Secondo un funzionario eletto tedesco, un “deterrente nucleare europeo” può funzionare solo sotto l’egida di Berlino.

[removed]

Interesting take… but putting something as serious as a ‘European nuclear deterrent’ solely under Berlin’s leadership raises a lot of historical, political, and strategic concerns. Shouldn’t something this important be managed collectively through the EU or NATO rather than by a single country?

This is the country that also pandered to Russia & closed down their nuclear plants. Go figure…

Is it even politically possible for a German political party to get a majority for such a project? If the Bundeswehr cannot get the people it needs, how could you get support for nuclear weapons?

It seems a far stretch.

A nation too cowardly to send cruise missiles to Ukraine cant be trusted with this role

How about no

The huge problem that Europe has regarding nukes is the decision process for retaliation.

Let’s say Russia were to invade Estonia with the use tactical nukes. Let’s also assume TACO does what TACO does best and does nothing. Then it would be up to France to retaliate with nuclear force. Would they risk a French city and retaliate or would they also chicken out?

If you take a look at recent history, there is an undeniable pattern:
Countries with nukes can invade countries without Nukes.
If a countrie without Nukes gets invaded by a nuclear power, the support of said country is severely limited by the invading country threatening nuclear war with supporters.

Many countries realize that with the deterioration of US relations, the only real guarantee against Russian, Chinese or even American invasion is having your own Nukes. Not only having them present like Germany does with US nukes but being actually able to threaten Russian cities with nuclear weapons that you have complete control and sovereignty over.

For Europe, this leaves two options IMO:

A) Many smaller countries, especially those close to Russia will try to acquire nuclear weapons that they themselves can control.

B) Europe becomes far more integrated militarily and has a central command, that in war time could decide over the use of nukes without vetos from member states.
This would pose a credible threat to Russia, that the violation of any EU border might result in nuclear retaliation.

I would much prefer option B but this necessitates a better integrated, federalized EU to be achievable.

IMHO: That’s really not what Mr. Spahn was talking about. The Idea is that there should be an European nuclear deterrent independent of the US. That would only work with the help of German leadership. That’s not a call for German control but for German Leadership stepping up not to trample the rest of the European Nations. As the Title suggests. Germany has been fairly let’s say quiet on the world stage for the past 80years. He is talking about that in my Opinion. Of course I could be wrong here.

Europe urgently needs to have a serious, unflinching conversation about nuclear deterrence.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed the harsh truth that security cannot rely solely on treaties or goodwill. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s for security guarantees — including one from Russia — only to be invaded 30 years later. Putin’s nuclear threats have deterred Western intervention and limited support for Ukraine, highlighting how vulnerable non-nuclear countries truly are. At the same time, Europe can no longer depend on American protection, especially with the rise of “America First” politics. Add to this the growing risk of nuclear proliferation — like a nuclear Iran collapsing the global non-proliferation system — and the danger becomes clear. Nuclear technology is old and widely understood; what’s kept most countries from building weapons is trust and restraint. But that restraint may vanish if disarmament begins to look like weakness.

In such a world, I do not want Europe (aside from France and the UK already having them) to be the last region without nuclear weapons. That would leave us dangerously exposed, reminiscent of the colonial era, when militarily superior powers subjugated weaker nations with impunity. If we remain unarmed in a nuclearized world, we risk becoming spectators to our own subordination.

That is why I firmly believe: EU-members must develop its own **national sovereign** nuclear deterrent. As long as autocrats and imperialists like Putin possess nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to remain defenseless. This is not a desirable truth — but it is a necessary one.

The key question is: how can we create a credible European nuclear shield?

Relying on the existing nuclear powers in Europe — France and the UK — is a dangerous illusion. It is difficult to imagine any French or British leader, especially one elected on a nationalist platform like Le Pen or Farage, risking a nuclear counter strike on Paris or London for the sake of Berlin or Warsaw. Without absolute commitment, nuclear sharing provides no real deterrence.

That leaves us with only one serious option: the development of national nuclear capabilities within the EU. From a technical standpoint, this is entirely feasible. Nuclear weapons are no longer an engineering challenge, and many European nations already possess advanced delivery systems. The real hurdles are political and diplomatic. Withdrawal from the NPT would provoke fierce opposition from the large established nuclear powers — China, Russia, and the United States — who would see new nuclear states as threats to their global influence. Sanctions, political pressure, and diplomatic retaliation would likely follow.

But Europe is not a marginal actor. If we act with unity and strategic foresight, we cannot be easily intimidated. Moreover, there are nuanced paths we can pursue. We could follow Israel’s model of “plausible deniability,” developing the capability without formally acknowledging it. Or we might adopt Japan’s approach as a “screwdriver nation,” maintaining the infrastructure and knowledge necessary to assemble nuclear weapons on short notice without actually doing so. Some EU countries could take the lead while others, like Germany, adopt a more cautious stance — at least until a new reality, such as a nuclear Iran, renders the existing non-proliferation framework obsolete.

We must be willing to discuss these possibilities openly, rationally, and without ideological blinders. To do otherwise is not just naïve — it is dangerously irresponsible in a world where power still matters.

>Le président « Macron nous a toujours invités à penser européen. Mais on ne peut pas seulement européaniser ce qui est cher aux Allemands [comme la mise en place d’un budget de la zone euro]. Il faut aussi européaniser ce qui est cher aux Français et c’est le cas de la force de frappe française », avait-il dit.

a beautiful sentiment. Europe is built on mutual compromise to work together after all.

An EU Army – with nuclear force – necessitates a democratically bound European government. Be it an elected commander-in-chief, a commission president directly elected, or elected by the EP which is directly elected by the people.

Germany can go [the end is censored for obvious reasons]
We are not giving our nukes, neither our seat in the UN neither anything that the French worked for.
They should rather stop their gas and coal powerplants which they stupidly replaced their nuclear power plants with and that are now polluting us.

When a country is not even able to handle a clever energy policy, their is no way we are giving them nukes.

Sincerely

German imperialists hate account

Berlin aegis?

They don’t have even nukes, the only “aegis” we have is france.

Nein danke, we can afford and develop our nukes just fine here in the netherlands having one of the largest defense budgets in the world soon.

Funny when France and UK have this role for decades. Did Germany wake up?

spahn ? the new wanna be führer of germany

Is Germany ready to war in defence of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova or Georgia?

Build your military, you could enlist refugees