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

19. <strong>NATO</strong>’s argument is that the United States maintains control
of the weapons, <strong>and</strong> there is no transfer of the weapons or
their control except in war, in which case the NPT ceases to apply.
In addition, it is maintained that the NPT was ratified after the
countries of deployment had signed the (classified) agreements to
host nuclear weapons on their territory, arrangements that were
known to other signatories to the Treaty at the time of signing.
20. <strong>NATO</strong>, Strategic Concept 2010, para. 26. Moreover, it
should be noted that, on Germany’s initiative, the Lisbon Summit
strengthened <strong>NATO</strong>’s role in the fight against the proliferation of
<strong>Weapons</strong> of Mass Destruction (WMD) <strong>and</strong> agreed to establish a
new arms control committee charged with providing advice on
WMD control <strong>and</strong> disarmament in the context of the Alliance’s
review of its deterrence <strong>and</strong> defense posture.
21. On this point, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn recently
stated, “To persist in maintaining U.S. tactical nuclear weapons
in Europe for another decade—in the absence of any real military
or political utility—is more of a security risk than asset to <strong>NATO</strong>,
given the nontrivial risk of a terrorist attack against a <strong>NATO</strong> base
with nuclear weapons.” Sam Nunn, “The Race Between Cooperation
<strong>and</strong> Catastrophe,” in Steve Andreasen <strong>and</strong> Isabelle Willams,
eds., Reducing <strong>Nuclear</strong> Risks in Europe: A Framework for Action, <strong>Nuclear</strong>
Threat Initiative, 2011, p. 20.
22. See “Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>
Policies <strong>and</strong> Procedures,” Polly A. Peyer, chair, February 8, 2008,
available from www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/usaf/BRR-2008.
<strong>pdf</strong>. See also the analysis by Hans M. Kristensen, “USAF Report:
‘Most’ <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong> Sites in Europe Do Not Meet U.S. Security
Requirements,” Federation of American Scientist, Strategic
Security Blog, June 19, 2008, available from www.fas.org/blog/
ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-“most”-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-donot-meet-us-security-requirements.php.
23. See Global Security Newswire, “Peace Activists Trespass
at Belgian Base Housing U.S. Nukes,” available from www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100217_5906.php.
24. It is worth noting that this group of states is not unitary
either, <strong>and</strong> different internal assessments exist. Whereas the small
296