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

ers have repeatedly reemphasized that <strong>NATO</strong> regards
all nuclear weapons as truly weapons of last
resort, though always adding that <strong>NATO</strong> will remain
a nuclear Alliance as long as nuclear weapons exist.
<strong>NATO</strong> has sought to treat Russia as a partner rather
than a potential antagonist, but the Russian government
has found <strong>NATO</strong> membership enlargement into
former Warsaw Pact countries <strong>and</strong> the former Soviet
republics threatening, <strong>and</strong> insists on the continuing
necessity for deterrence as a basis of the relationship.
In such ambiguous political circumstances, the role of
<strong>NATO</strong> TNWs cannot be expected to clarify.
CONCLUSION: THE CONTESTED AND
CONTRADICTORY SIGNIFICANCE OF <strong>NATO</strong>
TNWS IN 2012
The foregoing examination of the historical background
of TNWs reveals the complexities underlying
current disputes over <strong>NATO</strong>’s nuclear posture.
Arguments for <strong>and</strong> against continued deployment of
TNWs mostly involve crosscutting themes <strong>and</strong> disagreements
recurrent in the historical record.
The present combination of U.S. B-61 bombs <strong>and</strong>
dual-capable aircraft (DCA) seems to represent:
• Devices to signal commitment during tension,
which appear to have been stabilizing in some
past crises but which could be hard to use in
the future, since “available evidence does not indicate
that consultation will be smooth or timely.” 114
The difficulties in obtaining consensus within
<strong>NATO</strong> on nuclear weapons can be expected
to increase now that the <strong>NATO</strong> countries in
the frontline of potential military threats have
become fewer <strong>and</strong> smaller, while the fear of
61