Strauss, German minister of defense,and the indicated successor of Adenauer ,said the following :
''The epoch is over,where European and American interests were running in parallel ''.
Source : Reinhard Gehlen,Geheimdienstchef in Hintergrund der Bonner Republik .
After 1957,US would be faced with the following choices if the Soviets started a conventional war in Europe
a Using in Germany nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets
b Using nuclear weapons against the USSR .
Both cases would result in the destruction of Germany
Both choices were unacceptable for West Germany,especially as these choices would be taken by the US only,without any German participation .
No wonder that Adenauer and Strauss were rebelling and no wonder that they were eliminated by the BND which was the German extension of the CIA.

The nuclear umbrella exist still and it is a part of the 2010 Strategic Concept. The nuclear umbrella commitment includes not only the US allies in NATO, the Strategic Concept includes Australia, South Korea, and Japan so you are obviously wrong. What you don't understand is; nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Your statement about the nuclear umbrella is not correct.

http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-conten...rohibition.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News...official-says/

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The nuclear umbrella exist still and it is a part of the 2010 Strategic Concept. The nuclear umbrella commitment includes not only the US allies in NATO, the Strategic Concept includes Australia, South Korea, and Japan so you are obviously wrong. What you don't understand is; nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Your statement about the nuclear umbrella is not correct.

http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-conten...rohibition.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News...official-says/

NO : the nuclear umbrella disappeared in 1957 .
A commitment to use nuclear weapons against Russia if she starts a conventional war against NATO in Europe is totally laughable ,because it would result in the destruction of Europe, Russia and the USA.
Treaties, promises,arrangements are not credible .
Why should the US commit suicide if Russia attacked NATO ?
Tell me : why ?
The nuclear umbrella ( a threat that US would destroy the USSR if it started a war ) worked as long as the Soviets could not destroy the US . In 1957 ,they could .
Till 1957 the US could and would nuke the USSR, after 1957 , they no longer would do it .That's why France wanted its own nuclear weapons .Us unwillingly accepted this, but refused to admit that Germany could have its own nuclear weapons .

Wrong again. The nuclear umbrella exist. It's a part of the US agreement to defend NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Do your homework before saying things, because what you are saying is wrong and only show your own incompetence. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Read the other two references and you will see you are wrong


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a537931.pdf

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/japan-.../9780231157995

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Wrong again. The nuclear umbrella exist. It's a part of the US agreement to defend NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Do your homework before saying things, because what you are saying is wrong and only show your own incompetence. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Read the other two references and you will see you are wrong


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a537931.pdf

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/japan-.../9780231157995

An agreement is only blahblah : US will not risk the destruction of New York to stop a conventional Russian or North Korean attack .

Originally Posted by lljadw

An agreement is only blahblah : US will not risk the destruction of New York to stop a conventional Russian or North Korean attack .

BS, just another example of your incompetence and your ignorant opinions. Nuclear weapons are for deterrence. That's why NK and Iran want to have them, to deter an attack. A child understand that, but you don't.

The Russian; earlier the Soviet nukes deter the west from attacking them. The Chinese nukes have the same purpose

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

BS, just another example of your incompetence and your ignorant opinions. Nuclear weapons are for deterrence. That's why NK and Iran want to have them, to deter an attack. A child understand that, but you don't.

The Russian; earlier the Soviet nukes deter the west from attacking them. The Chinese nukes have the same purpose

BS :nuclear weapons can only deter IF the other party is convinced that they will be used .
The Soviet nukes did NOT deter the west from attacking them, because between 1945 and 1957 the West could have nuked the Soviets without any danger .
Iran does NOT want nukes to deter the West (= the US ) to attack them, because,as with the Soviets, the West could have nuked and can still nuke Iran without any problem .Thus, why would Iran need nukes ?
NO ONE in the West wants to attack Iran . Except the stupid Bolton .
Iran wantss nukes to blackmail the West /to attack the West and Israel .

Originally Posted by lljadw

BS :nuclear weapons can only deter IF the other party is convinced that they will be used .
The Soviet nukes did NOT deter the west from attacking them, because between 1945 and 1957 the West could have nuked the Soviets without any danger .
Iran does NOT want nukes to deter the West (= the US ) to attack them, because,as with the Soviets, the West could have nuked and can still nuke Iran without any problem .Thus, why would Iran need nukes ?
NO ONE in the West wants to attack Iran . Except the stupid Bolton .
Iran wantss nukes to blackmail the West /to attack the West and Israel .

No, they don't. Nuclear weapons deter an aggressor and with the alliance (NATO and the countries the US has bilateral security treaties with deter any attack, with or without nukes) Btw, Soviet tested their first nuke in 1949, so didn't even got that right. Read more empirical facts before exposing how ignorant you are. Iran view itself being threatened by the US.

1949 was NO threat to the US, as in 1949 the Soviets had not ICBMs or long range bombers to nuke the American cities . Thus,you are again wrong .
The danger existed only in 1957 .
Nuclear weapons deter only an aggressor who has no nuclear weapons .
No one believes in the US nuclear deterrent .
About Iran : Iran has said openly that it wants to dominate the ME, destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and attack Europe and the US .
And, due to the help from the Obama administration and of the European governments, Iran is very near to its aim :
Iranian forces/ terrorists funded by Iran are in Iraq,Yemen, Syria and Gaza .
Very soon Iran will start a nuclear war with Israel and such a war will destroy not only the ME ,but also Europe and kill hundreds of millions of people .
And, we all know that Biden will do nothing .
Even the far left Newsweek has said openly in July that the Democratic Party is now anti Israel and pro Iran .
The nuclear deal with Iran will be renewed .
Would any one have signed a nuclear deal with Hitler ?
Thus : why with Iran ?

The Soviets had captured B-29 and more or less copied it, it was called Tu-4. It could have reached the US from the Asian part of Soviet Union or cross the Artic. Neither side had the amount of nukes to annihilate each other in the 1950s and early 1960s. They could have caused severe damage to each other.

The nuclear doctrine aka the nuclear umbrella protected and deterred each other from attacking each other. It was called the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine, so when you are saying nuclear deterrence works only toward those without any nukes, you are wrong.

Iran knows what happened to them if they use a nuke and the government wants to stay in power without making its own country a nuclear wasteland. Btw, the US is using proxies too.

Begin to read and learn from what you are reading because you are really uneducated.