Could Germany justify rearming?

@spjennifer The restrictions have been lifted ever more since 1955, because Germany is not and has not always been the enemy of the US. It became an important junoir ally within NATO. Circumstances change, friends have changed, enemies have changed. The UK has been in more wars with the US than Germany, yet they became friends. And the enmity between France and the UK (and before that England) lasted even many hundred years. And because Germany is part of NATO, Germany has much to do with Trumps complain that members are not meeting that 2% requirement. Germany as a NATO state could have increased their military size in the last decades and even acquired nuclear weapons, but they choose not to.

@DiStefano Yes, but the restrictions on them having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons remain in place and they should. There are many other members of NATO that don't meet the spending requirements too and I don't really care what tRump thought, of course the US is going to spend more, they have a much larger GDP, if they hate it so much, they should apply to have their proportion reduced. I think it might make more sense to have an EU or NATO Force that all the Countries participate in...

@spjennifer The USA may well have been spending a disproportionate amount of money on NATO, but it also had a disproportionate amount of influence over NATO. That influence has shrunk over the last five years...

@SW-User NATO does have the ERF but that is with member countries contributing to it, and it isn't ruled by NATO as soldiers still wear their respective Country's uniform with a NATO insignia.

@DiStefano Right but in light of all you mention, does Europe want to see a newly more powerful German Military, they've been through that twice already? I'm not saying Germany [u]would[/u] try to take over again but it is possible... Wouldn't it make more sense to have a joint EU or NATO Force?

@spjennifer there has already been a joint NATO force for decades and as part of that NATO force Germany contributes to it by increasing its military spending just like the other NATO states and by doing military exercises with NATO members like the UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium etc for decades. So, Germany does not do anything alone, but with other NATO partners. Besides, Germany does not even have the most powerful European NATO army. France and the UK are stronger in terms of military. Besides, mentioning WW1 and WW2 is futile, because Germany has for decades been a fully democratised political party system and society (West Germany since over 70 years now) and where its main governmental party (and its party members then) was forbidden and persecuted by Hitler. And as a side note, more and more historians have in the past decades found that Germany cannot be blamed of having started WW1 alone. Where is the connection between Germany in WW2 and Germany now? Furthermore, there are even joint Non-NATO European military Forces, consisting of French and German troops (Franco-German Brigade). So, looking at the evidence and occurrences of all the decades since WW2, I think you are seeing ghosts.

@LUVELACE Same as there are now 30 Member Countries in NATO which when totaled are a lot more powerful (minus nukes) than Russia is Militarily speaking. I would imagine those Treaties are reviewed on a regular basis but the original restrictions placed on Germany by NATO are still in place with respect to Nukes, chemical and biological weapons possession, I believe the restrictions on the size of Germany's Military have been removed as of 1990. With respect to nukes, the US, UK, France and Israel have almost as many nukes combined as Russia does so between both sides they can probably annihilate all living life on Earth 10 times over without taking into account China, Pakistan and India, hopefully this is enough of a deterrent.
I think Vlad the Impaler is bluffing but who knows with mad men like him?

@spjennifer [quote]without taking into account China, Pakistan and India[/quote]

It should also be taken into account that Russia and China both have hypersonic missiles that can't be detected by radar.

@RocktheHouse I wouldn't be too worried about those just yet, neither of them have those missiles in sufficient quantities yet for it to matter much and they are very expensive to make. Thing with missiles is once you fire it, it's gone unless you have lots more to back it up.

@G00GLE They have been forced to have a smaller military force by the Treaty of Versailles (WW 1), Instrument of Surrender (WW 2) and NATO which restrict the types and number of weapons Germany can possess, no nukes either. So those items would need to be nullified for Germany to acquire a larger armed force.

@spjennifer Germany has a military force of under 300.000.because of treaties but they have increased the military spending too 135.billion and that get a lots of toys with or without red buttons,and they produce some of the finest weapons for combat purposes I have ever used..they intend to be front n centre of the new European army/airforce in the coming months

@LUVELACE It's all well and good to increase Defense spending but 1000 tanks don't do you any good if you don't have the soldiers to operate them, same goes for Fighter Jets and ships...

@Elena05 Not just 40 years, but as recently as 2011. And even before 2011 owners of nuclear power stations said for example 1986 was decades away. But then it happened again. Nobody knows and can say with 100 % accuracy even with contemporary technology when there will be an accident at a nuclear power station. Like everything else, even modern reactors can break at some point or decline in their safety. Nothing that humans have made are always safe and will last forever.

@DiStefano modern reactors cannot possibly explode.. the problem is that there is still old shitty reactors out there

@Elena05 It is not just about explosions. And even newer generations have not been always safe. And at some point, they will decline in performance and safety as everything else does. Besides, there are still always safety check ups. And they are there for a reason. Nobody needs a safety check-up, if there were not any risks. Besides, as I said before: there are still many other risks, e.g. nuclear waste disposal, attacks during wars, civil wars,terrorist attacks.Generally, the waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, Nuclear proliferation, National security, Accidents, Cancer risk, Energy production, not enough sites, Cost.The costs of nuclear energy are borne by the public at large rather than the actual energy producers. Taking into account all costs involved, nuclear power is a costly form of energy. Mining Lung Cancer Risk, Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution, High Operating Costs

Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall. Furthermore, nuclear energy covers less than three percent of the total global energy demand. Even without increasing this low share, uranium resources will be depleted by the end of this century. Reactors using other types of radioactive material than uranium, such as plutonium or thorium, are much more accident-prone.
Uranium mining leaves large areas contaminated by radioactive radiation.

And I could go on. Of course, nuclear power also has advantages, but also many disadvantages.

@newjaninev2 Probably meant as tongue in cheek but yeah, it's pretty bizarre given the circumstances.

@MorbidCynic Why still this distrust? Any justifications for having such distrust against generations that have been born after WW and were never involved in WW2 and never having started a war since WW2?

@DiStefano it’s a meme. Shut up.

@walabby I know that but how do they justify it with their citizens, they're talking about increasing their military spending by $100B. Is increased Russian aggression sufficient justification for that much spending?

@spjennifer Increased Russian aggression and the USA is now considered less reliable than it was to defend Germany. I suspect that most of Western Europe will be increasing defense spending. The Pacific rim is because of China's aggressive stance atm. China and Russia seem to be good friends atm. It's worrying..

@RocktheHouse Germany is in the process of huge changes, they have accepted a lot of refugees over the last 10 years or so and they have the 4th largest economy in the world so who knows what they can do 10 years from now, they could be predominantly Muslim by then too...

@RocktheHouse Germany has elected ONE dangerous dictator and that was Hitler (voted for by 33% of German voters in the last free elections in November 1932). And the German society and state were very different now. West Germany has had a democratic party system since 1949 and not a single right-wing government. Furthermore, individuals are not the same as then. We are not living anymore in 1945. We should not be stuck in the past and demonize another country forever, including those majority of Germans who have not even lived then.