Has the US awakened the sleeping giant?

[VorZakone]

French President Emmanuel Macron said in a televised address to the nation on Wednesday he plans to hold a meeting of all European army chiefs in Paris next week. He also said France needs to be ready if the United States is no longer by its side.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...opean-army-chiefs-paris-next-week-2025-03-05/

 

[Red Star One]

What a hero in Germany Macron will be when he gives them the nukes. I'm all fine with that.

 

[foolsgold]

What a hero in Germany Macron will be when he gives them the nukes. I'm all fine with that.

Germany, alongside countries like Japan and South Korea are classified as "nuclear threshold" states, meaning they have the skills and material to produce nuclear weapons at a time of their choice. If they committed to it, Germany could have a functional nuclear weapon by late summer, early autumn. Delivery mechanisms are more complex, but not insurmountable.

Ukraine also has the capacity to do so, and in their position I probably would.

 

[Red Star One]

Germany, alongside countries like Japan and South Korea are classified as "nuclear threshold" states, meaning they have the skills and material to produce nuclear weapons at a time of their choice. If they committed to it, Germany could have a functional nuclear weapon by late summer, early autumn. Delivery mechanisms are more complex, but not insurmountable.

Ukraine also has the capacity to do so, and in their position I probably would.

it's been like 70 years for developed countries like Germany and Japan that the obstacle was international law and post WW II trauma, not material and skills to produce the nuclear weapons. If Germany becomes a nuclear superpower it's through sheer diplomacy - and commendable trust and European unity shown by the French.

 

[RoyH1]

Germany, alongside countries like Japan and South Korea are classified as "nuclear threshold" states, meaning they have the skills and material to produce nuclear weapons at a time of their choice. If they committed to it, Germany could have a functional nuclear weapon by late summer, early autumn. Delivery mechanisms are more complex, but not insurmountable.

Ukraine also has the capacity to do so, and in their position I probably would.

Wasn't Sweden on the verge of having one during the Cold War and then decided against it for political reasons? I think they have a lot of the elements in place to make one really fast too.

 

[foolsgold]

Wasn't Sweden on the verge of having one during the Cold War and then decided against it for political reasons? I think they have a lot of the elements in place to make one really fast too.

I think you're correct. The basics of a nuclear weapon aren't that difficult, it's 80 year old technology after all. Any industrialised nation with sufficient material and political will could put together a basic minimum viable bomb in short order.

 

[Shez]

Sigh - we will see nukes go off in our lifetime won’t we

 

[deef]

I always thought discussions about WW3 were just fear-mongering, but everything that has been happening over the past two decades unfortunately seems to point in that direction. I grew up in the 90s, inspired by the spirit of a united Europe, and I was hopeful that world peace was the ultimate goal for every Western country. However, I no longer believe there is a viable solution with the way things are currently being handled. If the only way to prevent war is to invest heavily in weapons, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach.

It's important to remember that those who make decisions about our fate are not the ones who will bear the consequences or suffer from them.

With all those lunatics leading nations, anything seems possible. The worst part? Most of these so-called leaders were elected...

 

[Jotun]

I always thought discussions about WW3 were just fear-mongering, but everything that has been happening over the past two decades unfortunately seems to point in that direction. I grew up in the 90s, inspired by the spirit of a united Europe, and I was hopeful that world peace was the ultimate goal for every Western country. However, I no longer believe there is a viable solution with the way things are currently being handled. If the only way to prevent war is to invest heavily in weapons, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach.

It's important to remember that those who make decisions about our fate are not the ones who will bear the consequences or suffer from them.

With all those lunatics leading nations, anything seems possible. The worst part? Most of these so-called leaders were elected...

Yes, democracy is failing us.

 

[RoyH1]

Yes, democracy is failing us.

I don't think it's democracy as such. The power of the internet, social media, algorithms and AI ruled by unscrupulous private interests is too much for classic electoral democracies to withstand. If you can get enough people to have a completely different view of reality, then they'll vote against their own interests. And erode faith in public institutions.

 

[deef]

I don't think it's democracy as such. The power of the internet, social media, algorithms and AI ruled by unscrupulous private interests is too much for classic electoral democracies to withstand. If you can get enough people to have a completely different view of reality, then they'll vote against their own interests. And erode faith in public institutions.

It made it easier but this tactics worked long before the internet.

Yes, democracy is failing us.

Its still the fairest system but I tend to agree.

Greed, envy, selfishness, arrogance and wrong self-awarness makes people unpredictable. You can unite them if with motivation or with fear and with fear it seems a lot easier.

 

[Cassidy]

I don't think it's democracy as such. The power of the internet, social media, algorithms and AI ruled by unscrupulous private interests is too much for classic electoral democracies to withstand. If you can get enough people to have a completely different view of reality, then they'll vote against their own interests. And erode faith in public institutions.

When it comes to war and conflicts and how elected officials behave around this, isn’t it right to say how we vote isn’t really the biggest factor? Many of the military actions carried out by western democracies that I can remember in recent times were done with bipartisan support and usually against the will of the population. I could be wrong here I haven’t checked the facts just going off what could be a foggy memory.

I get the feeling most people would vote against military action in many cases if given the chance, maybe with the exception of the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Again I have no data to back that though so could be wrong