Germany Tries Building Nuclear Weapons in the 1990s

The comments here...NATO starting to invade Germany for whatever reason short of the holocaust 2.0 is at least as,if not more ASB then Germany trying to get nukes in 90s for the lulz.
 
All of that being said, I could see a scenario in which Germany developing nukes would be perceived relatively neutrally, but it would have to involve the United States being effectively destroyed and therefore unable to intervene in Europe. That would obviously eliminate NATO nuclear sharing, so there would be a great deal of pressure (especially if Russia gets its act together and starts acting like the Bear again) to find some substitute. More likely that would be an expansion of the British and French nuclear arsenals, but it would certainly be much more plausible for Germany to seek nuclear weapons in such a scenario.
 
All of that being said, I could see a scenario in which Germany developing nukes would be perceived relatively neutrally, but it would have to involve the United States being effectively destroyed and therefore unable to intervene in Europe. That would obviously eliminate NATO nuclear sharing, so there would be a great deal of pressure (especially if Russia gets its act together and starts acting like the Bear again) to find some substitute. More likely that would be an expansion of the British and French nuclear arsenals, but it would certainly be much more plausible for Germany to seek nuclear weapons in such a scenario.

The USA wouldn't need to be destroyed to convince Germany to develop a nuclear deterrent; it would just have to show itself to be uninterested in protecting Europe--perhaps due to an American president expressing an unwillingness to defend its treaty allies unless they paid an arbitrary "fair share."

Weak nations (in comparison to larger neighbors) want something that will provide security; if they are more secure with than without, it will be on the table. For that matter, Germany would be foolish if they didn't have plans in place to get a deterrent as fast as possible, for the same reason that the USA maintained War Plans Red, Crimson, and even Emerald.
 
The comments here...NATO starting to invade Germany for whatever reason short of the holocaust 2.0 is at least as,if not more ASB then Germany trying to get nukes in 90s for the lulz.

The comments are laughable. The world knows Germany has NATO tactical nukes in their airbases they could take out and use if they wanted to in a crisis.

Honestly short of Germany deciding to commit mass genocide, build a multi million man army and invade Poland nobody would have done jack if say in 1995 Germany decided to have a fully independent military.
 
The comments are laughable. The world knows Germany has NATO tactical nukes in their airbases they could take out and use if they wanted to in a crisis.

Honestly short of Germany deciding to commit mass genocide, build a multi million man army and invade Poland nobody would have done jack if say in 1995 Germany decided to have a fully independent military.

Those nukes have non-German PALs on them that are exceedingly hard to remove. It takes a lot of work to properly rig up a PAL'd nuke for your own use.
 
Also, it would be possible in a world where tactical nuclear weapons were rarely or semi-commonly used on the battlefield in wartime situations after 1945. However, strategic weapons and first strike implements would be very tightly regulated and restricted. An arsenal of 50-100 30-50 KT nukes is very different than 500 half megaton plus bombs and missiles.
 
Those nukes have non-German PALs on them that are exceedingly hard to remove. It takes a lot of work to properly rig up a PAL'd nuke for your own use.

If we cared a third as much as some people think we would not have tactical nukes hanging out in German bases nor would we have let them have nuclear power.

In the end the German Army didn't have insane plans to use WMDs on our troops while the parts of the IJA did have such plans and that thinking was why we were more loose with letting the Germans rearm.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If we cared a third as much as some people think we would not have tactical nukes hanging out in German bases nor would we have let them have nuclear power.

In the end the German Army didn't have insane plans to use WMDs on our troops while the parts of the IJA did have such plans and that thinking was why we were more loose with letting the Germans rearm.
Isn't Germany dismantling all of its nuclear power plants, though?
 
Isn't Germany dismantling all of its nuclear power plants, though?

America isn't forcing them to do that, their own anti-military/anti-nuclear movement there has been trying to force it.

Germany isn't virtually disarmed compared to 1988 because they were forced to by a world convinced they any thing they do is headed for Nazism either.
 
Strauss alone is not enough but a step in the right direction. If we combine this with more tensions during the Cold War in Europe, and some problems to finance nuclear rearmament in other countries of the NATO, we could maybe see under the right circumstances some change, if there is at the time a trend for more and more middle powers to start nuclear weapon programs. Such a hypotetical nuclear weapon program would be limited, and under strong supervision by the NATO allies.
I doubt that (West) Germany even could start a nuclear program against the will or in secret from the other NATO countries during the Cold War, because of the many foreign troops on German territory.

Such a scenario is highly unlikely but not as much unlikely as a 1990ies Germany which tries to develop nuclear weapons without any reasons.

Sorry if I seem rude. Please be sure that my criticism is not about you. My criticism is about the hypothesis you stated.

Such an hypothesis is not only highly unlikely. It mostly is illogical.

The established nuclear powers do not want new members in the nuclear club. The US hegemon does not want its non nuclear allies to become nuclear powers. It wants its allies to spend more in conventional defense, not into nuclear defense.

Everybody understood in 1989/1990 that Germany's reunification would make Germany the number one european power that it had been from 1871 to 1945. This is why Thatcher and Mitterrand tried for a while to oppose Germany's reunification, to delay it, and demanded conditions and guarantees. Not to mention the Gorbatchev whose country suffered the death of 23/25 million people in WW2.

Everybody also understood that although peaceful, Germany however could quickly become a threat again. Quite a lot of pressure had to be exerted on the Kohl government for Germany to acknowledge the Oder-Neisse border.

And everybody understood that if reunited Germany ever became a military nuclear power, the US would lose its position as the hegemon of Europe and Germany would take its place as the hegemon of Europe, reaching the strategic goal of the second Reich and of the third Reich in the two world wars.

You just can't have 4 governments (US, USSR/Russia, UK and France) to be that stupid and that suicidal to turn Germany into Europe's nuclear hegemon. You can have 1. But you can't have the 4. And if one of the four ever supported such a perspective, the three others would band together and cause a crisis in order to block the perspective of Germany becoming a nuclear power.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
Everybody understood in 1989/1990 that Germany's reunification would make Germany the number one european power that it had been from 1871 to 1945.
German economy did not surpass the British economy (excluding the British empire) until the 1970s...

And everybody understood that if reunited Germany ever became a military nuclear power, the US would lose its position as the hegemon of Europe and Germany would take its place as the hegemon of Europe, reaching the strategic goal of the second Reich and of the third Reich in the two world wars.
I don't recall this ever being a peacetime goal of the Second Reich

You just can't have 4 governments (US, USSR/Russia, UK and France) to be that stupid and that suicidal to turn Germany into Europe's nuclear hegemon. You can have 1. But you can't have the 4. And if one of the four ever supported such a perspective, the three others would band together and cause a crisis in order to block the perspective of Germany becoming a nuclear power.
If the Germans (or Japanese for that matter) ever got it in their head nuclear weapons would enhance their security, it would take them no more than 12-18 months before nuclear warheads start to be churned out and there is nothing short of preemptive war could stop this. However, the reality is the Germans are well aware Germany (East and West) was the metaphorical nuclear dart board during the cold war and German nukes would only make that worse...
 
German economy did not surpass the British economy (excluding the British empire) until the 1970s...


I don't recall this ever being a peacetime goal of the Second Reich


If the Germans (or Japanese for that matter) ever got it in their head nuclear weapons would enhance their security, it would take them no more than 12-18 months before nuclear warheads start to be churned out and there is nothing short of preemptive war could stop this. However, the reality is the Germans are well aware Germany (East and West) was the metaphorical nuclear dart board during the cold war and German nukes would only make that worse...

Germany's economy had overcome Britain's economy in the first half of the 20th century. Then It was destroyed in WW2. Then It overcame Britain's again after It was rebuilt.

It mentioned the second Reich's war goals. Not its previous peacetime goals.

Technically, It is quite fast for an industrial country like Germany to become a nuclear. But It is far far far faster for established nuclear countries to detect and block such a move.
 
Would it be so bad for a nuclear germany to be the core of a tri part nuclear europe? With the GB-France and Germany. It possibly could counter the Russians own plans for Europe.
 
Top