No new ‘land-based’ nuclear weapons in Europe Now get rid of the other nukes

From END Info 25 | July/August 2021 | download pdf

‘Defense News’ (defensenews.com), reported in early June that “NATO allies are poised to formally oppose the alliance deploying ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe, following U.S. President Joe Biden’s meeting with fellow heads of state”. Confirmation of this stance is contained in paragraph 26 of the Brussels Summit Communiqué, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels 14 June 2021, which reads:

26. We reaffirm our commitment to respond in a measured, balanced, coordinated, and timely way to Russia’s growing and evolving array of conventional and nuclear-capable missiles, which is increasing in scale and complexity and which poses significant risks from all strategic directions to security and stability across the Euro-Atlantic area. We will continue to implement a coherent and balanced package of political and military measures to achieve Alliance objectives, including strengthened integrated air and missile defence; advanced defensive and offensive conventional capabilities; steps to keep NATO’s nuclear deterrent safe, secure, and effective; efforts to support and strengthen arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation; intelligence; and exercises. We have no intention to deploy land-based nuclear missiles in Europe.

Such a declaration is to be welcomed, for all the obvious reasons. It had been feared that one consequence of Trump’s sabotage of the INF Treaty would be stationing of such weapons on the European landmass once again. Such a prospect has now been ruled out.

This commitment, welcome as it is, is not the end of the matter. For instance, in a linguistic sense having “no intention” to do something is not at all the same as a declaration that you “will never” do such a thing. When it comes to questions of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the context of a continuing sharpening of tensions, precision of language or a lack thereof has consequences.

Take the US Aegis Ashore missile system which is currently stationed in Romania and is due for deployment in Poland from 2022. According to a paper submitted to the Defence Committee of the British House of Commons on ‘Consequences for UK Defence of INF Withdrawal’ (Katarzyna Kubiak, see also The Spokesman 142: European Nuclear Disarmament), the missiles used in the Aegis system can be fairly straightforwardly adapted, by a change of fuel tank and payload, into an intermediate-range nuclear missile. If leaders have “no intention” of deploying such weapons in Europe, then perhaps there should be a clear commitment that the Aegis-based missiles will never be adapted.

What of sea-based nuclear missiles in European waters? As Joachim Wernicke has pointed out in these pages on previous occasions, a new generation of US sea-based, nuclear-capable missiles are in development. Will US ships be permitted to carry such weapons in the territorial waters of European states? Will US ships armed with such weapons be permitted to dock in European ports? If so, then what does having “no intention to deploy land-based nuclear missiles in Europe” amount to?

What of the US nuclear weapons already in Europe? (see page 4 for a map of their locations) Do these weapons relate to a commitment to “keep NATO’s nuclear deterrent safe, secure, and effective”? The presence of US nuclear weapons, along with the French and UK arsenals, makes Europe a more dangerous and not a safer place to live. Real security will depend on their removal and a nuclear-weapons-free Europe.