Nuclear weaponsQuestioning the need for forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe
NTI has just released “Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture,” a report addressing the security risks, credibility, and financial and political costs of maintaining NATO’s current nuclear posture, including forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. The report urges U.S. and NATO leaders to re-evaluate whether storing nuclear weapons at multiple sites across multiple countries makes sense in light of today’s threats and escalating costs—and, importantly, whether the weapons are still required elements of NATO defense policy.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) has just released Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture, a report addressing the security risks, credibility, and financial and political costs of maintaining NATO’s current nuclear posture, including forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.
The report urges U.S. and NATO leaders to re-evaluate whether storing nuclear weapons at multiple sites across multiple countries makes sense in light of today’s threats and escalating costs—and, importantly, whether the weapons are still required elements of NATO defense policy.
“NATO’s security requires a hard look at and new approaches to NATO deterrence and defense through the prism of reducing the risk of nuclear use,” NTI CEO and Co-Chair Ernest J. Moniz and Co-Chair Sam Nunn write in the report. “Forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe increase the risk of accidents, blunders, or catastrophic terrorism and invite pre-emption. Given these added risks, it is past time to revisit whether these forward-based weapons are essential for military deterrence and political reassurance.”
NTI says that the report’s co-authors Steve Andreasen, Isabelle Williams, and Brian Rose of NTI address the significant security risks around U.S. nuclear weapons stored in Europe amid an increase in terrorist attacks and political instability. They also explore whether a NATO nuclear posture developed in a different era remains credible at a time when the United States has a robust strategic nuclear deterrent that can be employed anywhere in the world.
“The foundation for NATO’s current nuclear posture was laid during the Cold War … to underscore the political solidarity between the United States and Europe and to provide a military capability to deter and, if necessary, defeat the numerically superior Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies,” they write, noting that the weapons today have little military utility and that alliance conventional forces as well as the strategic nuclear forces of the three nuclear NATO members are more than adequate for NATO’s deterrence and defense needs.
In chapters highlighting the escalating costs for the United States and European countries, experts Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Simon Lunn of the European Leadership Network detail plans to upgrade and replace bombs and the dual-capable aircraft needed to deploy them and explain NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement and procedures.
The report will be distributed at the Munich Security Conference.
— Read more in Steve Andreasen et al., Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture (NTI, January 2018)
