesn't exist anymore. He was killed by a Bosnian because he didn't like being a part of Austria-Hungary. Bosnia would later become a part of Yugoslavia, a country that doesn't exist anymore. How many nukes would have been launched to save these meaningless titles and borders?
Well, my guess is that there wouldn't have been a WW1 if nukes were present. Also, there wouldn't have been a WW1 (as we know it) if pre-war leaders had known it would be a trench war of attrition.
Also, WW3 would probably have been a reality if nukes weren't present.
By the logic of mad, those countries would still exist.
and this sounds like and Ace Combat Zero radio call
But what should one do if one has a neighbor who constantly threatens with nuclear annihilation and who doesn't respect anyone who's not also a nuclear power? Just give in? I feel that we're no longer in a Nash equilibrium.
Obama made this a goal of his second term, and while he achieved some success, the relationship between the west and the other major nuclear powers has significantly worsened since then.
It's an admirable goal, but I'm not sure it's going to be feasible any time in the near future.
This sounds like a Metal Gear Solid codec call
Would have to be about 2000% longer
With your request in mind I ran the comment through ChatGPT, just for you. Enjoy!
Codec Transmission: Solid Snake & Nastasha Romanenko
Snake: [static crackles, the screen flickers to life, Snake’s voice low, gruff]
"Romanenko, I’ve been scanning through this comment section... It seems like everyone’s forgetting the bigger picture. They think just because the Cold War didn’t go nuclear, it was all just a close call that never could have happened."
Nastasha: [calm and measured, her voice cutting through the static]
"Snake, you’re absolutely right. The assumption that the nuclear threat was just a matter of chance and never a real possibility... It’s dangerous. It underestimates the tension, the fear, the sheer madness that gripped the world for decades. The fear of waking up to a flash of light and knowing the world was about to change forever."
Snake: [scoffs, a bitter chuckle escaping him]
"Yeah. I don’t think people really get it. All those years, the Cold War didn’t end with a handshake. It ended with a quiet sigh of relief. But we all knew it was a coin toss. Heads, we survive. Tails, we’re vaporized."
Nastasha: [her voice hardens, as though drawing from memories of a time she'd rather forget]
"Exactly. Imagine living with that over your head every day. The dread, the constant knowing that at any moment, the world could be wiped out in a flash, and it wouldn't be your fault. You’d just be collateral damage. It's as if the people who lived in that time were somehow made of stronger stuff, able to endure the unimaginable."
Snake: [leans back, folding his arms across his chest as if in thought]
"I get what you're saying, but there's something that bugs me about this mindset—about the idea that because we made it out without a nuclear apocalypse, we’re somehow immune. Like we can just sit back and let the next generation think it was all a fairy tale. A close call, but nothing more."
Nastasha: [sharp inhale, her tone biting with the weight of history]
"It’s not just a fairy tale, Snake. It’s a horrific reality that nearly became true. The weapons we developed were so powerful, so incomprehensible, that they could’ve ended everything, in an instant. The logic of deterrence kept the world balanced on a knife’s edge, but it could’ve just as easily tipped over. One wrong move, one miscalculation... and the world as we know it would’ve been gone."
Snake: [pauses, his voice low and almost whispering]
"Yeah... and it wasn't just the Soviets or the Americans. It was the whole world playing Russian roulette. Everyone was in on it. The whole damn planet was holding its breath for decades."
Nastasha: [nodding, but there's an edge to her words now]
"Of course, and let’s not forget—our failure to get rid of nuclear weapons isn't just a product of rivalry or ideological differences. It's the failure of humanity as a whole to look at the bigger picture. Instead, both sides clung to these weapons, clung to the idea that the power to destroy could somehow be the power to control. But it’s an illusion. A dangerous one."
Snake: [his voice tinged with frustration, rubbing his temple]
"You’re not wrong. The Russians. The Americans. They’re all guilty. The U.S. has always had an unhealthy obsession with their bombs. It's like they think the more they have, the safer they are. But what do we really have to show for it? More weapons? More power? More destruction?"
Nastasha: [quiet but firm]
"Snake, the reason we haven't gotten rid of nuclear weapons is simple—fear. Fear that without them, we would be vulnerable. But the truth is, we’re already vulnerable. The real danger isn’t the lack of nukes, but the presence of them. A single mistake, a single reckless decision, and we’re all gone."
Snake: [grits his teeth, anger simmering beneath his calm tone]
"Yeah, that’s the real kicker, Romanenko. People still want to build more. They want to keep creating newer, deadlier weapons, thinking that if they have the biggest bomb, they’ll be the ones in control. But all they’re really doing is inviting disaster. It’s not just about power, it’s about stupidity. We’re playing with fire, and everyone’s too afraid to put the damn match down."
Nastasha: [her voice steady, but her words carry a weight of truth]
"It’s the same cycle, Snake. We see it in history, over and over again. Nations too proud, too stubborn to let go of what they think gives them an advantage, even if it’s ultimately self-destructive. The American and Russian leaders, they’re no different than the ones before them. They think they can control something as uncontrollable as nuclear weapons. They think their arsenal gives them strength, when in fact, it only guarantees our eventual downfall."
Snake: [pauses for a moment, thinking hard, voice quiet but resolute]
"So what do we do? How do we fix it? The world’s not going to just wake up one day and throw its bombs away. This isn’t a utopia. It’s a battlefield, always has been."
Nastasha: [a long pause, the weight of her answer hanging in the air]
"You’re right. There’s no magic solution. But we have to start somewhere. First, we acknowledge the truth—we need to get rid of these weapons. Not create new ones. Not stockpile them. We need to take the step forward, even if it’s one small step. A movement to dismantle nuclear arsenals, to make the world realize that we’re all in this together, and that no one is truly safe while these weapons exist. Humanity needs to look beyond the false comfort of nuclear deterrence and realize that there’s no real security in the threat of annihilation."
Snake: [shakes his head, his voice heavy, almost weary]
"Yeah, maybe it starts with a conversation. But who’s going to listen, Romanenko? The powers that be? They don’t care about peace. They care about control. And as long as they hold the bombs, they’ll never let go."
Nastasha: [sighs softly, her tone almost a whisper]
"Then it’s up to people like us, Snake. The ones who see the bigger picture. The ones who understand that the only way forward is to dismantle the legacy of destruction that we’ve built. We have to make the case, over and over again. It won’t be easy. But what else is left to do?"
Snake: [his voice hardening, his eyes steely with resolve]
"Then we fight. We don’t just stand by and let it happen. We keep pushing. One day, we’ll get through to them. And when that day comes, maybe, just maybe, we’ll see a world without nukes."
Nastasha: [calmly, with a hint of resolve]
"That’s the only hope we have left. One step at a time. But we have to start somewhere."
Snake: [pauses, then responds with a finality, his voice resolute]
"Yeah. And to answer your question, Romanenko? Nah, screw that. We're not playing that game anymore."
[The codec flickers, the transmission cuts out, the screen turning to static once again.]
with all due respect, no, stop, please
Absolutely.
There are two ways to make sure nuclear weapons are never used in war:
#1 is never going to happen. The US, Russia, and China are for sure never ever giving up their nuclear weapons.
So #2 it is, level the playing field and give everyone nuclear weapons. A nation is far less likely to use a nuclear weapon if they know they can and will get nuked back right away.
2 only works with countries that have something to lose. Don’t assume that a deterrence strategy that works with other major powers is going to work with some small, hellish Islamist dictatorship.
The MAD doctrine aims to make the intentional use of nukes in war unworkable, but in doing so makes their accidental use due to mishap, misunderstanding or miscommunication much more likely, and the more people that are party to the MAD doctrine the more likely accidents are.
You don't need to look very hard to find examples of cases where billions of people would have been killed if not for people choosing to ignore doctrine even when the information they had at hand said that they should use their weapons
New MAD doctrine idea: all belligerents in any international conflict gets nuked. Thank you coming to my ted talk, I have a proof but it is too large to fit in the comments.
I don't think anyone should have nukes. Not even my country. But since that's never going to happen and the major deterrent to using nukes is if everyone has nukes, then maybe everyone* should have nukes.
*Everyone except crazy psychos that don't give a fuck about mutually assured destruction and would still use them. Germany isn't such a country with such a power. At least not since 1945.
Any country can become such, but as you've said yourself - everyone having nukes is more realistic than nobody having nukes, and the "mass destruction" part can even have upsides.
NEIN
Doch
Oh!
We already have nuclear participation with the US. In case NATO decides for mutual nuclear defense, the US nuclear bombs stored in Germany exclusively for German use would be attached to airplanes of the German Air Force to be deployed onto their targets.
And what if the orange man and his friend Putin differs?
There is still the Fr*nch sub's that Macron just offered to be a shared EU resource.
Not sure what you mean by "for German use". The US is very much in charge of every step of the use of shared nuclear weapons. Our pilots get to deliver them, that's pretty much all of our involvement.
We need guillotines, not nukes.
"Our" leaders start wars, and the common people suffer. We are never asked if they want that shit, but are forced to participate and kill or be killed. Fuck that. Fuck those leaders. Let's united against bad leaders and off with their heads!
It should, but that's only one level.
First Germany should build a competent armed force which will participate in all the ongoing wars on the globe to gain experience.
(I'm not a German citizen nor I intend to become one.)
It's a common misconception that using peaceful means is always more moral than fighting a colonial war.
One can imagine a simple experiment. Country A conquers country B and brutalizes country C. Would it be more moral for Germany to peacefully trade (including military goods\technologies) with country A or to use said armed force to get a piece of country B? Country B suffers in both cases, but in the latter case Germany doesn't finance the aggressor, and also presents some competition and can make life in parts of B controlled by it better. It can also offer military help to C for some preferential treatment.
Ah, also country A already has such a fighting force, all bullies already do. A military has to fight wars to remain competent. So there's no vegetarian way to defend from influence of bullies. And there's no neutral way as well - either you are a bully or you actively fight bullies. Maybe both. If you are neither, then you become weaker with time, and thus simply part of supply chain for bullies. Also neutrality always helps bullies and never the victim, that's Eli Wiesel quote, if someone didn't know.
No, it's illegal. We cannot do this because it's illegal is I think the most German of answers.
„Die Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik bekräftigen ihren Verzicht auf Herstellung und Besitz von und auf Verfügungsgewalt über atomare, biologische und chemische Waffen. Sie erklären, daß auch das vereinte Deutschland sich an diese Verpflichtungen halten wird. Insbesondere gelten die Rechte und Verpflichtungen aus dem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen vom 1. Juli 1968 für das vereinte Deutschland fort.“
Well, then just change the question. Should it be legal?
I guess the question would be connected with how europe is going to handle its combined military defense.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!