ischinger13_Galerie Bilderwelt_Getty Images

Politics

El peligroso coqueteo de Alemania con las armas nucleares

Aug 8, 2018 Wolfgang Ischinger

BERLÍN – Igual que en el ajedrez, hay jugadas geopolíticas con las que un país puede encerrarse a sí mismo sin darse cuenta. Iniciar un debate sobre el desarrollo alemán de armas nucleares es una de esas jugadas. Pero es exactamente lo que algunos alemanes propusieron hace poco. Los partidarios de nuclearizar a Alemania sostienen que la protección nuclear de la OTAN perdió toda credibilidad con las declaraciones del presidente estadounidense Donald Trump.

Hay al menos tres buenas razones por las que considerar la opción nuclear es una idea temeraria. Para empezar, Alemania renunció a ello en reiteradas ocasiones, primero en 1969 al firmar (y luego ratificar) el Tratado de No Proliferación de Armas Nucleares (TNP), y después en 1990 al firmar el Tratado “Dos más cuatro”, que sentó las bases de la reunificación alemana.

Poner en duda estos compromisos provocaría un grave daño a la reputación y confiabilidad internacional de Alemania. Restaría credibilidad a la disuasión nuclear de la OTAN, debilitando así la alianza misma y todo el régimen de no proliferación nuclear.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Our annual fourth-quarter magazine is here, and available only to Digital Plus and Premium subscribers. Subscribe to Digital Plus today, and save $15.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 12 Comments on this article

Hector Niehues-Jeuffroy Aug 17, 2018

What nuclear flirtation?! Please, point my to the reams of op-eds, radio shows and TV debates wherein German nuclear armament is being discussed? The truth is that you will hardly find any. This article is dishonest and misguiding as Ischinger takes down a strawman that is more a figment of his own fantasy than anything else. Moreover, it is appalling how gullible PS readers are!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter McLoughlin Aug 15, 2018

I think the debate about Germany developing a nuclear deterrence is another sign the world is heading for nuclear war. This is a post-peace era. Like the Congress System finally killed with the beginning of world war one. Or the inter-war years marked by the League of Nations. The end of the second world war saw the rise of the United Nations and other international institutions. The Cold War was the peace (or relative peace). When it ended we started moving towards the next global military catastrophe.
The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict throughout history – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power.
Power is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else. When core interests are threatened and existential threat looms nations go to war. There can be no compromise on these. As a result every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history. Deterrence doctrine, made for the 20th century Cold War, is irrelevant in the 21st and will ultimately fail us.
Unfortunately, leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid this fate – they can’t. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive.
http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dominic Campbell Aug 13, 2018

Any attempt by Germany to acquire nuclear weapons would have to be nipped in the bud, by whatever means, not excluding pre-emptive military action. We’ve had enough of Germany’s aggression - it’s bottled up for now, but it is in the nature of the beast.
- Hector Niehues-Jeuffroy Aug 17, 2018
  
  Riiiiiight. You mean as it is in the nature of the United States to commit genocide (ask the American natives), invade other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan), and turn cities into wasteland through nuclear bombs (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)? Please tell me more about the nature of the beast.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 12, 2018

In the light of a debate on Germany acquiring nuclear weapons, Wolfgang Ischinger urges for a focus on “reinforcing military alliances and strengthening conventional capabilities.” Trump’s contradictory statements on NATO and his increasingly belligerent threats to reduce America’s commitment to its European allies have prompted some Germans to argue that they need nukes to meet the challenges of the current climate. They say they can no longer rely on the US or a nuclear ally for security since NATO has lost its credibility following Trump’s disparaging remarks.
Germany is an economic superpower and has the means to build its own nuclear weapons. Yet in October 1954 the signing of Protocol III of the Treaty of Brussels forbade the country to possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. It signed and ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and then in 1990, the so-called Two Plus Four Treaty, which paved the way for German reunification. No doubt “casting doubt on these commitments would severely damage Germany’s reputation and reliability, worldwide.”
Renouncing nuclear arms has been part of Germany’s effort to atone for the Nazi atrocities during World War II. Given their troubled past, ordinary Germans are highly allergic to everything nuclear. In a recent poll, 85 percent of the population spoke against the continued deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany. More than 90 percent approved the idea of an international ban on nuclear arms. Even German policymakers treat nuclear issues as an elephant in the room. Nevertheless it is still crucial' for Germany and Europe to have a sensible debate.
Despite widespread opposition to nukes, proponents say national defence based on a nuclear deterrent must be given priority. They say the general structure of the European security system is not prepared for external threats. The author says, by going nuclear, Germany “would call into question the credibility of Nato’s nuclear deterrence, and thus the alliance itself, along with the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime.” He points out that since its 1949 creation, “Nato has been one of the world’s most successful instruments of proliferation-prevention.”
That “not a single Nato member state — apart from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France — has found it necessary to acquire nuclear weapons of its own” shows the sense of trust and security Europeans enjoy. This would all change should Germany abandon “its non-nuclear power status.” The question is “what would keep Turkey or Poland, for instance, from following suit?” Putin’s Russia will see it “as a direct threat to its own national security and would likely adopt military countermeasures.” This would put the “pan-European order of peace and security” and also “the delicate balance of power in Europe” and “the long-term cohesion” within the EU at risk.
The author proposes the bolstering of Europe’s nuclear defense by allowing France “to consider playing an extended nuclear-deterrence role, along with the roles of the US and the United Kingdom within NATO.” Germany and other European countries could help France maintain its nuclear umbrella financially. Another option could be to add “a nuclear component” to the European Defence Union, whose formation is time consuming, which is a strategy for the future.
While Trump seeks to break up the EU or NATO, his mantra to European allies – to meet the alliance’s 2%-of-GDP target for defense spending – should, for once, be taken seriously. This aims “not to satisfy US demands, but to protect our own security and defense interests,” and we need to spend the budget “more intelligently, particularly by pooling and sharing capabilities, and by systematic joint procurement” with allies. The author says the ball is now in Germany’s court. It will need to “start defining military strategy, security, and defense as top political priorities.”
- Jonathan Engel Aug 13, 2018
  
  Perhaps Germany might consider acquiring a credible army, airforce and navy before spending money on nukes (or subsidizing French ones), because otherwise they will be implicitly adopting a "first strike with nukes" policy... a little "out of fashion" at this time.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Engel Aug 10, 2018

Well, Nuclear Weapons for Germany ! What a splendid idea ! Of course at the same time it might be a good idea to fix all the German Submarines which seems to be ALL out of commission, most of the tanks (only NINE could be found working to be sent to the baltics recently), all the transport aircraft (which are not in flying condition, if they could find pilots to fly them...) because otherwise German Nukes would actually have to be used even before a peace keeping force of policeman could be transported in planes leased from the airlines.... A form of "strike first" policy which would have difficulty getting past NATO, never mind the German Parliament....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter McLoughlin Aug 10, 2018

I think the debate about Germany developing a nuclear deterrence is another sign the world is heading for nuclear war. This is a post-peace era. Like the Congress System finally killed with the beginning of world war one. Or the inter-war years marked by the League of Nations. The end of the second world war saw the rise of the United Nations and other international institutions. The Cold War was the peace (or relative peace). When it ended we started moving towards the next global military catastrophe.
The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict throughout history – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power.
Power is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else. When core interests are threatened and existential threat looms nations go to war. There can be no compromise on these. As a result every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history. Deterrence doctrine, made for the 20th century Cold War, is irrelevant in the 21st and will ultimately fail us.
Unfortunately, leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid this fate – they can’t. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive.
http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Reinhard Schropp Aug 9, 2018

"Opening a debate on German nuclear weapons [...] is exactly what some Germans have recently proposed."

Being a German, living in Germany, and being reasonably interested in German policy, this statement of the author, Mr. Ischinger, is quite a surprise to me. So far, I have never heard of anybody, who would be interested to implement German nuclear weapons.

Mr. Ischinger, would you please be so kind as to name just one person, who has proposed the implementation of German nuclear weapons?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher Harris Aug 9, 2018

How strange. Back in the day, everyone assumed that if there were a nuclear war, little Germany would be the first country to be wiped off the map - 99 luft Ballons and all that!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Aug 9, 2018

One issue with developing a working nuclear device is the testing of course. There is no exemption to nuclear testing and there is no way it would be tolerated. This idea is completely hypothetical and impossible to realize. More interesting is the suggestion that the French might extend their hospitality in that respect which sounds a lot like joining armies, a great European ideal that could hardly be accomplished any other way. Both the Brits and the US will be horrified.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
wajahatqazi Qazi Aug 9, 2018

Hi there. Interesting piece. But, I think Germany must go nuclear despite the merits and sobriety of your piece. I am at work right now. I will write an oped later in the evening on why Germany should go nuclear..
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/CVYz7afes

El peligroso coqueteo de Alemania con las armas nucleares

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

El peligroso coqueteo de Alemania con las armas nucleares

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification