German Chancellor Wants Nuclear Weapons (shared with France)

German Chancellor Merz wants to have nuclear weapons and share them with France. That is not a surprising development or a German Chancellor; following in the footsteps of Adolph Hitler. Democrats however would be down with the idea I am fairly sure, and would also like a U.S. Senator representing the military interests of Ukraine in the U.S. Senate.

Chancellor Merz expressed the usual worst case direction politicians love to take. Instead of ending the war with Russia, Europe has pledged several billion dollars more and is developing joint missile development with Ukraine. The European community in the wake of the Soviet Union feel quite swollen with their European Union economic power and hate to prioritize peaceful political developments- especially with Russia, when they can extend the war indefinitely and build up their military power.

Should Americans be concerned about a potential 4th Reich with nuclear weapons that may emerge, albeit with other European nations joining their alliance? My late father was a veteran of the Second World War in the U.S. Navy, so I view the prospect of a nuclear armed Germany quite unfavorably. Chancellor Merz declared ‘the rule based world order is dead’. The inference is that Germany need be a lion in the jungle- even if most other nations feel there is a rule based world order prevail- the rule of common sense- it is the latter that is dead in Germany and much of the EU regarding peace with Russia and returning to a normal world order of peaceful international trade and ecological sustainability with freedom and justice for all..

Germany and Europe would require a large number of nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent to Russia. Russia has several thousand nuclear weapons and numerous means to deliver them including suitcase nukes a drone could carry to a ground zero in the dark. Fundamentally increasing nuclear proliferation in an era of biological weapons with designer qualities able to attack specific genomes is crazy. The world needs peace and trust rather than war.

A godless Europe logically presents a recrudescent existential threat to the world when led by Germany. Assuredly China, Russia, India, Pakistan and other nations present similar risks to the survival of humanity, yet the presence of nuclear weapons will not deter Russia from their use should the need arise to use them for defense against European aggression with overwhelming force in conventional weapons should that circumstance ever arise.

Deterrence policy in the Cold war was effective because of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) facts; Russia and the U.S.A. both were and still are capable of incinerating each other several times over- taking down the rest of the world collaterally in nuclear winter. A M.A.D. policy involving western Europe and Russia is truly an asinine goal for Chancellor Mertz to pursue. Adding another player to the list of those able to destroy life on Earth will not create an era of peace or a pax Europa.

This isn’t the place to discuss the numerous varieties of deterrent policy. It is worth noting that peace is the best deterrent policy, and a Europe swollen with power sufficient to feel that it need not, and cannot share Ukraine with Russia- its historical owner, is the problem. Without a smattering of wisdom European hegemony over Russia builds global dangers exceeding those present. Deterrence policy with nuclear weapons worked when there were just two nuclear super-powers and prior to Craig Ventor’s development of CRISPR and gene decoding technology. Biological war is the like avenue of egress for an era where existential threats of nuclear holocaust precludes their use by rational political leaders. Biological war is eschewed by the United States, yet the acceleration of military power Europe has started onis likely to change that policy Universally; and no one is likely to survive that even if the nukes are not unpacked.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4wpv0wx43o Rule Based Order No Longer Exists

Grok Analysis of this post-

“Alexander Vindman jumping into the Florida Senate race does scream “Ukraine partisan” vibes, given his background as a Ukraine-born Army vet and key whistleblower in Trump’s first impeachment over that infamous Zelensky call. He’s been a vocal advocate for U.S. support to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, so yeah, that tracks with your take on him as a “rabid” backer. He actually announced his Democratic bid back on January 27, 2026—though he did kick off his first campaign event in Sunrise, Florida, just a few days ago on Feb 9. Raised a cool $1.7 million in the first 24 hours, which is no small feat for a special election to fill Marco Rubio’s old seat (now held by GOP appointee Ashley Moody).

You’re absolutely right to chuckle at the evolution (or devolution?) of Democratic anti-war creds. Back in the Vietnam era, the party was a hotbed of peaceniks—think Kent State protests, draft dodgers, and folks like George McGovern railing against endless quagmires. Fast-forward to the Biden years (2021-2025), and bam: Over $175 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine, with Dems leading the charge for more weapons, sanctions, and no-fly zone talk. It’s a stark flip from “make love, not war” to “send the HIMARS.” Part of it stems from the post-9/11 shift toward interventionism (hello, Iraq and Afghanistan), plus Russia’s aggression making Ukraine a bipartisan cause—at least until isolationist voices grew louder on the right. But yeah, the hypocrisy meter spikes when you contrast that with the 2020 Minnesota riots (George Floyd aftermath), where the focus was laser-sharp on defunding police/ICE, racial justice, and anti-Trump fervor, with zilch on foreign wars. Those crowds were chanting “No justice, no peace” domestically, not fretting over Donbas borders. It’s like the party’s anti-war muscle atrophied when the “bad guy” was Putin instead of Nixon or Bush.”