22 American nuclear bombs are stored in The Netherlands
dutchnews.nl
dutchnews.nl
http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_...
Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.
Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West, which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country.
My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a bad idea when you are facing an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather than threats.
I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.
we were told that the Soviet tank armies were
poised to pour through the Fulda Gap
And the rhetoric was supported by the facts on the ground. The quality of training was poor, but the quality and especially quantity of military equipment was enormous.
What I do take issue with is the crazy degree to which vast arsenals were constructed on both sides to a level that was much much more than that required to politically deter an attack.
The problem I have isn't that deterrence with nuclear weapons doesn't work - clearly it does. Rather that we have no good mechanism for limiting the size of arsenals.
Here is a question - are there any records of the Soviets having military leaders who advocated actually invading Western Europe (rather than just planning for it)? [NB I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to score points.]
Yes, in the same way the US invaded Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction :)
"This system was given major new importance by President Obama in September 2009, when he announced plans to scrap the plans for a missile defense site in Poland, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships. On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama's plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea, as these would be less effective against Russia's missile attacks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense...
What I'm trying to convey is that it is not Russia that is a threat in the region. And hasn't been since the Soviets dissolved.
As I said elsewhere, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia back in 2002. This treaty had been active since the 70s and attempted exactly that - decrease the amount of anti-ballistic missiles installed.
There was no rational reason to put up a whole new defense system in Europe (under a false premise of the Iranian threat). It is in no one's interest except the US. And rightly so, many, including Russia, considered this move aggressive.
If the past decade is of any lesson, the magnitude of the US influence and military presence in the world is a greater threat than anything else.
What I do know is there's a report of some bombs at Volkel field. And the US Air Force 52nd fighter wing has a MUNSS unit based on that field. So if the MUNSS isn't hovering over bombs like a hen hatching its eggs, what exactly are they doing?
It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the lease. For example my swinging bachelor pad lease specifically contained a "no dogs" clause so in a similar way, what if any written rules they have about B61s and the like. If the lease permits it, it doesn't seem to be much of a story. If the lease specifically bans them, then the question is will the landlord kick them out and/or keep the security deposit?
The bombs are a part of the "Nuclear sharing" initiative, where they are under the direct control of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Here's the official "map" of the base http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/volkelmap.jpg
And here is a post highlighting the Base's obscurity http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/28/volkel/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_mi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile
This part is VERY interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile#Conventional_Tr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_...
Wow, in 1967 the US had 31,000 nuclear warheads.
This is interesting to the Dutch in particular, because the political decision to accept or reject (American) cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on Dutch territory was highly, highly controversial in the mid-1980s. There was a substantial division in the population on the topic, and it was the subject of some of the largest public protests seen in the country.
We learned in the past few years that nuclear weapons were allowed to be stored anyway, and now we learn that the prime minister of the era knew that all this civic debate was in fact moot, as he had been aware for 20 years that there were already nuclear weapons in place. That's interesting to me and I think it leaves room for reflection and debate about the functioning of a democracy.
“As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy. Canada hosted weapons until 1984, and Greece until 2001. The United Kingdom also received U.S. tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany. In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Also, let’s not forget the US has 2,150 active warheads in total; the vast majority of those are located on American soil.
I mean, they had a complete air base (Soesterberg) here in the Netherlands, which was actually part of US territory. Complete with border crossings! They left the base in 2008, it makes for a pretty good museum about aviation history now.
Conventional warfare.. you cannot send in nukes before your troops to soften up the enemy. Assuming you lose an invasion you cannot send them in after you pull your troops out.
You cannot use them for precision strikes.
You cannot use them over your own country should it get invaded.
Apparently they are a deterrent from getting nuked yourself. Are they though? Nukes blow up civilians. Civilians do not press the big red button. Crack pot lunatics do from some deep underground bunker. Would you really launch a counter-strike killing potentially millions of civilians. I wouldn't. You don't answer genocide with genocide.
The only use I can see is a small tactical nuke which could be used to blow up an enemy fleet at sea. Even then, launching the nuke in way that it wouldn't get intercepted I guess would be difficult. The implications for such a use would also be pretty profound.
In the UK the Government want to / will renew trident. The UK nuke system. I don't really understand why. The cost is in the billions. The weapon is unsafe, as well as expensive to protect and maintain.
I don't know what the current state of the UN is right now is but it seems to me a better solution would be to give the UN 50 nukes or whatever. The UN then becomes the deterrent. Pass a resolution. 'Those who use Nuclear weapons will be counter-nuked.' Other nations can then give them up.
The only danger with nukes is that only one country has them. They can then threaten others 'Do as I say or be obliterated.' Realistically though so many countries know how to make nukes I can't imagine it would take too long to rearm in this scenario.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u...
Another reason why other might people might want to worry a bit about UK nukes is that our Trident submarines are unique in that they don't have PALs - they do not require any authorization through the chain of command to launch weapons - they can do it all by themselves if they wanted to. Of course, being the RNs finest they are probably pretty decent chaps...
[NB Charlie does say the UK Tridents have US PALs - I need to check that, my understanding is they don't due to fear of a decapitation strike and the famous Letters of Last Resort].
That "The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the Bomb." isn't something one likes to hear when its about nuclear weapons...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-eve...
There are also strategic value in that it forces a country to respond even if you only send one aircraft. Don't forget Japan did not bother trying to take down the the first atomic bomber presumably because they assumed it was just taking pictures but even still.
Huh, why not? Generally speaking the idea with the tactical nukes deployed in Germany was to hit Soviet armored divisions at the start of WWIII before they engaged allied troops. I can think of a great many reasons why you wouldn't want to do that, but I can't see why you'd want to start fighting before doing that.
And generally speaking, even if enemy forces have crossed into one's territory nuking the roads behind them will do a lot to fight off the invasion by preventing the flow of supply and reinforcements.
Are these actually ideas I would endorse? No. But there's a tendency humans have to think that if something is bad in one way it must be bad in other ways too, and a tendency to want to believe that one's preferred course of action has zero drawbacks.
I'm not that far from the Netherlands and I must admit that I fail to see why these weapons being there makes us any safer.
Considering that there are 22 nukes with 4 times the amount of power as the nuke that went off in Hiroshima, imagine what'd happen if something would go off.
Then I'd be killed together with most people that know me. No pain involved as far as I can see. Can't say I'm too anxious about that.
I'm not looking to die at all, but if I get blasted away by this, then so be it. Just don't notify me beforehand or I'll get a heartattack before the bomb gets a chance to kill me.
Russia is often painted as despotic and aggressive, however, in the last decade there's no comparison to what the US war machine has accomplished.
I think the real danger to world peace lies within the US itself.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
Inside a National Geographic documentary doesn't seem like a particularly secure storage place. I would have thought, y'know, a vault or something.
[1] Lubbers was prime minister from 1982-1994, confirmed that there are in fact nuclear bombs in Volkel, and said that he never thought that "those silly things" were still there.
No, he said they were there, and that there are still parts of those old bombs there.
> times as powerful as the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
Som expert. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons and Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. The B61 on the other hand is up to 340 kilotons, or up to 21 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb.
Why can't journalist newer understand that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was relatively small compared to the thermonuclear weapons we have today.
I vaguely remember protesting against this back in the eighties.
The Netherlands is a country with a very high concentration of people. I would think that one of the desert-like places in the USA would be a better storage space (assuming the intent is indeed just to store them).