Germany votes to bring in voluntary military service programme for 18-year-olds

Just build nukes if you are afraid of Russia then nuke them if they try to invade. Ukraine is not as smart and gave up its nukes in the early 90s, and is now in the middle of a war for the last couple years.

> Just build nukes

I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that the multipolar world we're in now makes a good case for nuclear weapons adoption. But Germany probably isn't the one Europe wants to arm itself. And even if it did, their Greens wouldn't allow it.

More nations with nukes just seems to increase the odds that someone dorks up and possibly gets everyone screwed.

And what happens when Russia launches nukes in response?

Germany already hosts nuclear weapons. And there were talks with France/UK to build the nuclear shield or something like that. It's just a matter of time before that happens, because as of today, that's the only way you can reason with dictators.

They've been threatening Europe for years to not cross a line otherwise they'll nuke. Lines were crossed and nukes were not launched.

Ukraine gave up nukes that they couldn't afford to maintain and got unenforcable security guarantees 'assurances' in return.

Giving up the nukes allowed Ukraine to attract foreign aid and build an economy for 20 years before invasions began. Who knows what would have happened if they kept nukes and didn't get necessary aid and couldn't build their economy or maintain the weapons.

> Germany already hosts nuclear weapons

So does Montana. That doesn’t give Helena any sovereignty points.

I support this strategy.

Build nukes and plenty gigantic bunkers for the population, nothing else. And then follow the doctrine of immediate nuclear escalation upon any territorial infraction. Plane got off course in bad weather? Grab your Sauerkraut and bye bye Moscow.

I think the point isn't if it's been a good decision at the time (I don't think it's been much of a decision at all), but rather that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, if Ukraine was still armed with nuclear weapons. Hindsight is 20/20, but the world took notice.

Are 20 year unmaintained weapons an effective deterent? Would there have been capacity to resist occupation if it wasn't? Would Ukraine have been coerced into some form of union through economic means and would that be better or worse for the people of Ukraine than the invasions?

All sorts of questions to ask. Yes, if our timeline was otherwise unchanged, but the nukes were kept and maintained, it seems unlikely that invasion in 2014 would have happened... But it's a big change to the timeline to keep the weapons, and there's too many unknowns to predict the resulting changes. I do strongly suspect few countries will accept similar assurances in the future, unless under duress, but then Ukraine wasn't exactly free from duress at the time either.

CO2 emissions targets will be met.

While Ukraine had Soviet nuclear weapons, it did not have the launch codes, infrastructure, technical knowledge, or the economy needed to convert them into an arsenal under their sovereign control. Moscow still “held the keys” for all of those warheads.

Given how insistent the international community was on making sure those nukes were disposed of, and how economically devastated post Soviet countries were, I don’t think Ukraine stood any chance of having a nuclear deterrent.

Their point was the Greens lacked the power you attributed to them I thought.

Apples to oranges.

Montana:USA::Bavaria:Germany

No one has suggested Bavaria become a nuclear power in its own right.

An undeniable truth.

We are faced with multiple horrible possible outcomes, however. Sometimes one swallows subfatal doses of poison AND agrees to be irradiated, to avoid dying of cancer.

France and UK are already nuke powers. Who else before Germany? Turkey, Greece, Moldova?

I get your joke about the "incident" 85 years ago, but really: Germany is as solid a choice as any, if there must be another.

I'm glad you're just an Internet Warrior(TM), then.