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

in their roles fulfilling high readiness requirements
(i.e. training, exercises, certification etc.)?
• Do U.S. nuclear forces based in Europe <strong>and</strong>
committed to <strong>NATO</strong> provide an essential political
<strong>and</strong> military link between the European
<strong>and</strong> the North American members of the Alliance?
• If not, what role do they play? What other factors
should the Alliance stress to emphasize
<strong>and</strong> demonstrate the strength of the trans-Atlantic
link?
• Are the DCA nations committed to continue
their current role in Alliance nuclear strategy?
If not, what would they substitute for their contribution
to deterrence?
• Can Alliance burden-sharing be visibly provided
by other means?
<strong>NATO</strong> nuclear burden-sharing, including the presence
of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, is perceived
by many allies as the most tangible manifestation of
the nuclear element of <strong>NATO</strong>’s collective security
guarantee. Some have questioned the continued utility
of that presence <strong>and</strong> have raised concerns about the
security of these weapons, the cost of modernization,
<strong>and</strong> the implications for disarmament <strong>and</strong> nonproliferation
if they are retained.
Reflecting improvements in the security environment,
<strong>NATO</strong> has reduced the number of U.S. nuclear
weapons stationed in Europe by over 95 percent. 30
As part of the process of continually reviewing our
nuclear deterrence posture <strong>and</strong> following consultations
within the Alliance, further steps in adjusting
the configuration of <strong>NATO</strong>’s nuclear deterrence posture,
including further reductions, should (1) take
392