Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

The United States.
The traditional leadership role of the United States
in <strong>NATO</strong>’s nuclear affairs <strong>and</strong> the complicated dialogue
on the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe
have already been discussed. The situation facing
U.S. policymakers today is different in two senses.
First, as a result of <strong>NATO</strong> enlargement, there are now
several members who are very clear on what they
want—they feel strongly that the warheads are an important
symbol of the U.S. commitment <strong>and</strong> that to
remove them at this time would be sending the wrong
signal. Second, the endorsement by President Barack
Obama in his speech in Prague, Czech Republic, of
the goal of a world without nuclear weapons has created
uncertainty in the minds of the Allies about U.S.
priorities. Since the Prague speech, Allies have been
asking what role this endorsement will play in U.S. attitudes
to <strong>NATO</strong>’s nuclear posture. On the one h<strong>and</strong>,
the Prague commitment, together with the concerns
of many U.S. officials over the security <strong>and</strong> safety of
nuclear storage sites—<strong>and</strong> the associated costs—suggests
the need for change. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, the
possibility that such a change could create divisions
within <strong>NATO</strong> argues for maintenance of the status
quo. For the Obama administration, therefore, the
wish to make progress on the Prague agenda has to be
measured against the priority of maintaining Alliance
solidarity <strong>and</strong> cohesion. The evidence for the moment
is that solidarity <strong>and</strong> cohesion have won the day.
245