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 That concern is obsolete, so why keep them there, especially as nuclear weapons require upkeep and security, money that can better be spent addressing other security concerns.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.

Isn't this debate . . .

Isn't this debate supposed to be about national security.

Updated -- they are now finally talking about Iraq.

Now Afghanistan. I wonder if the solution to Afghanistan is to draw a line and kill what comes over. Iraq is basically stuck in the 1950s. Afghanistan is basically a 7th Century country.

Updated -- McCain is now hitting Obama on Pakistan. It is a failed state.

Updated -- Obama is talking tough on Iran.

Updated -- "I don't even have a seal yet." Did Obama take his seal?

At least Obama is recognizing Iran is an enemy.

Updated -- Obama sees Russia as a threat to the region. So much for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Georgia for NATO. But no Cold War.

Update -- Obama and McCain agree on clean coal -- I hope he told Biden.

Update -- Obama says yes on missile defense.

Well it is over.

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.