Russian aggression and US isolationism push a once hesitant Germany to invest heavily in defence.

This article is about Germany rapidly increasing defence spending, and also the fact that they’re considering conscription. I also found this interesting:

A recent YouGov poll showed that 79% of Germans still see Vladimir Putin as “very” or “quite” dangerous to European peace and security. Now 74% said the same for Donald Trump.

Thoughts?

    • @[email protected]English
      2•18 days ago

      MAD only works if all sides have nuclear anxiety and the existence of nuclear weapons doesn’t rule ballistic weapons out of existence, especially for countries without nuclear weapons (see Ukraine). I’m not advocating for nuclear proliferation here.

      The equilibrium of MAD (as in “The only way to win is not to play”) might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China), but telling the Ukraine defense that “The only way to win is not to play” is insulting and privileged.

      Germany does not intend to test how far Russia is going with ballistic weapons and cannot rely solely on the power of MAD’s equilibrium from France, NATO or USA.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•18 days ago

        but telling the Ukraine defense that “The only way to win is not to play” is insulting and privileged.

        now you are derailing the argument

        btt

        The equilibrium of MAD (as in “The only way to win is not to play”) might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China),

        But all i hear is we need more conventional weapons to defend against russia?

        Still wanna know how that increases the peace?

        • @[email protected]English
          1•18 days ago

          “Conventional” weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians and more expensive for the other side.

          • @[email protected]English
            1•18 days ago

            “Conventional” weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians

            How?

            and more expensive for the other side.

            If this counts then there must be a diplomatic solution mustn’t it? because a war is always more expensive.

            • @[email protected]English
              1•18 days ago

              For examply by increased range: Weapons that shoot down rockets/drones before they hit can protect a city or region.

              a war is always more expensive

              Call the Kremlin/White House/Zhongnanhai, I think you’re onto something there.

              “Diplomatic Solution” is only viable if rulers care about pre-war military economics. Authoritarians don’t always do that.

              • @[email protected]English
                1•18 days ago

                For examply by increased range: Weapons that shoot down rockets/drones before they hit can protect a city or region.

                nothin’ shooting down a nuke, just sain’

                “Diplomatic Solution” is only viable if rulers care about pre-war military economics. Authoritarians don’t always do that.

                so they also don’t care about cost increase afterwards