Scholars have long argued about whether a world with “fewer and no” nuclear weapons would be a safer world, as the Foreign Minister believes.
In any case, nuclear deterrence brought a lot of stability in the 20th century, especially in Europe.
What can happen, on the other hand, when a country surrenders its nuclear weapons, can now be clearly studied using the example of Ukraine.
It is also certain that today there are more nuclear-armed states than ever before and that they do not wait for “bridge builders” like Baerbock to finally get rid of their bombs.
On the contrary, for Russia and China in particular, nuclear armament plays an important role in their military planning.
Under the new federal government, Germany will become the first NATO state that adheres to nuclear participation and still wants to get involved in the nuclear weapons ban treaty.
This balancing act is apparently intended to fool the peace-loving part of the domestic audience that one is somehow on the way to disarmament.
Contrary to what Baerbock says (and possibly even believes), there is actually only one either / or in real world politics on this issue: You have the choice between a life under a nuclear protective shield or outside it.
The fact that the second federal government, in which the Greens are involved, also opted for the former shows what it considers safer.