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

emoving European-based U.S. nuclear warheads
from Europe. 23 Other than being a feel-good gesture
to burnish their disarmament credentials again, one
wonders what end such a step would serve, particularly
in view of the threatening international security
environment discussed above. How would such a step
enhance their security? These very same countries are
also drastically cutting their respective defense budgets,
<strong>and</strong> some are trying to neuter missile defense.
This is strategic illiteracy of breath-taking proportions.
Those Europeans who want to get rid of U.S. nuclear
weapons (<strong>and</strong> what about British <strong>and</strong> French
systems?) should for a moment take a strategic view,
realizing that in this anarchic, realpolitik world,
empty unilateralism is as dangerous as uncontrolled
proliferation. A world without nukes might be even
more dangerous than a world with them. I am convinced
that the advent of the nuclear age is the primary
reason major powers have, since 1945, refrained
from waging war with each other. It is very difficult
to explain the absence of war among the major powers
in the last 65 years without taking into account the
consequences of nuclear weapons. If, by some miracle,
we were able to eliminate nuclear weapons at some
point, what we would have is a number of countries
sitting around with breakout capabilities, or rumors
of breakout capabilities—for intimidation purposes—
<strong>and</strong> eventually a number of small cl<strong>and</strong>estine nuclear
stockpiles. This would make the United States <strong>and</strong> her
Allies more, not less, vulnerable. The nuclear genie is
now out of its aged <strong>and</strong> cracked bottle, <strong>and</strong> there is no
way to put him back. “Are we actually going to see
a world without nuclear weapons?” former Defense
Secretary James Schlesinger rhetorically asked a Deterrence
Symposium organized by the U.S. Strategic
388