US Removes Last Nuclear Weapons from the UK

For some time I have been advocating that our government remove our last nuclear weapons from Europe. One problem though is that it is difficult to determine exactly how many US weapons remain on the continent.

I recently came across this on the blog of the Federation of American Scientists. It is a blog post from July noting that the last US nuclear warheads in the UK have been removed. However, the post notes that the US is doing much of this in secrecy. With those weapons removed, the question now is how many remain? Why the secrecy? As noted by the commenters, NATO is missing a big opening to engage the Russians. And if engaging the Russians is not enough, why not make a big deal about the reductions for PR purposes?

T^he remaining number of US nuclear weapons in Europe is somewhat small and many seem to be housed on allied bases. I assume that those weapons are stationed under the Cold War era agreement between the US and our allies to have nuclear weapons available for them in case of war with Russia. That concern is obsolete, so why keep them there, especially as nuclear weapons require upkeep and security, money that can better be spent addressing other security concerns.

The author of the FAS article wonders if part of the problem is that the US thinks everything involving nuclear weapons must be secret. Yet, with enough digging, he was able from public sources to, with much difficulty, determine the fate of the weapons. I wonder if the real issue is that European governments fear the US is "leaving" Europe. Yes, there are old emotional, military and economic ties between the US and Europe, but since the end of the Cold War, those ties have been fraying. As the United States becomes more Latino and Asian and the history of European immigration becomes a distant memory, I think the US will look to the south and the Pacific, not the Atlantic. And once US forces leave Europe, I doubt they will ever go back there again. For Europeans, that cannot be a good result, as that means they will have to spend more on their security.

Granted, I think it is time we removed the last of our troops there — given that the USSR is no more. I do not see Russia as a threat to the United States, unless we make her one. NATO policy made sense in that the USSR was a threat to the US. It was, however, primarily an ideological treat, so it made sense to say to Europe we have so many troops here that if the Soviets attack, we are in it from the beginning, I have trouble seeing that relevant today.

I hope this will be something the Obama administration will address. He can start by removing the last US warheads from the continent.

What is Obama's stance on Missile Defense in Europe?

What exactly is President-Elect Obama's stance on missile defense. Back in 2007, when he was still a long shot, he made the following video for Think Progress where he states he will cut funding in missile defense.



Yet, on his website and in the debates, he says that he supports missile defense.

Last week, after a discussion with the Polish President, Obama would not say whether he would continue building the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe. This has lead to charges among the right blogosphere that Obama has "surrendered" to Russia. He did nothing of the sort.

Strong supporter of missile defense that I am, I hope that Obama cancels this installation and further changes our policy toward Russia. Russia is no threat to the United States. It is not the threat the Soviet Union was. The Soviet threat was primarily ideological, but Russia has no ideological loyalty from anyone other than some silly Serbs. Rather, Russia is merely acting like past European powers acted, trying to dominate her neighbors. The European Union in both population and economy is larger than Russia.

I admit that Russia's complaints about the missile system are silly. 10 interceptors in Poland would have no impact on the Russian missile force. Yes, the system is faced against Iran, but the cost of relations with Russia is too much. In any event, I think NATO has outlived its usefulness and it is time to make the Europeans pay for thei own defense.

If you are concerned about Georgia and Ukraine, the real way to protect them is to reintegrate Russia into Europe and the West.

President Elect Obama can start by stating unequivocally where he stands on the European missile defense program.

Someone agrees with me on NATO

This may be a first, someone agrees with me on NATO. The comments I think does a good job explaining the pros and cons of continued US membership in NATO

Non-Interventionism v. Isolationism

Is non-interventionism the same as isolationism? Kirk Johnson, fellow DC United fan, on his Bosnian blog sort of equates the two. And I can understand why. But I wonder is that is really the case?


I was something of a neo-Wilsonian when I was in college but then I began to drift toward non-interventionism. (9/11 changed stopped my drift for a while, but I have since continued drifting that way). But I do not think non-intervention is the same as isolationism. I do think the US has a role to play internationally. I believe for example that the US should take the lead in fighting piracy.


I do not, however, have much faith in most international institutions. For example, on Darfur, I have not had much hope for the UN, and would have preferred that the US (and West) properly fund an African solution to the problem. But I also believe that if the US and other western nations get too heavily and directly involved, the situation turns from one of humanitarian concerns into issues of power politics between nations. With China feeling her oats and Russia trying to maintain some influence, those two may oppose anything the US and the West suggest.

Yes, I am opposed to Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO. But that is not due to wanting to isolate myself from the troubles of that region. Rather, I believe that Western efforts should be spent on trying to reintegrate Russia back into the West. I think that will do more to protect Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty than threats of NATO membership at some future time. And that definitely is not isolationism.

Even my feelings about winding up NATO are not driven by isolationism but by a desire to see Europe take more responsibility for its own security. As the Bosnian crisis showed, Europe will not take anything seriously as their leadership knows that they will be able to rely on US security guarantees. In the end, all US intervention in Europe continues to do is subsidize the European welfare state.

But Kirk has a point. At its extreme, non-interventionism does become isolationism. But until that point is reached, I would argue the terms represent two different foreign policies.

WARMONGER!

There was a bit of an uproar today when ABC News showed the first part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Pallin. Pallin noted that if Georgia was in NATO (something she supports), an invasion of Georgia by Russia would mean the US and others would go to war with Russia.

WARMONGER! was the cry.

Well, DUH -- under the NATO charter an attack on one is an attack on all, requiring the other NATO members to intervene. So if Georgia is a member of NATO, a Russian attack on Georgia would require us to attack Russia.

Now, Obama also wants Georgia (and Ukraine) to join NATO. So I assume that if Georgia joins NATO and is attacked by Russia, President Obama will also go to war with Russia.

One can argue that the TONE of the statements are different, Obama is a bit conciliatory toward Russia while Pallin a bit more bellicose, but the fact remains that Obama's position on Georgia is little different that Pallin's (or McCain's for that matter, as McCain's position is the one that really counts).

Personally, I do not support US membership in NATO anymore, so you can guess my feelings about Georgian membership. But given the lack of imagination by our foreign policy elites, we will continue to be members in NATO.

So the point is, both candidates support Georgian membership of NATO. Which means that any Russian attack on Georgia will mean that we have to go to war with Russia.

Defending Europe

Vodka Pundit referenced a Guardian article today which asks from a European perspective, the same question I have been asking -- namely, why is the US still defending Europe?

Interestingly for a Guardian writer, he calls for both increased European defense spending AND a strong NATO alliance with the United States. How did that guy slip in there?

Further Proof our Foreign Policy Lacks Imagination

French President Sarkozy is offering to increase France's military integration in Europe and some people do not seem happy. The heart of the French proposal is to establish what essentially will be a second military headquarters in Europe, one which will be European in nature. This has some British security people unhappy. Others fear this will act as competition for NATO.

The question is, why should the US not support this initiative. It is long past time for Europe to take its own security seriously and stop relying on the US to protect it. NATO was established as a temporary expedient to give Europe time to rebuild itself and defend itself against the Soviets. Europe is no longer a war scared continent and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The Bush administration has been supportive of the French proposal, but I think it is time to go farther. It is time to turn NATO into a primarily European alliance. The next Supreme Commander in Europe should be a European and at the least, we should decommission the remaining 300 or so US nuclear warheads in Europe. Beyond that, we should look to remove the final 40,000 or so US troops on the continent. And finally, we should remain on the Atlantic Council but leave NATO military command.

Why do this? Primarily, Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own security. So long as we provide an overarching security guarantee for the continent, the Europeans will not take security matters seriously. Secondly, the enemy NATO was formed to defend against no longer exists. NATO is therefore reduced to defending Europe from Serbia. Thirdly, Europe should no longer have the central role it continues to have in US foreign policy. Our central concerns now should be Canada, Mexico and China.

Granted, there is the legacy of "Western Betrayal" -- the belief that at Yalta (and before) the Western Allies betrayed Poland and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, handing those countries over communism. Part of current US European policy is to placate Eastern Europe. But frankly, the threat no longer really exists. Russia's threat these days is economic, that is, threatening to cut off the gas and oil flow. It is no longer a military threat.

One solution may be as follows. The administration wants to place an ABM radar and interception facility somewhere in Eastern Europe. Despite Russian saber rattling, the real party this is focused against is Iran -- the handful of interceptors proposed would do nothing to stop a Russian missile assault on the West, but would be enough to make Iran think twice before trying nuclear blackmail.

Despite my support of missile defense, I am not so sure this European shield is necessary. But if it is, why not placate Russian fears by giving up our European based nuclear weapons and promising additional deep cuts in our forces there in return for the interceptor base? Everyone gets something, and the US security guarantee to Europe is reduced.

Unfortunately, most of our foreign policy elites seem to be still thinking in Cold War mode.

A Nuclear Free Europe?

Without fanfare, the US military has reduced its European based nuclear stockpile to about 300 warheads down from about 7000. Maybe it is time to remove the remaining ones. Most of the remaining US warheads are not for US use, but actually there pursuant to agreements with NATO countries for their use in time of war (the stockpile at Ramstein, which has been removed, was there for use by the Germans). After WWII, besides France and Britain, other NATO countries were working on nuclear weapons and this was a way to keep them from developing the weapons.

Britain developed their program as a way of holding onto superpower status. France developed their out of concerns that the US would tire of its NATO security obligations and leave Europe -- they wanted a force that could if not destroy the USSR, make it too expensive for the Soviets to attack. In a remark attributed to De Gaulle:

Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French

So the question becomes, why not remove the rest. An empty gesture maybe? Yes, but the weapons were there to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Today, that enemy no longer exists and much of what was the Warsaw Pact is not part of NATO.

In any event, Europe will not truly be "nuclear free". France and Britain will continue to maintain nuclear forces, and though one could imagine Britain giving up theirs, I would find it hard to imagine France doing the same. But considering the changes in Europe since 1990, maybe this could be a coda or exclamation point noting that the times have changed.