Germany Developing Nuclear Weapons highly enriched uranium in Garching

[brainless 0]

I just found an article in a newspaper which is being distributed for free at my university, the "Zeitung gegen den Krieg" ("Newspaper against the War") which actually scared me, knowing the way Bavaria's government used to behave in the past:

 

Germany Highly enriched uranium in Garching

2004 --against protests from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)--, the nuclear research reactor FRM II in Garching near Munich has entered service. It is being run with highy enriched uranium (HEU). Delivery of russian HEU has been initiated by EURATOM [European Atomic Energy Agency].

It is possible to build Hiroshima-type nuclear weapons within few hours. Garching is supposed to be run with 93% enriched uranium until 2010 but the bavarian state government already questions the change to 50% enriched uranium.

 

 

Deutschland Hoch angereichertes Uran in Garching

 

2004 ist --trotz Protest der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde-- der Atomforschungsreaktor FRM II in Garching bei München in Betrieb gegangen. Dieser wird mit hoch angereichertem waffenfähigen Uran (HEU) betrieben. Eingefädelt wurde die Lieferung von russischem HEU über EURATOM.

Aus HEU können innerhalb weniger Stunden Atomwaffen vom Hiroshima-Typ gebaut werden. Garching soll zwar nur bis 2010 mit 93% angereichertem HEU betrieben werden, doch die bayerische Landesregierung beginnt bereits jetzt, die Umstellung danach auf höchstens 50%-angereichertes Uran in Frage zu stellen.

I think it is a real threat to the rest of the world that a country which did not use its influence on global politics to stop wars [Germany did/does participate in the attack wars on Kosovo, Afghanistan and, against public statements, Iraq]; which openly admits to increase its military abilities [european draft constitution: "All member states have to increase their military abilities on an annual basis"] and recently began to support US threats against other countries and stockpiles at least 16 and up to 50 pre-built nuclear weapons from the USA [breach of the non-proliferation treaty!] gains access not only to instructions how to build nuclear weapons (you can find out how to do this in just about any university library) but also to all the materials necessary to do so.

Someone please call for sanctions against Germany at the UN Security Council.

If necessary, boycott german products.

 

--by the way, I'd like to mention that I'm german myself so there's no need to play the "racist"-card against me...--

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Well, this would mean that Germany is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would put it right up there with the rest of the violators, such as Isreal and the United States of America.

Here is a Wikipedia article on this subject.

[OCAC 0]

Well, while this might be a theoretical possibility. for the freestate of bavaria to develop nuclear weapons, I still think the probability that Germany is going to be building nuclear weapons in my generation (the next 50 years) extremely implausible.I like my conspiracy theories like no-one, but this is a non-brainer.Politically it would be suicide. As it is political suicide in Germany to ask for the reintroduction of nuclear power stations. You might be surprised about that, but I honestly believe, that Germany is not going to re-connet reactors to the net. This obviously is partly due to the fact, that it only has a very small part of its power from nuclear power and most is still coal and gas station, which makes the part of renewable almost as big as the one that is being produced by nuclear.Germany is next to a couple of other country leading in renewable technologies. Why would they want to go back?The other thing is of course, why would Germany want a nuclear bomb?As long as you cannot give me a satisfactory answer to that I don;t think it will happen.Even with Stoiber as Chancellor it simply does not make sense in the current political situation.What would have to happen. There would have to be a great fall (hehe) out between all NATO members, and a split between France and Germany at the same time. For Germany to think, it might need nuclear weapons for self defence.For all the other reasons, that the US or France or GB have the BOMB, as a a means of defence....So even if Germany is involved in more and more conflicts, that does not mean they necessarily have to go down the route of having a bomb. Germany unlike France, Britain or the US has no boarder to a state that it considers hostile (or former colonial territories that it would like to still have), nor does it have any that I can see would be hostile in the future, to the extend, that Germany would be singled out as the only target for aggression. (unlike the States)So the scenario. Country X is mad at Germany and shoots an A-Bomb at Munich (since they deserve it) and Niederwittelsbach, because the church there has a minister that is the last remaining pacifist in Germany. How likely is that?I thought so.Xisto?icon1.gif

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

well great, another country with nuclear weaponry, just what the world needs, although US will always have the most >_< i think they should all be destroyed somehow because they are useless...

[webmaster_2006 0]

Yeah, the world is coming to an end. Another nuclear threat. Is there ever good news about other countries? Not these days at least. Now, everyone will be worried about their saftey, because one false move can take out an entire continent.

[wild20 0]

This is crazy. Germany?! With nuclear weapons!? What is the world coming to? The end, that's what. Germany, no offense to you germans out there, seems to dangerous with weaopns, of any sort. Remember Hitler? Although things have changed I am sure. Nuclear weapons are not something to mess around with. I personally think they shouldn't be allowed. Too dangerous in the wrong hands I think.

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

i aint no nature freak, but a nuclear explosian can really effect allot of ecosystems and really screw up the balance of nature, meaning somthing like it could kill all the plants in a given area, or poisin the plants within a 5,000 mile radius of the explosion site, and without the plants the herbivores (plant eaetrs) cannot ear and so they die off and then the conumers have nothing to eat, and then the secondary consumers (us) have nothing to eat..basicly a huge screw up..and if ever there was an "accidental" nuclear explosion, i feel sorry for the country it happened to..lets jus pray osoma bin laden tnever gets his hands on any of those or we're screwed right up the alley (clean term for somthing )and germany is jsut..wow no offense but teenagers can drink alchahol at an early age there..along with a few other places but germany most of all..and if they have connections lord knows i just fear the futre some day

[brainless 0]

cerebral: right, we're violating this treaty (though they've got it covered with some obscure reasons why this shouldn't be a violation of the NPT...)

OCAC: my claim holds just as much arguments to back it up as the claims that Iran is developing "the bomb" has. Need a prove? There is no evidence on either, just reasons why it should be reasonable for both countries to develop nuclear weapons.

I will give you a quote from an article about german claims to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council with quotes from a book by our former Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Joseph "Joschka" Fischer:

[...]So we can't remove the impression that the Berlin coalition's strive for a Permanent Seat [in the UN Security Council] is part of a "new empowerment" of german foreign policy and part of "german-nationalist attempts to revise history" Joschka Fischer explicitely warned about in his book "Risk Germany" from 1994.
"It begins today with the slogan 'Take more responsibility!'", Fischer wrote then. After this, "Germany will participate in its first wars since WWII", Germany will receive a Permanent Seat in the UN Security Council and somewhen the debate "about 'complete sovereignity'" begins, which "is nuclear sovereignity in the world of today."
[...]

-----

[...]
So bleibt der Eindruck, der Berliner Koalition gehe es mit dem Streben nach einem Ständigen Sitz vor allem um die "erneute Vermachtung" der deutschen Außenpolitik und um "deutschnationale Revisionsversuche", vor denen Joschka Fischer in seinem 1994 veröffentlichten Buch "Risiko Deutschland" noch nachdrücklich gewarnt hatte. "Es fängt heute an mit der Parole 'Mehr Verantwortung übernehmen!'", schrieb Fischer damals. Danach würden "die ersten Kriegseinsätze Deutschlands stattfinden", Deutschland einen Ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat erhalten, und irgendwann auch eine Debatte "um die 'vollständige Souveränität'" beginnen, die "in der heutigen Welt nun einmal die nukleare Souveränität" sei.
[...]

(well, the sentences were a bit tricky ... I hope I got them right but I think you can get the point...)

[...]Politically it would be suicide. As it is political suicide in Germany to ask for the reintroduction of nuclear power stations.

You might be surprised about that, but I honestly believe, that Germany is not going to re-connet reactors to the net. This obviously is partly due to the fact, that it only has a very small part of its power from nuclear power and most is still coal and gas station, which makes the part of renewable almost as big as the one that is being produced by nuclear.
[...]

With the current chancelloress (sp?) and the Christian-Democratic Union [CDU; rather conservative] being back in the government, some of their members of parliament began to spread the word that it is nonsense to shut down all german nuclear power plants until 2030 as it was planned by the Green party which was part of the former government coalition.
The energy corporations which own those nuclear power plants lobby in favor of them.

[...]
The other thing is of course, why would Germany want a nuclear bomb?

[...]

well, how are we supposed to threaten a nation with nuclear weapons if we don't have them ourselves? And as the draft european constitution says, we are to increase our military abilities - having the bomb and carrier weapon systems would increase them a huge deal, wouldn't it?

...but did you see how the other people just fell for my headline which didn't have anything but speculations to back it up? Though it would be nice to know what kind of research they do at the FRM II in Garching...

[eee 0]

well this is always threatening it depends on why are they developing these nuclear weapons and who are they gonna use them on hopefully iraq so we'll win(i live in usa) props on the info and this is good for them better security for their country good info for them :thumbs up:

[illdevilinc 0]

We are really going to be in a lot of trouble if this happens. If everyone has taken history we werent very friendly with germany. As a madder of fact no one was. Whats to stop them from going to war with us and starting another WW?WW3 may be coming if something dosent happen.

[ongnoai 0]

.... and up to 50 pre-built nuclear weapons from the USA [breach of the non-proliferation treaty!] gains access not only to instructions how to build nuclear weapons (you can find out how to do this in just about any university library) but also to all the materials necessary to do so.

Someone please call for sanctions against Germany at the UN Security Council.

If necessary, boycott german products.

223327[/snapback]

Hey there, all,

 

Brainless, I am a bit confused as to what you write. As a Swiss, and a god neighbor to both Germany and Bavaria, I'm quite supportive of your views against anything that has any nuclear flavor to it. And that includes the nuclear plants that sprouted along the years in Switzerland against public protests.

 

Now, what I don't get is why it should be especially wrong for Germans to do the same as others around do shamelessly. Are you by any chance a victim of a self-whipping syndrom because of what occured during WWII? Not a chance to be right, friend. First, because the children are not responsible for the wrong done by their parents. Second, because present-days Germany is acting responsibly in most instances since 60 years.

 

And... third but not least, just because, the current oil situation (which by all means cannot be blamed even remotely upon German shoulders) makes nuclear energy an almost unavoidable economic alternative. At least an alternative to be cautiously pondered by any responsible states(wo)man. That girl of yours, Angela will have to meet these issues very, very soon, tell you.

 

Believe me, chum, I'd be more worried by what the various bushes of this world are up to by ignorance and/or malevolence. Ignorance especially is the most lethal weapon in this small world of ours, much more so than nukes. The very fact that you know how to get the info to make some nuclear device and refrain from even looking for it is the best insurance that you at least will not act stupidly. And there are many of your likeness crawling around, you know. What scares me most is the bushes are so few, yet so enduring. I'd bet their species will still be around when spontaneous nuclear decay has brought all artificial radioactivity to inocuity in an untold numbers of centuries. 2008 will not bring any relief to that concern, you mark my word.

 

I'd suggest that you invest heavily in teaching your children to act responsibly. There ain't any good politician without good voters to elect him or her these days. The battle for nuclear weapons containment is as good as lost today. Yet, there are so many bright people unspoken of that I'll keep faith to my last day these guys will try to do something constructive if they find a way to work together in a productive and creative way.

 

Cheers and chins up folks. Tomorrow's world is right here on Xisto.

 

[brainless 0]

ongnoai: I will not claim that I'm right all along my posts and especially in this thread I've gone to a somewhat extreme position... anyways, I'm just reassuring myself that I mentioned that somewhere

[...]Now, what I don't get is why it should be especially wrong for Germans to do the same as others around do shamelessly.

It's not especially wrong for Germany to do what everyone else does, it's just that it doesn't get better if many people do it instead of just a few...

Are you by any chance a victim of a self-whipping syndrom because of what occured during WWII? Not a chance to be right, friend. First, because the children are not responsible for the wrong done by their parents. Second, because present-days Germany is acting responsibly in most instances since 60 years.[...]

I hope that I am not too much affected by this syndrome. Actually I sometimes feel urged to need to point out the good things about the nazi regime when everybody else says "we all know that it was bad all over the place" [well, they achieved a very low unemployment rate; destroyed large natural areas in the name of 'civilizing' them (our recent governments outsourced this job), ...]

I don't agree with the "responsible behavior" but I suppose it's a behavior accepted by those who are in power in other nations and those who follow them more or less without questioning them (or maybe it's just me)...

I like most parts of the rest of your post and don't think it's necessary to go into details

If everyone has taken history we werent very friendly with germany. As a madder of fact no one was. Whats to stop them from going to war with us and starting another WW?

well, after WWI Germany wasn't treated too nicely (hey, actually the Austrians started it, we just gave them a carte blanche to do so) and it's pretty sure that WWII might not have happened if the Treaty of Versailles had looked more friendly ... after WWII the winning powers were very friendly with the german people, though it's a pity that we were granted an own army it would have been nice if Germany could have set an example that even a nation without an army of its own can become one of the most powerful nations on earth...

(I think there was something I wanted to write but I can't remember it and don't have the time to rethink 'cause I've gotta get to SKAmbulé's last show ever )

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I agree, Brainless. The Treaty of Versailles asked Germany to take full responsibility for all of WWI, regardless of the fact that Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and others were allies that supported the war. Hitler had been a commanding officer in the German army during WWI and he managed to arouse his fellow Germans (granted, not all of them) against Jews, which he blamed for being the reason behind Germany's fall. One cannot solely blame Germany for any of that, though, since people tend to want a scapegoat during times of trouble, and Germany was going through times of trouble. Hitler simply stepped up and gave the people what they wanted - someone to point a finger at.

[hujtec 0]

Enriching uranium is not the same as building a bomb. Germany is a peaceful nation an does not threaten anyone (at least recently ). Nuclear weapons are most dangerous in the hands of mad people. And they are not in Europe.

[hitmanblood 0]

Well I would firtly like to point out that there is really huge difference between enriching uranium and building nuclear weapon. However German forces in the last decade have increased over supposed general stockpile or manpower signed at the and of world war two. And similar thing happened just before beginning of the world war two after world war one treaty. Also the problem is not whit actually build up of weapons because European nation would be really redundant to use such weapon of massive destruction anywhere close to its own home ground and considering several nuclear hazards happening in the last 50 years on the Europe soil I assume that the negative effect of such weapon would affect all countries in Europe. But I want to use this opportunity to say something about Germany in the last ten years after the fall of Berlin war. It constantly increasing its support for US actions against terror and increasing its base manpower also I don't consider Germans as peaceful nation I would not like to sound racist however throughout their history they were always fighting with someone either between themselves or against ofreing and outside enemy. And those wars were usually attacking that offensive campaigns rather then defensives. So to consider such nation increasing manpower might just sound suspicions. Would not you agree?????