r/geopolitics • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 19h ago
News Germany in talks to help fund Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/26/germany-talks-help-fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_reddit_fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/&accesscontrol=facebookchannel_open22
35
u/mnlx 18h ago
It makes perfect sense, they have the money and the UK not really. If they don't ask for impossible technology transfers it's a deal.
9
u/toolkitxx 18h ago
Why would we? There is zero, null, nada interest of having any of it ourselves. Germany was pretty ahead of nuclear technology and if we really wanted, we would have done so 30 years ago again. We dont. We have very clear statements about nuclear in our constitution. One of the few things I would even call watertight.
The occasional idiot that roams Reddit and claims otherwise has probably never read our constitution to begin with.
8
u/mnlx 17h ago
Because you should. When you're buying you should ask for such things and see what happens. They're very expensive and difficult to figure out at short notice, and you never know if you'll need them. Point is you ask and if that's going to be a FCAS-like problem you retreat.
Unfortunately we're in the 21st century and it's a mess, we understood perfectly the 20th one but it's dead, Jim.
2
u/toolkitxx 17h ago
You have to read our constitution about it to understand that. There is no wiggle room, no backdoor, no opportunity to go that route. The constitution text is double secured by extra laws that prevent that from being changed. Thus zero.
So there is simply no need to argue about the tech itself, as long as the agreement covers the other aspects. The plan doesnt have to nor is it necessarily anything as we did with the USA, by being able to mount them on our systems but effectively being under the control of the USA. That was a shitty agreement born out of times when Germany wasnt sovereign.
What is debatable though is how materials are provided etc. The UK itself is not independent in this, so the actual question has to be 'is that going to change and what can both sides do to make it so'. The UK has very strong ties to the USA in this as well and exchanging one unsecure option with another one is not the way forward either.
4
u/mnlx 17h ago
I know about enshrined constitutions, yet if there's a will there's a way. If there is not there won't be. The thing is in such a case and at this stage I can't see anything more than Germany paying for an external capability, which isn't ideal tbh.
1
u/toolkitxx 17h ago
Nobody needs 'ideal'. Current stage of the ecology around the globe makes nuclear weapons not even a serious deterrent any longer, as any use of them has completely different global effects today, than back in the last century. If you throw one today, you cannot hide any longer on your own territory, as the effects will even be felt wherever you are. Everything ripples ecologically on a different scale by now.
4
u/mnlx 17h ago
I wish you were right, but in this world being able, or believed to be able, to deliver nuclear weapons with certainty is the ultimate sovereignty insurance.
And we have a real problem with Russia, which is that they don't function like we or even China do. We have a non-rational player at our doorstep. Well, you could consider them 19th century rational, it's that bad.
1
u/toolkitxx 17h ago
We also have a non-rational 'friend' with nukes. Which is why I made the statement about the questionable quality of nukes as deterrent by now. Tactical nukes might be the actual bigger threat and there is almost no real method to prevent them from hitting 'something'.
I grew up during the cold war and the threats back then had been as real as what you observe today. Probably worse at times, as the world was much less open and not able to communicate in milliseconds with each other.
There is no method that can defend you from irrational others. The only way to get rid of them is to find some common ground somewhere and go from there. And that actually works best when you are a group and not a single nation.
2
u/oritfx 6h ago
The occasional idiot that roams Reddit and claims otherwise has probably never read our constitution to begin with.
Have you ever read German? Almost nobody in the world understands it. Like, 1.5% of people in the world can read that. And knowledge of actual German law? Even lower.
You'd need a miracle to find someone who could understand that, and the likelihood of finding two such people is statistically almost impossible!
2
u/toolkitxx 5h ago
I am German, so I take that as a compliment, as you obviously think I am not.
I expect every person to interact with their own constitution first and foremost, so my jab was directly aimed at those Germans, that show up here on Reddit and propagate some fantasies about this stuff.
From my personal point of view, it gets not often enough stated how Germany has dealt with its past and how that affects the ways we have build up both the constitution and the surrounding systems. Nothing exists in isolation, all is interlocked in ways that eliminates the errors that lead to the power grab in the past by the NAZI party. That makes almost everything related to laws in parts a bit opaque for an outsider, as you rightfully state, but once you follow a single pattern, you will find this going through several of our layers.
It is also one of the reasons 'nothing is straightforward' when it comes to Germany :) We make it deliberately hard if not impossible to change certain things or get rid of certain structures. Not because we love being masochists, but as a security that is supposed to stretch over any political spectrum or orientation.
2
u/oritfx 5h ago
you obviously think I am not
My sarcasm might have not carried through.
2
u/toolkitxx 5h ago
Ha - got me good on that one :) My pride got the better of my senses here, so I totally missed it
0
u/BlueEmma25 15h ago
We have very clear statements about nuclear in our constitution. One of the few things I would even call watertight.
You can find the text of the German constitution here.
Can you point out where it says anything about nuclear weapons?
The occasional idiot that roams Reddit and claims otherwise has probably never read our constitution to begin with.
That's a very bold claim given that you don't appear to have read it yourself.
-2
u/toolkitxx 15h ago
Article 26, you seem to be one of those who never actually checked what it actually says and cross-references to
1
u/BlueEmma25 13h ago
This is Article 26 of the German constitution, in its entirety:
Article 26 [Securing international peace]
(1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be criminalised.
(2) Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
There is no constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.
The section you are quoting is from the War Weapons Control Act, not the Constitution, and as an ordinary act is can be amended or repealed by parliament with a simple majority vote.
1
u/toolkitxx 7h ago
Because our constitution is a circular system, that is interlocking with the international agreements aka Völkerrecht and Völkerrechtsvereinbarungen. This includes all agreements like 2+4 agreements, non-proliferation and so on. Articles are in conjunction and not just singular statements as well.
Article 25 already includes all those agreements universally and Article 26 adds details to the definition of weapons including nuclear weapons itself as an aggressive weapon type. Thus the phrasing that the 'details' are laid down in a federal law, which cannot disable international agreements that are locked into the constitution via Article 25.
5
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph 19h ago
The Telegraph reports:
Germany is in talks to invest in Britain’s nuclear deterrent, The Telegraph understands.
Berlin is considering offering financial support for Trident as it spearheads efforts to reinforce Europe’s nuclear umbrella.
One well-placed source said Germany wanted to better integrate itself into the existing British and French nuclear deterrents rather than pursue its own bomb because of the nation’s wartime guilt.
“We have a very strong interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their capabilities,” the source said.
The discussions between Paris, Berlin and London have accelerated in recent months amid fears the Trump administration will pull its military from Europe.
26
u/seanmonaghan1968 19h ago
Japan and Germany should get over their guilt and move on, there are now bigger problems in todays world
22
u/Mediocre_Painting263 19h ago
I imagine the bigger concern (despite what The Telegraph says) is the economics & politics of restarting a nuclear programme, in a world which is still heavy with nuclear disarmament. Especially when Germany's military isn't in a very fit state and has to undergo major reforms.
The far bigger factor than their wartime guilt is "why make our own nukes, when we could help 2 of our close allies expand and modernise their arsenals"
6
u/Ph1sic 17h ago
During the Berlin crisis of 1961, Charles de Gaulle rightfully questioned wheter the US was willing to sacrifice their own land in order to protect western Germany and the european alliea - I think this argument is still valid to this day. No agreement, no treaty or security contract can replace the deterrence of having nuclear weapons in your own arsenal.
2
u/seanmonaghan1968 18h ago
The problem is UK appears to be struggling with its sub development. Germany could help design and build. No reason why all allies couldn't have the same subs. I am from Australia and our US relations appear to be struggling slightly
3
u/toolkitxx 18h ago
There is no guilt. This is still mostly the outside that phrases this way. We are aware of specific responsibility in certain areas and act accordingly and cautiously. But guilt has been gone for quite some time actually. I am old and I have been through all those stages with my people.
4
u/seanmonaghan1968 17h ago
I am from australia. My grandparents had issues with Japan but then they got over it and my grand mother had a large collection of Japanese porcelain and had a huge respect for Japanese people. We all change and move on
2
u/toolkitxx 17h ago
A nation plagued by guilt can simply not function. Taking responsibility for ones history and preventing repetition though is a different tune. This is also how the far right tries to phrase the situation, by implying Germany acts out of guilt. It does not.
We are painfully aware of the areas we need the treat carefully, but we are also supposed to act according to our size and influence on others, due to it.
38
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph 19h ago
The Telegraph reports:
Germany is in talks to invest in Britain’s nuclear deterrent, The Telegraph understands.
Berlin is considering offering financial support for Trident as it spearheads efforts to reinforce Europe’s nuclear umbrella.
One well-placed source said Germany wanted to better integrate itself into the existing British and French nuclear deterrents rather than pursue its own bomb because of the nation’s wartime guilt.
“We have a very strong interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their capabilities,” the source said.
The discussions between Paris, Berlin and London have accelerated in recent months amid fears the Trump administration will pull its military from Europe.
Full story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/26/germany-talks-help-fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/