You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Germany may need own nuclear weapons: Scholz
2006-01-29
Germany may need to build its own nuclear weapons to counter the threat of nuclear bombs falling into the hands of a terrorist state, a former German defence minister said Thursday. "We need a serious discussion over how we can react to a nuclear threat by a terrorist state in an appropriate manner - and in extreme cases with our own nuclear weapons," said Rupert Scholz who served as defence minister from 1988 to 1989.
Gee, he didn't mention the name of a terrorist state. Wonder if he meant Iran?
Germany does not have nuclear weapons and Scholz admitted in a Bild newspaper interview that his remarks were breaking what is widely seen as a national taboo.

Scholz - who is a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) - said Berlin should first try to get binding guarantees from the NATO alliance that it would protect Germany in case nuclear threats were directed at the country. But he insisted if such guarantees were not spelled out in a formal NATO doctrine, then Germany needed to ponder building its own nuclear deterrence system.
You want guarantees, you need to remember whose side you're on.
Such a move would clearly violate the 2+4 Treaty which paved the way for Germany's 1990 reunification by formally ending post-World War II occupation rights in the country for the US, the former USSR, Britain and France. Under article three of the Treaty, Germany renounces "the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

Rainer Stinner, a member of the opposition Free Democrats (FDP) in parliament, sharply criticized calls for German nuclear weapons. "If we start questioning international treaties, what right do we have to demand that others adhere to them?" said Stinner, adding, "Germany's security would be reduced - not increased - through the possession of nuclear weapons."
The USSR isn't around anymore, and that sorta kicks the legs out from under the treaty. See the ABM Treaty as an example.
Last week French President Jacques Chirac warned that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism against his country. Chirac did not name any country but was widely seen to have been referring to Iran which is suspected of seeking to build nuclear weapons - an allegation strongly denied by Tehran.
Just like it took Nixon to go to China, I wonder if it takes Chirac to rattle the nuclear saber at Iran. No government in the west so far has repudiated or dressed down Chirac for doing this.
Posted by:lotp

#20  "64 years too late!", moans Paulus from the grave...
Posted by: borgboy   2006-01-29 23:08  

#19  About a maid I'll sing a song,
sing rickety-tickety-tin.
About a maid I'll sing a song,
she did not have her family long.
Not only did she do them wrong -
she did every one of them in,
them in,
she did every one of them in.

aargh - I've got to head off to bed for early rising with Lehrer running through my brain!

Posted by: lotp   2006-01-29 21:52  

#18  For those of you who sing, or play piano or guitar, there is a Tom Lehrer songbook. It isn't quite complete, but does have most of his oevre. Trailing daughter #1 sang the Irish Lullaby for her school talent show last year -- this being the heart of the Midwest, the first night the audience were appalled at the bloodthirstiness of it all ("But she looks so sweet! Did you hear what she just sang!?!?"), the second night they applauded every verse.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-29 21:49  

#17  And while we're at it, there's this one:

spoken intro: This year we've been celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War and the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of World War I and the twentieth anniversary of the end of World War II. So all in all, it's been a good year for the war buffs.

And a number of LPs and television specials have come out capitalizing on all this nostalgia, with particular emphasis on the songs of the various wars.

I feel that if any songs are gonna come out of World War III, we'd better start writing them now. I have one here. Might call it a bit of pre-nostalgia.

This is the song that some of the boys sang as they went bravely off to World War III:*

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV.

While we're attacking frontally
Watch Brinkley and Huntley
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute of the agonizing holocaust. Yeah!

Little Johnny Jones, he was a US pilot,
And no shrinking violet was he.
He was mighty proud when World War III was declared.
He wasn't scared, no siree!

And this is what he said on
His way to Armageddon:

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I'll come back to my home
Although it may be
A pile of debris.

Remember, mommy,
I'm off to get a commie,
So send me a salami
And try to smile somehow.
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!
Posted by: lotp   2006-01-29 21:25  

#16  Full lyrics are here.
Posted by: lotp   2006-01-29 21:20  

#15  MLF Lullaby. It was inspired by the multilateral force proposals I mentioned above.

"MLF will scare Brezhnev -
I hope he is half as scared as I !"
Posted by: lotp   2006-01-29 21:19  

#14  Justrand - WHICH Tom Leher song? I gotta CD here somewhere! "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park" and the song that rhymes the periodic table. Wow.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-01-29 21:13  

#13  as Tom Lehrer reminded us: "...Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, but that couldn't happen again/ We taught them a lesson in 1918 and they've hardly bothered us since then..."

A nuclear Germany??? hmmm...
Posted by: Justrand   2006-01-29 21:08  

#12  Berlin should first try to get binding guarantees from the NATO alliance that it would protect Germany

We saw how binding those NATO guarantees are, when Turkey felt threatened before the invasion of Iraq, and the European NATO members flat out refused to help.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-29 21:06  

#11  We need to announce a doctrine that any nuclear attack on any state that
a) is non-nuclear and
b) wants to be under our protection/deterrent umbrella, including the Gulf states and non-nuclear NATO powers, will be answered by nuclear anihilation by the US.

A 2nd aspect of this doctrine is that, if the nuke strike in question comes from an unknown source, we will destroy all known nuclear powers on that state department terrorist list just to be safe.

We could include an 'out clause' if the nation attacked concludes they do not want retaliation AND our intel tells us that we are not at risk for a follow on strike. That way the Germans can sign up but still opt out when they conclude they deserved it.

That means if a bomb goes off in Bremen and we're not sure who did it, NK and Iran do not exist 3 hours later. If Venesuela nukes up, we'd do them too.

It's harsh, but it will change the incentive structure with regard to inspections, IAEA cooperation, etc.
Posted by: JAB   2006-01-29 19:55  

#10  The actions of the 1968ers coming home to roost? They must think they have to have a deterent against The United States of America.

Now that some in the US awake from inattention to things The Federal Republic of Germany is doing and how "unhelpful" they have become it may be a good idea to put a dapmer on that idea. The world doesn't need more Atomic weapons. It needs none in Europe.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-01-29 19:53  

#9  25 shutter nukes are a hell of a lot cheaper than 2 expeditionary divisions.
Posted by: 6   2006-01-29 18:50  

#8  Gee, he didn't mention the name of a terrorist state. Wonder if he meant Iran?

My money's on a country much closer to Germany that has been making nuclear threats lately.

France.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-01-29 18:28  

#7  Maybe they should think about kicking the collective a$$es of the MMs of Iran, but they have nothing to kick them with. Typical thinking: always defense, never pre-emptive offence with a coalition of the willing.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-01-29 17:22  

#6  I saw how much they were worried about their own asses, when they refused to join the Coalition Of The Willing, in preventing the proliferation and or use of WMD's under the old Saddam regime! Germany needs to first, stop callin the kettle black !
Posted by: smn   2006-01-29 16:54  

#5  We made that offer in the early 1960s. It was called the Multilateral Force proposals.
Posted by: lotp   2006-01-29 16:15  

#4  I'd much rather promise nuclear protection to Germany than worry about them building nuclear missles.
Posted by: Phumble Jaimble2108   2006-01-29 16:05  

#3  Berlin should first try to get binding guarantees from the NATO alliance that it would protect Germany in case nuclear threats were directed at the country.

Sure, for a reliable ally like Germany we'd do anything.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-01-29 15:48  

#2  
The German minister later added, "we would be willing to buy them from Iran, if they would supply favorable financing terms."
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2006-01-29 15:42  

#1  Germany may need to build its own nuclear weapons to counter the threat of nuclear bombs falling into the hands of a terrorist state, a former German defence minister said Thursday

*Spiiit* D&%$#@*!!, now I have to clean up my keyboard again. This is gonna make some waves.

Back when I was on active duty, I had a SFC who used to joke about how poland would go on alert every time the germans cranked their Leo II's for weekly PMCS. One can only imagine the thoughts in the russian, polish, and other east euro defense ministries, after reading this article.
Posted by: N guard   2006-01-29 15:41  

00:00