by Rick Rozoff
December 4, 2009
from
GlobalResearch Website
"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin
Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage
in nuclear war."
"Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an
essential political and military link between the European and the North
American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain
adequate nuclear forces in Europe.”
“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO
bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.”
"The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of
State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in
reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance
strategy and policy for the future."
-
Is Italy capable of delivering a
thermonuclear strike?
-
Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop
hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?
-
Germany's air force couldn't possibly be
training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that
destroyed Hiroshima, could it?
The above is from the opening paragraph of a
feature in Time magazine's online edition of December 2, one entitled "What
to Do About Europe's Secret Nukes."
In response to the rhetorical queries posed it
adopts the deadly serious tone befitting the subject in stating,
"It is Europe's dirty secret that the list
of nuclear-capable countries extends beyond those - Britain and France -
who have built their own weapons. Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force
bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands - and planes from
each of those countries are capable of delivering them."
The author of the article, Eben Harrell,
who wrote an equally revealing piece for the same news site in June of 2008,
cites the Federation of American Scientists as asserting that there are an
estimated 200 American B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed in the four
NATO member states listed above.
A fifth NATO nation that is home to the
warheads, Turkey, is not dealt with in the news story.
In the earlier Times article alluded to
previously, author Harrell wrote that,
“The U.S. keeps an estimated 350
thermonuclear bombs in six NATO countries." [1]
They are three variations of the B61, "up to 10
[or 13] times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb" [2] -
B61-3s, B61-4s and B61-10s - stationed on eight bases in Alliance states.
The writer reminded the magazine's readers that,
"Under a NATO agreement struck during the
Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be
transferred to the control of a host nation's air force in times of
conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch,
Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear
war." [3]
The B61 is the Pentagon's mainstay hydrogen
weapon, a,
"lightweight bomb [that can] be delivered
by... Air Force, Navy and NATO planes at very high altitudes and at
speeds above Mach 2."
Also, it,
"can be dropped at high speeds from
altitudes as low as 50 feet. As many as 22 different varieties of
aircraft can carry the B61 externally or internally. This weapon can be
dropped either by free-fall or as parachute-retarded; it can be
detonated either by air burst or ground burst." [4]
The warplanes capable of transporting and using
the bomb include new generation U.S. stealth aircraft such as the B-2 bomber
and the F-35 Lightning II (multirole Joint Strike Fighter), capable of
penetrating air defenses and delivering both conventional and nuclear
payloads.
The Pentagon's Prompt Global Strike program, which,
"could encompass new generations of aircraft
and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American
arsenal," including "the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is
designed to hit Mach 5 - roughly 3600 mph," [5] could be
configured for use in Europe also, as the U.S. possesses cruise missiles
with nuclear warheads for deployment on planes and ships.
But the warplanes mandated to deliver American
nuclear weapons in Europe are those of its NATO allies, including German
Tornados, variants of which were used in NATO's 1999 air war against
Yugoslavia and are currently deployed in Afghanistan.
There are assumed to be 130 U.S. nuclear warheads at the Ramstein and 20 at
the Buechel airbases in Germany and 20 at the Kleine Brogel Air Base in
Belgium. Additionally, there are reports of dozens more in Italy (at Aviano
and Ghedi) and even more, the largest amount of American nuclear weapons
outside the United States itself, in Turkey at the Incirlik airbase.
[6]
Not only are the warheads stationed in NATO nations but are explicitly there
as part of a sixty-year policy of the Alliance, in fact a major cornerstone
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
An article in this series written before the
bloc's sixtieth anniversary summit in France and Germany this past April,
NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe [7],
examined the inextricable link between the founding of NATO in 1949 and the
deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems in Europe.
One of the main purposes of founding the
Alliance was exactly to allow for the basing and use of American nuclear
arms on the continent.
Seven months after the creation of the bloc, the NATO Defense Doctrine of
November 1949 called for insuring,
“the ability to carry out strategic bombing
including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a US
responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations.” [8]
The current NATO Handbook contains a section
titled NATO's Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment which
contains this excerpt:
"During the Cold War, NATO’s nuclear forces
played a central role in the Alliance’s strategy of flexible response...
[N]uclear weapons were integrated into the whole of NATO’s force
structure, and the Alliance maintained a variety of targeting plans
which could be executed at short notice. This role entailed high
readiness levels and quick-reaction alert postures for significant parts
of NATO’s nuclear forces.” [9]
At no time was the deployment and intended use
of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe part of a nuclear deterrence strategy.
The former Soviet Union was portrayed as having
a conventional arms superiority in Europe and U.S. and NATO doctrine called
for the first use of nuclear bombs.
The latter were based in several NATO states on
the continent as part of what was called a "nuclear sharing" or "nuclear
burden sharing" arrangement: Although the bombs stored in Europe were
American and under the control of the Pentagon, war plans called for their
being loaded onto fellow NATO nation’s bombers for use against the Soviet
Union and its (non-nuclear) Eastern European allies.
The USSR itself, incidentally, didn't
successfully test its first atomic bomb until four months after NATO was
formed.
With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, formed six years after NATO and in
response to the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany in the bloc
(and the U.S. moving nuclear weapons into the nation), and of the Soviet
Union itself in 1991, the Pentagon withdrew the bulk of 7,000 warheads it
had maintained in Europe, but still maintains hundreds of tactical nuclear
bombs.
At the 1999 NATO fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C., during
which the bloc was conducting its first war, the 78-day bombing campaign
against Yugoslavia, and expanding to incorporate three former Warsaw Pact
members (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland), it also approved its new
and still operative Strategic Concept which states in part:
"The supreme guarantee of the security of
the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance,
particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces
of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their
own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.
“A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance
solidarity... continue to require widespread participation by European
Allies involved in collective defense planning in nuclear roles, in
peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command,
control and consultation arrangements.
Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed
to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the
European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance
will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.” [10]
The Time report of 2008 wrote of the ongoing
policy that it is:
"A ‘burden-sharing’ agreement that has been
at the heart of NATO military policy since its inception.
“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO
bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.”
[11]
It also discussed the Air Force Blue Ribbon
Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures released in February
of 2008 which,
"recommended that American nuclear assets in
Europe be consolidated, which analysts interpret as a recommendation to
move the bombs to NATO bases under 'U.S. wings,' meaning American bases
in Europe." [12]
Both Time articles by Eben Harrell, that
of last year and that of this month, emphasize that the basing of nuclear
warheads on the territory of non-nuclear nations - and Belgium, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are non-nuclear nations - is a gross
violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], whose
first two Articles state, respectively:
"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the
Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons
or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to
assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture
or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices,
or control over such weapons or explosive devices."
"Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to
receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or
explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or
otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." [13]
The Time piece of December 2, then, points
out that the continued presence of U.S. nuclear warheads in Europe is,
"more than an anachronism or historical
oddity. They [the weapons] are a violation of the spirit of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)..."
"Because 'nuclear burden-sharing,' as the
dispersion of B61s in Europe is called, was set up before the NPT came
into force, it is technically legal. But as signatories to the NPT, the
four European countries and the U.S. have pledged,
'not to receive the transfer... of
nuclear weapons or control over such weapons directly, or
indirectly.'
That, of course, is precisely what the
long-standing NATO arrangement entails." [14]
The author also mentioned the report of the
Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired
by former U.S. Secretary of Defense
James Schlesinger, Phase I [15]
of which was released in September and Phase II [16] in December
of 2008.
The second part of the report contains a section
called
Deterrence: The Special Case of NATO
which states:
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) represents a special case for deterrence, both because of history
and the presence of nuclear weapons... [T]he presence of U.S. nuclear
weapons in Europe remains a pillar of NATO unity. The deployment of
nuclear weapons in Europe is not a Service or regional combatant command
issue - it is an Alliance issue.
As long as NATO members rely on U.S. nuclear
weapons for deterrence - and as long as they maintain their own
dual-capable aircraft as part of that deterrence - no action should be
taken to remove them without a thorough and deliberate process of
consultation.
"The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of
State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in
reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance
strategy and policy for the future.
"The Department of Defense should ensure that the dual-capable F-35
remains on schedule. Further delays would result in increasing levels of
political and strategic risk and reduced strategic options for both the
United States and the Alliance."
The F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter multirole
warplane discussed earlier, which its manufacturer Lockheed Martin boasts,
"Provides the United States and allied
governments with an affordable, stealthy 5th generation
fighter for the 21st century." [17]
Far from the end of the Cold War signaling the
elimination of the danger of a nuclear catastrophe in Europe, in many ways
matters are now even more precarious.
NATO's expansion over the past decade has now
brought it to Russia's borders.
Five full member states,
-
Estonia
-
Latvia
-
Lithuania
-
Norway
-
Poland,
...and as many Partnership for Peace adjuncts,
-
Azerbaijan
-
Finland
-
Georgia
-
Kazakhstan
-
Ukraine,
...directly adjoin Russian territory and for
over five years NATO warplanes have conducted air patrols over the Baltic
Sea region, a three minute flight from St. Petersburg. [18]
If launching the first unprovoked armed assault against a European nation
since Hitler's wars of 1939-1941 ten years ago and currently conducting the
world's longest and most large-scale war in South Asia were not reasons
enough to demand the abolition of the world's only military bloc,
so-called global NATO, then the Alliance's insistence on the right to
station - and employ - nuclear weapons in Europe is certainly sufficient
grounds for its consignment to the dark days of the Cold War and to
oblivion.
Notes
1) Time, June 19, 2008
2) Ibid
3) Time, December 2, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4) Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm
5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007
6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008
7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe Stop NATO,
March 31, 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe
8) www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
9) http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm
10) NATO, April 24, 1999 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
11) Time, June 19, 2008
12) Ibid
13) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
14) Time, December 2, 2009
15) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf
16) www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf
17) Lockheed Martin http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35
18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict