Germany is at a crossroads when it comes to its security policy — one of the deepest upheavals of the post-War era.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, I’m not a big fan of nuclear proliferation but Ukraine gave up theirs and look what happened…
      As long as we have imperialistic authoritarian world leaders, we will need ways to keep them at bay, and nuclear deterrence is probably the best one unfortunately…

      • Kissaki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I wonder if Putin would have bet on them not being used and attacked anyway.

        Just like Putin has not used any nuke, there’s a huge deterrent to use them at all.

        I could definitely see Putin making calculated decisions like that.

        Of course Ukraine would have had a stronger stand with them either way.

        • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 hours ago

          There was a sincere risk of Russia using nuclear weapons earlier in the conflict, around the winter of 2022/2023 when the first major Russian mobilization of 600k failed to achieve the desired outcomes and the North Western front started to collapse. The released intelligence info put it at about 50/50.

          This is why, at the time, the Biden administration made several clearly coded messages/announcements that nuclear weapons usage in Ukraine would result in an overwhelming conventional retaliation that would remove Russian military capability from the board. It’s also part of the reason nations were so slow to provide advanced support capabilities. There was a fear (justified, imo) that immediately opening the floodgates and giving Ukraine tanks, jets, advanced missiles, and using those missiles to strike deep in Russian territory would result in usage of nuclear weapons. It still is a risk, honestly. If Ukraine started doing heavy damage to Moscow, there’s a real chance Putin might decide to flip the table over rather than lose the game.

            • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              For sure, it wasn’t super widely reported at the time. Nuclear weapons and foreign policy just happen to be “special interests” for me so I tend to follow things like that.

        • vrojak@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I would expect the blowback for using nukes in defense of your sovereign territory to be a lot less than for conquering another country.

    • Baggins@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      We never stopped.

      If you think those ones we have now are leftover from the 60s, you are in for a shock.

    • NoxAstrum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Only those who don’t understand the topic. Those of us who study them do not support proliferation.

      • M137@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The thing is that among the people who have the power to make it a reality are many who don’t understand the topic. Politicians and other people in power are well known to not understand the stuff they get to make decisions about.