2906 gpi disarm 9 , page 1-28 @ Normalize ... · PDF fileregina hagen (inesap), otfried nassauer (bits), hans kristensen, karel koster (penn), daryl kimball (arms control association),martin

safe?the hidden dangers in your backyard

SECURING OUR SAFETY,ENSURING OUR SURVIVALWHY US NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS IN EUROPE MUST GO

2 | SAFE?

PUBLISHED BY

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

DATE

MAY 2006

DESIGN & LAYOUT

ONEHEMISPHERE, SWEDEN

COVER IMAGE

© D. PLUMMER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THANKS FOR THEIR INPUT AND HELP IN THEWRITING OF THIS REPORT SHOULD GO TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ANDMANY MORE.THE PRESENTATION AND OPINIONS ARE HOWEVER THESOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF GREENPEACE. REGINA HAGEN (INESAP),OTFRIED NASSAUER (BITS), HANS KRISTENSEN, KAREL KOSTER (PENN),DARYL KIMBALL (ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION),MARTIN BUTCHER(PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY), REACHING CRITICAL WILL(A PROJECT OF WILPF), AND THE ACRONYM INSTITUTE FORDISARMAMENT DIPLOMACY.

safe?the hidden dangers in your backyard


SAFE? | 3


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR EUROPE 4GREENPEACE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EUROPE 5

SECTION 1 US/NATO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE

1. INTRODUCTION 62. US/NATO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE TODAY 83. ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN 104. NATO NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY, ILLEGAL, IRRELEVANT, IRRESPONSIBLE 12

a) NUCLEAR SHARING IS ILLEGAL 12b) NUCLEAR SHARING IS UNJUSTIFIABLE 13g) NATO AT A GLANCE 13c) NUCLEAR SHARING IS IRRESPONSIBLE 14d) NUCLEAR SHARING SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT 15h) NATO POLICY-MAKING AND POLICY SHAPING 16e) NUCLEAR SHARING INHIBITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA 18f) NUCLEAR SHARING IS LOOKING FOR JUSTIFICATION 18

5. THE IMPACT OF ONE NATO WEAPON 196. TIME FOR CHANGE 22references section 1 23

GREENPEACE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EUROPE 25ANNEXE INFORMATION RESOURCE 26

a) NATO AND MOVEMENT TIMELINE 26

4 | SAFE?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Six European countries - Belgium,Germany,Italy,Netherlands,Turkey and the UnitedKingdom - host 480 US owned and controllednuclear bombs under NATO “nuclear sharing”arrangements.1 These weapons are illegal,irresponsible and unjustifiable.

2006 brings an opportunity to finally put anend to this dangerous cold war legacy, asNATO begins a review process of itsfundamental purpose and objectives. Europeanleaders can use this opportunity to removethese nuclear weapons from NATO’s armouryand from Europe.2 NATO, like the rest of theworld in the 21st century, should be free of20th century nuclear weapons and policies.

Each of the 480 US/NATO nuclear bombs hasa destructive capacity of up to ten times ofthat which destroyed Hiroshima, with acombined power capable of wiping Europe offthe map. Each of these bombs is a clear andpresent danger; each carries an unacceptablerisk of accident and is a potential target.

US nuclear policy, plans and scenarios includeroles for the weapons deployed in Europe. Itis the President of the United States thatwould make these scenarios and plans areality, and he can do so without thepermission of the country hosting theweapons.This year, an article in the NewYorker exposed the frightening reality ofcurrent NATO nuclear sharing arrangements.3

Seymour M. Hersh revealed US scenarios thatincluded the use of B61 bombs, the type ofUS bomb stored in Europe, in a potentialstrike on Iran.This demonstrates howEuropean NATO nuclear sharing countriesrisk nuclear weapons being launched fromtheir territories in a US conflict. EliminatingUS/NATO weapons from Europe will enableEuropeans to disassociate themselves fromdangerous US nuclear doctrines of pre-emptive attack and preventative war.

The Russian Federation has been explicitabout its unwillingness to negotiate furtherreductions in tactical nuclear weapons as longas the US continues to deploy nuclearweapons in Europe. Each of these 480US/NATO nuclear bombs is a barrier tointernational negotiations for a more peacefulfuture. Each is a political stumbling block innegotiations with Russia. In addition, theexistence of these nuclear bombs in Europeundermines other negotiating efforts by someEuropean Union countries to stop and reversethe nuclear shadow that is spreading over theMiddle East today.These bombs do notprevent proliferation; they provoke it.

1 |

2 |

3 |

4 |

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold WarPolicy, Force Levels, and War Planning” (Natural Resources Defense Council,Washington DC, February 2005) http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/EuroBombs.pdf

This report refers to the continent of Europe and includes Turkey within thatgeographical boundary

Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stopTehran from getting the bomb?, New Yorker, 7 April 2006

“Spiegel Interview with US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld” 31 October2005 http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382527-2,00.html.

In 2005 US Defense Secretary DonaldRumsfeld said of US/NATO nuclear weapons“Some countries in Europe made the decisionto allow them to be on the continent. It wasseen to be in their interest and is still seenthat way today as it persists. So one wouldassume it continues being in their interest.”4

However, Europeans do not need to acceptthese weapons in Europe and have the powerto ask for them to be removed. US/NATOnuclear weapons have been removed fromCanada, Greece, Denmark (Greenland) andIceland, and all remain actively cooperatingNATO member states. When Europe finallystops being considered a theatre for nuclearwar, a storage shed or an aircraft carrier bythe US, the cold war will finally be over.

The debate has already started, with resolutionsbeing passed in Belgium and Germany.The timeis right build on this momentum, to rid Europeof nuclear weapons altogether and movetowards a more peaceful future.

SAFE? | 5

1. The Governments of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,Turkey and the United Kingdom, shouldrequest the immediate withdrawal of the 480 remaining US/NATO nuclear weapons in Europe to the USfor dismantlement.They are obsolete, dangerous, and a stumbling block to international disarmament.

2. The North Atlantic Council should remove all explicit references to nuclear weapons from any NATOMission, mandate, strategic concept or structure and all military equipment and infrastructureassigned to NATO should be rendered incapable of supporting any NATO nuclear mission.

3. NATO member States should invite international observers from an appropriate United Nationsbody with the International Atomic Energy Agency to observe the withdrawal of US/NATO nuclearweapons, the destruction of nuclear weapons vaults in all aircraft shelters and regular inspectionsof those same sites to ensure that there is no return of this nuclear capability.

GREENPEACE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EUROPE

6 | SAFE?

INTRODUCTION US/NATO nuclear weapons in Europe


Currently some 480 US owned andcontrolled nuclear bombs are spreadacross six European countries - Belgium,Germany, Italy, Netherlands,Turkey andthe United Kingdom.

This report concerns itself with the securityutility of removing these nuclear weaponsfrom Europe as a concrete step towards aEurope free of nuclear weapons and a steptowards international nuclear disarmament.

With a destructive capacity ranging from thatof the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima tomore than 10 times as powerful, each USnuclear weapon in Europe is a clear andpresent danger to the people of the hostcountry and beyond. Each bomb is a threat toEuropean security and underminesinternational nuclear non-proliferation efforts.Each is a potential target of terror and posesan unacceptable accident threat.

Throughout the history of US/NATO nuclearweapons, concerns about safety and securityas well as public pressure to eliminate theweapons have continuously challenged thepresence of these nuclear weapons in Europe.While the number of US nuclear weapons inEurope has been significantly cut, as long as asingle nuclear weapon remains, so do theattendant threats.

2006, an opportunity to remove this risk

NATO members will be meeting in Riga,Latvia in November 2006 at a Summit beingpromoted as a “major milestone” for NATO“modernisation for the 21st century.”1 Thesummit was suggested by the US to driveforward efforts to modernize NATO and todeepen its military capabilities2. At theSummit, NATO allies will begin a process toreview the fundamental purpose andobjectives of the Alliance and of the variouspolitical and military means that constituteits strategy for achieving them.

This is a real opportunity for European NATOmembers to take responsibility for the nuclearweapons on their soil and send them back tothe US. By meeting this challenge, they wouldnot only be avoiding potential complicity in anuclear catastrophe, they will contribute tode-escalating global nuclear tensions. Due toits pre-emptive strike and first use policies,NATO is the world’s only remaining militarynuclear alliance that maintains a capabilityand plans for the use of nuclear force. NATOin the 21st century should be free of 20thcentury nuclear weapons and policies.

SAFE? | 7

The NATO transformation and review offers areal opportunity for all those who have thepotential to shape NATO policy, directly orindirectly, to denuclearise NATO. A thoroughdebate on the role of and the political andmilitary utility and liability of US nuclearweapons in Europe should be held in all theNATO nuclear countries at the Ministerial leveland through the NATO Parliamentary Assemblyas part of the forward-looking review processunderway on NATO’s Mission Statement.

We are presented this year with anopportunity to take steps to put an end toNATO nuclear madness in Europe. Removingthese weapons will make a concretecontribution to a safer, more secure future;we must seize this opportunity. now’s our

chance...for a safer future! Remove all nuclear weapons from our backyards

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

© R

EY

NE

AR

S/G

P

© U

S D

EP

T O

F E

NE

RG

Y

© G

P/G

LE

IZE

S

8 | SAFE?

US/nato nuclear weapons in Europe today


* CURRENTLY GERMANY IS TECHNICALLY HOST FOR UP TO SOME 150 US NUCLEAR WEAPONS. DUE TO THEMODERNISATION OF RAMSTEIN AIR-BASE ONLY THE 20 BOMBS AT BÜCHEL ARE BELIEVED TO BE IN THEIR VAULTSIN GERMANY - BUT THE REST WILL VERY LIKELY RETURN AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.

I

DENL

BEUK

��

ITALY AVIANO [A] & GHEDI TORRE [B] 90 NUCLEAR WEAPONS [A] 50/ [B] 40

[A]

��

BELGIUM KLEINE BROGEL AIRBASE20 NUCLEAR WEAPONS

��

THE NETHERLANDS VOLKEL20 NUCLEAR WEAPONS

�� GERMANY* BÜCHEL [A] & RAMSTEIN [B]

150 TOTAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS [A] 20/ [B] 130[A]

[B]

��UK LAKENHEATH110 NUCLEAR WEAPONS

8 X ITALY

1/2 ITALY

20 X GERMANY

WHOLE OF GERMANY

16 X BRITAIN

WHOLE OF BRITAIN

3 X THE NETHERLANDS

1/10 THE NETHERLANDS

4 X BELGIUM

1/5 BELGIUM

��[B]

SAFE? | 9

Since 1954, Europeans have been deniedadequate information about the presenceof US/NATO nuclear weapons in theircountries, or the health and safety hazardsposed by these nuclear weapons.While thenumber of weapons has reduced fromaround 7000 in the 1970s, the 480 nuclearweapons that remain are enough to takeEurope off the map. One nuclear weaponis one too many.

NATO’s nuclear posture rests upon 480 UStactical nuclear weapons and a smallnumber of the UK’s Trident warheads, aswell as “the strategic nuclear forces of theAlliance, particularly those of the UnitedStates; the independent nuclear forces ofthe United Kingdom and France”3.Thisreport concerns itself with the argumentsfor removing and dismantling the 480US/NATO tactical nuclear weapons fromEurope as a concrete step towards aEurope free of Nuclear weapons and a steptowards international nuclear disarmament.

LEGEND

��

AREA THAT WOULD FEEL THEDESTRUCTIVE IMPACT

NOTES: THESE CALCULATIONSARE BASED ON THE WEAPONSBEING DETONATED IN ONELOCATION AT THEIR MAXIMUMYIELD OF 170 KILOTONS.THESE CALCULATIONS AREEXTRAPOLATED FROM A BROADGENERALISATION OF A 1MEGATON NUCLEAR BOMB GOINGOFF AND DO NOT TAKE ACCOUNTOF ANY LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY,BUILDING STRUCTURES ORWEATHER IN THE AREATARGETED.

AREA THAT WOULDBE IMMEDIATELYCOMPLETELYDESTROYED

US/NATO LOCATION

�� NATO HQ., BRUSSELS

= 10 NUCLEARWEAPONS

TURKEY INCIRLIK 90 NUCLEAR WEAPONS

3 X TURKEY

��1/5 TURKEY

TUR

10 | SAFE?

Accidents do happen


Although NATO’s nuclear weapons safety andsecurity measures have been improved overthe years, it is impossible to remove all of therisks especially during maintenance andtransport of nuclear weapons.

Some nuclear weapons are transported by airover Europe and back to the US formaintenance. Regular maintenance is requiredto replace radioactive and other componentsthat decay over time. Under US safetyregulations it is not permitted for these flightsto travel over the US. Yet, US military aircraftcrisscross Europe carrying nuclear weapons.

While for obvious reasons no information ispublished about the frequency or the routestaken by nuclear flights, we can assume they

use established flight paths and routes andpass over large centres of population. Theonly way to eliminate the risks such flightsentail is to remove these weapons entirely.

The greatest risk is fire.The radioactivematerials contained in these weapons areextremely susceptible to heat, some can evenspontaneously ignite on contact with air. Forexample if a nuclear weapon were engulfed inaviation fuel as a result of a crash, or a planecarrying nuclear weapons ignites in its hangar.This would not cause a nuclear explosion, butcould result in a dangerous, highly radioactivesmoke plume that would spread down wind.

Known US Aircraft Accidents involving nuclear weapons in Europe:In Palomares, Spain, in January 1966, a B-52 nuclear bomber collided with its mid-air refuellingaircraft, exploded, and scattered debris and parts of nuclear weapons over several hundred acres.

As a result of the accident, an estimated 1,400 tons of radioactive soil and vegetation wasexcavated, packed in 55-gallon drums, and sent to the United States for disposal at theSavannah River Plant in South Carolina.

On January 21, 1968, a B-52 crashed near the Thule Air Base in Greenland, it landed andburned some seven miles southwest of the runway.The bomber carried four nuclear weapons, allof which were destroyed by fire. Wreckage of the plane was widely scattered over an area about275 Meters on either side of the plane’s path, much of it in “cigarette box-sized” pieces. Some237,000 cubic feet of contaminated ice, snow and water, with crash debris, were removed to anapproved storage site in the United States over the course of a four-month operation. Severalhundred acres of farmland still have to be monitored today.

Link to a declassified list of known US nuclear weapons accidents can be found here,http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm

OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF

DRUMS OF EXCAVATED SOIL AND

VEGETATION AT PALOMARES.4

© R

EY

NA

ER

S/G

P

© U

S S

TR

AT

EG

IC C

OM

MA

ND

NUCLEAR WEAPONS STORED NEAR DENSELY POPULATED AREAS.

THE TOWN CENTRE OF ADANA IN TURKEY, A CITY OF 1.9 MILLION PEOPLE,

IS 15 KM FROM INCIRLIK AIRBASE. IN GERMANY 150,000 PEOPLE LIVE

WITHIN 15KM OF THE RAMSTEIN AIRBASE.

source USA Department of Defense, Nuclear Weapons Accident ResponseProcedures (NARP), February 22, 2005, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary ofDefense for Nuclear and chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Dod 3150.8-M

The example on the left, taken from USmilitary nuclear weapons accident responseprocedures manual, shows that if a nuclearweapon accident occurred in the earlymorning and under dry conditions, theradioactive core of the bomb could be widelydispersed with serious consequences:

Up to 4 kms downwind people could receiveup to 100 times the recommended radiationdose limit, requiring immediate evacuation.Up to 11 kms downwind contamination at themaximum dose limit could be received andsheltering and/or evacuation could benecessary. Of course the stronger the windspeeds on the day of the accident the greaterthe impact would be.

The risk of nuclear weapons falling into thehands of terrorists is not hypothetical.Recently, Al-Qaeda has plotted attacksagainst NATO nuclear weapons bases in bothBelgium and Turkey.5 Whilst it is unlikely thatterrorists could gain access to the nuclearweapons vaults, the regular maintenanceprocedures provide opportunities for attack,with fire once again being the greatest risk.

SAFE? | 11

THIS IS AINAGUL AGED 6 FROM CLOSE TO SEMIPALATINSK, KAZAKHSTAN A FORMER NUCLEAR TESTING SITE. SHE STOPPED GROWING AT THE AGE OF THREE. HER FATHER

CAME FROM THE VILLAGE ZNAMEKA CLOSE TO THE TESTING SITE. HER PARENTS ARE ASHAMED OF HER AND HAVE TAKEN HER FROM SCHOOL. THIS IS QUITE COMMON IN

KAZAKH CULTURE.THEY ARE CONSIDERING PUTTING HER IN AN ORPHANAGE BECAUSE THEY LACK THE MONEY TO TAKE GOOD CARE OF HER. © ROBERT KNOTH

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

12 | SAFE?

NATO Nuclear Weapons Policy - Illegal, Irresponsible and Unjustifiable


Current NATO nuclear policy is outlined in its1999 Strategic Concept, which states thatNATO will maintain a mix of nuclear andconventional weapons “for the foreseeablefuture” in order to “protect peace and toprevent war or any kind of coercion”.6

NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group reaffirmedits nuclear policy and force posture in 2005.7

Accordingly, Belgium, Germany, Italy, theNetherlands, and Turkey, the five non-nuclearweapon states engaged in NATO nuclearsharing, all have agreements with the US fornuclear cooperation programmes that includethe maintenance of dual capable aircraftprepared for the conduct of nuclear missions,training people in nuclear weapons planningand use and physically hosting the weaponson their soil.

Nuclear sharing is illegal

NATO nuclear sharing is illegal as it is in breachof Articles I and II of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Under Article I: “Each nuclear-weaponState Party to the Treaty undertakes notto transfer to any recipient whatsoevernuclear weapons or other nuclearexplosive devices or control over suchweapons or explosive devices directly…”

And under Article II: non-nuclear weaponstates undertake not to receive the transfer ofnuclear weapons or control of nuclear weapons.

Under NATO nuclear sharing arrangements theUnited States is clearly transferring controlover the nuclear weapons to a non-nuclearstate. While the bombs may be in US handsuntil implementation of a decision to use them,the weapons are stored on the territory of nonnuclear weapons states and their personnel cancarry out the delivery to targets.

Whilst some argue that nuclear sharing is legalbecause these arrangements were in place at thetime of negotiation of the NPT, this is spurious.NATO nuclear sharing is not acknowledged inthe treaty, unlike the acknowledgement that fivestates possess nuclear weapons8.This argumentignores the fundamental objective of the NPT,which is to prevent the acquisition of nuclearweapons by states other than those states havingpossessed and tested them by 1967.

© B

.CL

AR

K

© N

UK

EP

HO

TO.C

OM

/PA

UL

SH

AM

BR

OO

M

NATO nuclear sharing is also inconsistent withArticle VI of the NPT, which legally obliges allNPT signatories to work towards achieving aworld free of nuclear weapons. NATO’scontinued retention of nuclear weapons andreassertion of their political and military valuebreaks this legal commitment. In fact, NATOnuclear sharing continues to be raised by NPTStates as a matter of deep concern and as anexample of how the US in particular is notliving up to its NPT disarmament obligations.They further quote it as an example of theincreasing value placed by some nations onretaining nuclear weapons.

Nuclear sharing is unjustifiable

NATO nuclear weapons are both militarily and politically unjustifiable.

During the Cold War it was claimed thatnuclear weapons were a defence against theUSSR, there is little doubt that today they areoffensive weapons and are in line with USrather than European national military policy.It is the President of the United States thatwould make the decision to use theseweapons, and he can do so without thepermission of country hosting the weapons. Asrecognised by Walter Kalbow, former FederalSecretary of Defence for Germany, Germanydoes not have “nuclear weapons at itsdisposal, neither in times of peace nor forGermany’s defence”.9

SAFE? | 13

NATO at a glance

Established: 1949 by the North Atlantic Treaty (the “Washington Treaty”)

Original members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy,Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom,United States (12)

Current members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,Turkey, United Kingdom,United States (26)

Purpose: Members resolve “to unite their efforts for collectivedefence and for the preservation of peace and security.”

US nuclear weapons currently located in: Belgium, Germany, Italy,Netherlands,Turkey, United Kingdom

US nuclear weapons previously located in: Canada, Greece,Denmark (Greenland), Iceland

Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) chaired by the Secretary General ofNATO (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) and consisting of NATO countries’defence ministers is NATO’s main body for consultations and decision-making on nuclear issues, including NATO nuclear posture, strategy,weapons systems, and potential use of nuclear weapons.

The High Level Group (HLG) is a senior advisory body to the NPGon nuclear policy and planning issues.

The Military Committee is made up of senior military officers fromthe NATO member countries that serve as their country’s MilitaryRepresentatives to NATO, representing their Chiefs of Defence. It canalso meet on the level of Chiefs of General Staff. It meets normallyevery Thursday.The current Chairman of the Military Committee isGeneral Ray Henault of Canada.

14 | SAFE?

NATO Nuclear Weapons Policy - Illegal, Irresponsible and Unjustifiablecontinued


While these nuclear weapons are a projectionof US nuclear policy in Europe, the Pentagon’sown Defense Science Board assessment makesit clear that, “there is no obvious militaryneed for these systems… To a great extenttheir continuation is a policy decision.”10

Some air forces in NATO nuclear-sharingcountries appear to agree with this assessmentand are phasing out nuclear-capable aircraft.11

The next step would be to demand the removalof the weapons altogether.

NATO members hold a position that thenuclear weapons “provide an essentialpolitical and military link between theEuropean and North American members ofthe Alliance”. However the facts demonstrateotherwise. Of 26 NATO member countriesonly 6 host US nuclear weapons. Moreover,US/NATO nuclear weapons were previouslylocated in Canada, Greece, Denmark(Greenland) and Iceland and despite theweapons being removed each country remainsa member of NATO.

When asked in a recent interview by the Germannewspaper Der Spiegel about the purpose of USnuclear bombs stationed in German, US DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld replied, “I think I’llleave that to the Germans and to NATO. Somecountries in Europe made the decision to allowthem to be on the continent. It was seen to be intheir interest and is still seen that way today as itpersists. So one would assume it continues beingin their interest.”12 The ball is in ‘Europe’s’ court.

Nuclear sharing is irresponsible

NATO policy allows for first use of nuclearweapons, which adds a new dimension of dangerwhen coupled with a US security policy thatargues for pre-emptive and preventive war.TheUS encourages developing nuclear weaponsthat provide ‘more flexible options’ in times ofmilitary/political conflict or tension.This clearlyincreases the likelihood of the use of nuclearweapons.The 2006 US National SecurityStrategy states “we do not rule out the use offorce before attacks occur, even if uncertaintyremains as to the time and place of the enemy’sattack.”13 The US has recently developed a“Global Strike Plan” which describes thepotential use of US/NATO nuclear bombsdeployed in Europe in a pre-emptive strike.14

US nuclear policy includes arguments and plansin support of sustaining and modernizing itsnuclear forces in this context, including a rolefor NATO nuclear weapons.

NATO nuclear doctrine mirrors that of theUS.The NATO Nuclear Planning Group iseven chaired by the US Assistant Secretary ofDefence, who is also responsible for draftingand implementing all US nuclear doctrine.

In April an article in the New Yorker bySeymour Hersh provided a real example ofhow NATO nuclear sharing countries areimplicated in US Policy. Hersh exposed USmilitary plans considering the option of usingtactical nuclear weapons against Iran.15 Theseplans specifically mentioned the B61 nuclearbomb, which may be housed at the US/NATOairbases. If the intention in such a scenariowere to use land based aircraft, then thiswould probably involve the use of Incirlikairbase in Turkey,16 where US weapons arecurrently stored. As such, European NATOnuclear sharing countries are not onlyendorsing preemptive US nuclear weaponspolicy through their passivity, but they alsorisk bases on their territories being used tolaunch nuclear weapons in a US conflict.

No NATO member state has publicly criticizedthe new US policy on the use of nuclearweapons, even in a conventional conflict orbefore a visible threat emerges.Through theirsilence, through hosting these weapons andthrough supporting NATO policy, NATOmember states are accepting the use of USnuclear weapons by Alliance aircraft andpilots in these scenarios. Eliminating nuclearweapons from Europe will enable Europeansto disassociate themselves from the USnuclear doctrine, which is giving an increasedrole for nuclear weapons and therebyincreasing the likelihood of use.

Nuclear sharing sets a dangerous precedent

NATO nuclear sharing sets a dangerousprecedent for nuclear-armed states to deploynuclear weapons outside their territory and toshare them with non-nuclear weapon states.

NATO nuclear sharing is a model that otherscould follow, using pre-existing relationships asa legal basis. Pakistan could cite NATO nuclearsharing to support sharing its nuclear weaponswith another state in the Middle East.Whatwould stop it arguing, as the current NATOStrategic Concept does, that its nuclear forcesare a “significant factor” in the maintenance ofsecurity and stability? The presence of nuclearweapons on European soil is more likely toprovoke than deter potential proliferation.

SAFE? | 15

© U

S D

EP

T O

F E

NE

RG

Y

© L

UT

HE

R R

ED

WIN

E

16 | SAFE?



NATO policy-making and policy-shaping

The North Atlantic Council (NAC)* Most important decision-making body * Represented by permanent representative at Ambassadorial level in Brussels, supported by a delegation.* Effective political authority and powers of decision.* Meets at higher levels- Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers or Heads of Government,

but has same authority and powers of decision-making, at whatever level it meets.19

* Meets at least once a week, usually chaired by the Secretary-General of NATO.

Defence Planning Committee (DPC) * Composed of Permanent Representatives * Meets also at the level of Defence Ministers at least twice a year* Deals with most defence matters and subjects related to collective defence planning.* All NATO members except France (who have observer rights) are represented in this forum.

The DPC provides guidance to NATO’s military authorities and has the same functions,attributes and the same authority as the NAC within the area of its responsibilities.The work ofthe DPC is prepared by a number of subordinate committees with specific responsibilities andin particular by the Defence Review Committee, which oversees the Force Planning Processwithin NATO and examines other issues relating to the Integrated Military Structure.20

Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) * Made up of Defence Ministers that take part in the DPC* Meets when necessary at the level of Ambassadors and up to twice a year

at the level of Ministers of Defence.

The NPG covers a “broad range of nuclear policy matters, including the safety, security andsurvivability of nuclear weapons, communications and information systems, deployment issues andwider questions of common concern such as nuclear arms control and nuclear proliferation.TheAlliance’s nuclear policy is kept under review and decisions are taken jointly to modify or adapt itin the light of new developments and to update and adjust planning and consultation procedures.”21

SAFE? | 17

NPG High Level Group (HLG)* Senior advisory body to the NPG * Chaired by the US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security * Composed of national policy makers and experts from capitals.* Meets several times a year

HLG meets to discuss aspects of NATO’s nuclear policy, planning and force posture,and matters concerning the safety, security and survivability of nuclear weapons.

NATO Foreign Ministers * Meet up to twice a year in formal session * Meet also with members of the Euro-AtlanticPartnership Council

along with their respective defence ministers * Participate in meetings of the NATO-Russia and NATO-Ukraine Councils.

Supreme Allied Commander EuropeDay to day military responsibilities are done by Allied Command Operations commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) * Independent of NATO but is a link between national parliaments and the Alliance.* Consists of 248 members from the 26 NATO member States and a further

59 parliamentarians from 13 “associate member” States.* National defence committees usually nominate the participants.

The NPA was set up so that national parliaments took NATO concerns and needs into accountwhen framing national legislation. It has a number of committees, sub-committees and workinggroups who make recommendation to the bi-annual plenary of the Assembly for adoption on awide range of issues concerning NATO.

France - A Special Case In 1966 President De Gaulle removed all foreign troops from France and withdrew from the military planning and decision-making structure of NATO.

France retained its decision-making powers on the North Atlantic Council, still contributes financiallyto the NATO civil and military budgets and occasionally provides military support to NATO missions.

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

18 | SAFE?



NATO nuclear weapons inhibitnegotiations with Russia

NATO tactical nuclear weapons impede effortsto negotiate with Russia over reductions of of itsnuclear weapons.The Russian Federation hasbeen explicit about its unwillingness to negotiatereductions in tactical nuclear weapons as longas the US continues to deploy nuclear weaponsin Europe.The thousands of tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons that Russiaunilaterally declared in 1991 that it woulddestroy remain mostly intact.

Nuclear sharing is looking for a justification

Perhaps most alarmingly, NATO nuclearsharing seems to be seeking a new justification.

There is a well-founded concern that NATO isincreasingly looking to the Middle East as areason for keeping US weapons in Europe.Largely driven by US nuclear war planningthis new rationale has developed outside ofNATO and stands to influence evolving NATOpolicy.The war on terror and the “axis ofevil” rhetoric has put a spotlight on theMiddle East and past experience indicatesthat the US does not always fully consult itsallies when making nuclear war plans.

In addition, efforts by some European countriesto stop and reverse the nuclear shadow that isspreading over the Middle East today will bemore credible and successful if foreigndeployments of nuclear weapons in Europeancountries cease. European states could actuallydo more to prevent escalation of a nuclearcrisis in the Middle East, but at the momentEuropean efforts to negotiate with Iran areseverely undermined by the duality (andresulting perceptions of hypocrisy) in Europeanstates’ nuclear policies. Attempting to negotiatethe denuclearisation of Iran from this positionis patently absurd.

© G

P/S

IMS

© G

P/D

E M

ILD

T

While the use of one of these weapons may seemunimaginable, the possibility of their use is conceivableand has been supported by US military strategists withthe recent suggestions that NATO/US B-61 bombs couldbe considered for use against Iranian nuclear targets.

THIS IS BAYAN BEISENGALIEVA.AGED 15 FROM SEMIPALATINSK, KAZAKHSTAN A FORMER NUCLEAR TESTING SITE. SHE WAS 6 WHEN DOCTORS FOUND A BRAIN-TUMOR. SHE WAS TREATED INGERMANY. LAST YEAR THEY DISCOVERED A NEW ONE. NOW SHE RECEIVES CHEMO-THERAPY IN THE ONCOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF THE SEMIPALATINSK HOSPITAL AND HOPES IT WILL CURE HER.

A REPORTED 498 NUCLEAR TESTS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SOVIET UNION BETWEEN 1949 AND 1989.THE NUCLEAR TESTS CAUSED WIDE SPREAD RADIO ACTIVE CONTAMINATION INPARTICULAR IN KAZAKHSTAN AND SIBERIA.AROUND 1.7 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEVERELY AFFECTED BY RADIATION. CANCERS, LEUKEMIA, HEART, CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASESAND BONE DISEASES AND CHILDREN BORN WITH PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAPS HAVE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY SINCE THE TESTING STARTED. IN 1999 UNDP DECLARED THEREGION A DISASTER ZONE AND CALLED FOR WIDE SPREAD SUPPORT FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. © ROBERT KNOTH

The impact of one NATO weapon

SAFE? | 19


20 | SAFE?

The impact of one NATO weapon continued


Here we give an indication of the consequencesthat using one of these weapons could have.

US/NATO nuclear weapons are gravity bombs,like the ones used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,with potential yields in the same range to morethan 10 times more powerful.

HYPOCENTRE(FIRE BALL) EVERYTHING IS VAPORISED

BLAST AREA (HEAT WAVE ANDSHOCK WAVE)MOST LETHALCASUALTIES FROMHEAT BURNS,FALLEN DEBRISAND RADIATION

OUTSIDE BLAST AREA CASUALTIESFROM FIRE ANDRADIATION

OUTSIDE THEAREA DAMAGEDBY THE EXPLOSION MOST CASUALTIESFROM LONG TERMHEALTH EFFECTS

Therefore the impacts of the bombs droppedon Japan, provide a useful althoughconservative indication of the physical andmedical impacts if even one of the NATO B-61nuclear weapons was used.17

The explosion of a nuclear bomb over apopulated city will release intense heat, highwinds and nuclear fallout.The degree ofdamage depends upon the distance from thecentre of the bomb blast, called thehypocenter:The closer to the hypocentre, themore severe the damage.

At the hypocentre, everything would beimmediately vaporised by the hightemperatures. In Hiroshima, ceramic tileswithin 600 metres of ground zero melted.

Outward from the hypocentre most casualtiesinvolve heat burns, injuries from the flyingdebris of buildings collapsed by the shock waveand acute exposure to high radiation.

Most of the people within about 1 km ofground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whowere not killed by the effects of blast and/orburns, died of radiation sickness. Acuteradiation effects extended for 4 months afterthe bombing.The characteristic radiation-sickness symptoms included haemorrhaging,diarrhoea, loss of hair, lesions in the back ofthe mouth, decay and ulceration of the gum,bleeding under the skin, vomiting, nausea,fever and malaise.

In the long-term, radioactive fallout can occurdownwind of any nuclear explosion.Theradioactive fallout is then inhaled and ingestedby people or taken into the body throughcontaminated food and water. In Hiroshima,“black rain” (rain with fallout) fell to thenorthwest of ground zero.The black rain wassticky, and people at that time thought that oilhad been dropped. A black spotty patternremained wherever a raindrop struck.

The long-term effects of radiation include avariety of cancers, especially lymphomas andthyroid cancer, as well as malformations ofchildren born to mothers exposed to radiation.The incidence of leukaemia among survivorshas been found to be proportional to the doseof radiation exposure. Furthermore, theyounger a person was when exposed, the higherthe leukaemia risk.The peak of leukaemiaonset was about 7 to 8 years after exposure.18

In Hiroshima eighty thousand of it’s roughlyone quarter of a million populations diedimmediately. By the end of 1945 a furthersixty thousand are estimated to have died.People are still dying today from the afteraffects of this nuclear attack.

According to thecity of Hiroshima,as of August 6,2004, thecumulative deathtoll of atomic-bombvictims was237,062.There areabout 270,000hibakusha,“bombaffected people,”still living in Japan.

SAFE? | 21

© G

P/S

UT

TON

-HIB

BE

RT

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

22 | SAFE?

Time for change


When confronted with the reality of USnuclear weapons on the soil of EuropeanNATO countries, European public opinionsolidly calls for the removal of theseweapons.This stated preference is echoedby international calls for the elimination ofnuclear weapons.

However NATO suffers from a “democracydeficit”. The deployment and maintenanceof US nuclear weapons has taken placewithout consultation with, or the consent of,citizens affected by the presence of theseweapons.Throughout the history of NATOcitizens in Europe and throughout the worldhave discovered and invented creative waysof informing themselves about nucleardangers and expressing their opposition tothe underlying policies (see Annex 1).Theopinion of the public continues today to callfor the removal of the remaining weapons.According to a May 2005 poll, a largemajority of Germans (76%) from across thepolitical spectrum want US nuclear weaponsremoved from Germany.

Recent examples of prevailing politicalopinion also show the increasing attentionto this issue in Europe and includestatements by NPT member states duringthe 2005 review conference,22

parliamentary briefings (in Germany,Belgium and the Netherlands) by theNatural Resources Defence Council

(NRDC) about NATO nuclear weapons inEurope. A unanimous Belgian Senateresolution, a Belgian House ofRepresentatives resolution,23 and aproposed German parliamentaryresolution24 all recently called for theremoval of US nuclear weapons.

In January 2006, the German parliamentarygroup Die Linken presented a resolution25

calling for the withdrawal of US nuclearweapons from Germany. Die Linken also sentthe government a list of 28 questions aboutthe status of nuclear weapons in Germany.26

In a 2005 Op-ed Belgian parliamentarianDirk Van der Maelen, clearly rejected USnuclear weapons and policy.Their continueddeployment undercuts European effortstowards global non-proliferation, such asFrench, German and British efforts toprevent Iran from taking steps towardsnuclear weapons capability. “Europe mustset the example and begin to remove nuclearweapons from the European continent.”27

European governments of NATO countrieshave a direct role in shaping NATO policy,and they can change this policy. Clearlythe decision to remove US nuclearweapons from European soil will have tocome from Europeans themselves.

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

REFERENCES


SAFE? | 23

1 |

2 |

3 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

JAMES APPATHURAI - NATO spokesman, Background Briefing, March 2006http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060317a.htm.

Kurt Volker, Deputy assistant secretary of State for European Eurasian affairs.Speech at US Naval postgraduate school, March 28th 2006.http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/63860.htm.

Paragraph 62,The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of Stateand Government, participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council inWashington D.C. 23rd and 24th April 1999http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm.

The Brookings Institution athttp://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/palomares.htm

Sedat Gunec, “Al-Qaeda Planned Missile Attack on Incirlik Air Base” 19February 2006,http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20060219&hn=29945”AlQaeda’s New Front - Belgium” PBS Frontline, 30 September 2003,http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/map/be.html.

Paragraph 46.The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of Stateand Government, participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council inWashington D.C. 23rd and 24th April 1999http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm.

Final Communiqué of the Ministerial Meeting of the Defence PlanningCommittee and the Nuclear Planning Group, Brussels, 9 June 2005http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-075e.htm.

Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons, Article IX part 3ThisTreaty shall enter into force after its ratification by the States, the Governmentsof which are designated Depositories of the Treaty, and forty other Statessignatory to this Treaty and the deposit of their instruments of ratification. Forthe purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon States is one which hasmanufactured and exploded nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive deviceprior to 1 January 1967.

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

15 |

16 |

17 |

18 |

19 |

20 |

21 |

22 |

23 |

24 |

25 |

26 |

27 |

Quotation in German “Deutschland erlange “weder im Frieden noch imVerteidigungsfall jemals eine Verfügungsgewalt über Nuklearwaffen”.” Ein Restvon Eiszeit; Warum auf einem Fliegerhorst in der Eifel noch immer US-Soldatenüber Bomben wachen, die vom Kalten Krieg übrig geblieben sind; Die letztenamerikanischen Atomwaffen in Deutschland: Was liegt in Büchel alles unterTage? Birk Meinhardt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16. December 2005

Defense Science Board: Future Strategic Strike Forces, Washington, February2004, p.5-13f

Otfried Nassauer, “Nuclear Weapons in Europe - A Question of Political Will: APolicy Note prepared for Greenpeace Germany” (BITS Policy Note 05.4, June2005). http://www.bits.de/public/policynote/pn05-4.htm.

“Spiegel Interview with US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld” 31 October2005 http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382527-2,00.html.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

Hans M Kristensen for the Federation of American Scientists,Global StrikePlan, A Chronology of the Pentagon’s New Offensive strike Plan, March 15,2006 at http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/GSchron.htm

THE IRAN PLANS, Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran fromgetting the bomb? by SEYMOUR M. HERSH, New Yorker ,7th April 2006

U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran, Author, 9th April 2006http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_2.html

The overview of the effects of nuclear weapons that follows draws directly on themethodology developed and described in M.V. Ramana, Bombing Bombay?Effects of Nuclear Weapons and a Case Study of a Hypothetical Explosion,IPPNW Global Health Watch Report Number 3 (International Physicians forthe Prevention of Nuclear War, 1999.)

Effects of A-bomb Radiation on the Human Body 1992, Ed. HiroshimaInternational Council for Medical Care of the Radiation-exposed,Bunkodo

NATO Handbook, Chapter 7 “Policy and Decision-Making”http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb070101.htm.

NATO Handbook, Chapter 7, above.

NATO Handbook, Chapter 7, above (emphasis added).

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/GDstatements/index.html.

13 July 2005, http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/51/1545/51K1545007.pdf.

13 April 2005,http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/Germany_FDPresolution041305.pdf.

http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/004/1600448.pdf

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/Germany_questions012006.pdf.

Translation from Dirk Van der Maelen, Op-ed in De Standaard online,Daar komen de mininukes, September 2005http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=GKLIADSF

MINSK, BELARUS MIKHAIL AND VLADIMIR, (16) ARE TWIN BROTHERS.MIKHAIL WAS BORN WITH HYDROCEPHALUS, AND VLADIMIR WEREBORN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES.THEIR FATHER AND MOTHERWORKED IN THE MOST HEAVILY IRRADIATED AREAS AFTER THECHERNOBYL DISASTER. © ROBERT KNOTH

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

24 | SAFE?

© N

UK

EP

HO

TO.C

OM

/PA

UL

SH

AM

BR

OO

M


SAFE? | 25

GREENPEACE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EUROPE

1. The Governments of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,Turkey and the UnitedKingdom, should request the immediate withdrawal of the 480 remainingUS/NATO nuclear weapons in Europe to the US for dismantlement.They areobsolete, dangerous, and a stumbling block to international disarmament.

2. The North Atlantic Council should remove all explicit references to nuclearweapons from any NATO Mission, mandate, strategic concept or structure andall military equipment and infrastructure assigned to NATO should berendered incapable of supporting any NATO nuclear mission.

3. NATO member States should invite international observers from anappropriate United Nations body with the International Atomic Energy Agencyto observe the withdrawal of US/NATO nuclear weapons, the destruction ofnuclear weapons vaults in all aircraft shelters and regular inspections of thosesame sites to ensure that there is no return of this nuclear capability.

© D

RE

AM

ST

IME

.CO

M

1949FIRST USNATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN BRITAIN

7,300DEPLOYEDWARHEADSIN EUROPE.

VISIT TONATO BYKINGBAUDOUINOF BELGIUM

VISIT TONATO BYMARGARETTHATCHER

US NATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN WESTGERMANY

US NATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN ITALY

US NATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN TURKEY

VISIT TONATO BYRONALDREAGAN

US NATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN FRANCE

THE OUTBREAK OF WAR BETWEEN TWO NUCLEAR-ARMED NATO COUNTRIES, GREECE AND TURKEY, LEDTHE UNITED STATES TO REMOVE ITS NUCLEARBOMBS FROM GREEK AND TURKISH ALERT FIGHTER-BOMBERS AND TRANSFER NUCLEAR WARHEADSFROM GREEK MISSILE UNITS TO STORAGE. 3

IN THE UK GREENHAM COMMON, PEACECAMP WAS FOUNDED.THOUSANDS OF WOMENLIVED OR STAYED FOR A TIME AT GREENHAMCOMMON9.

NUCLEAR HISTORY IS SHROUDED IN SECRECY, BUT FROM THE WORKOF INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS, DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION, ANDINFERENCE, IT IS KNOWN THAT SINCE THE 1950S,THE US HAS ALSODEPLOYED NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NON-NUCLEAR COMPONENTS1

IN CANADA, GREENLAND, GUAM, ICELAND, JAPAN, MOROCCO,THEPHILIPPINES, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, SPAIN, AND TAIWAN.2

A MAJOR REVISION OF NATO NUCLEAR POSTURE IN EUROPE TOOK PLACE IN THE EARLY 1970S INLARGE PART BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUTPHYSICAL SECURITY AND AN OFFICIALASSESSMENT THAT THERE WAS AN EXCESSIVENUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE.THESESECURITY CONCERNS WERE HEIGHTENED BY AWAVE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN EUROPE. INSTEADOF TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THERISK BY ELIMINATING THE WEAPONS, EMPHASISWAS PUT ON TIGHTENING SECURITY MEASURESAROUND THE REMAINING WEAPONS.3

NATOESTABLISHEDBY THENORTHATLANTICTREATY

1954 1955 1957 1958 1959 1960 1963 19721971 1974 1977

DISARMAMENT GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM AND WEST GERMANY EXISTING DISARMAMENT MOVEMENTEXPERIENCED HUGE GROWTH AND INCREASED SUPPORT ASAWARENESS OF AND RESITANCE TO THE WEAPONS IN EUROPEGREW. NEW GROUPS AND CAMPAIGNS EMERGED IN WESTGERMANY, NORWAY AND DENMARK.8

“WE COLLECTED MORE THAN A MILLION SIGNATURES. …EUROPEANS SUDDENLYREALIZED THEY WERE TARGETS. IT WAS THE US FRONT LINE…. I THINK EVERYONESUSPECTED THERE WERE NUCLEAR WEAPONS HERE, BUT THAT THEY WEREEXPOSED TO BEING THE FIRST TARGETS WITH ANY CONFLICT WITH THE SOVIETUNION – THAT IS WHAT GOT PEOPLE WORKED UP.” EDITH BALLANTYE, WOMEN’SINTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM

550,000 PEOPLE IN THE LARGEST DEMONSTRATION AT THATTIME IN DUTCH HISTORY REJECTING NATO’S PLANS TO DEPLOYCRUISE MISSILES IN THE COUNTRY.11

500,000 DEMONSTRATED IN ITALY AGAINST NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS DEPLOYMENT IN ROME.12

5 MILLION SIGNED THE KREFELD APPEAL IN WEST GERMANY,A CRITIQUE OF NATO MISSILE DEPLOYMENT.13

GREENPEACE BANNERED THE CANADIAN EMBASSY INPROTEST OF THEIR AGREEMENT TO ALLOW TESTING OF THECRUISE MAPPING AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS IN REMOTE AREAFLY-OVERS.

NATO SUFFERS FROM A “DEMOCRACY DEFICIT”.THE DEPLOYMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHOUT CONSUPEOPLE IN EUROPE AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD HAVE DISCOVERED AND INVENTED CREATIVE WAYS OF INFORMING THEMSELVES ABOUT NUCLEA

BRIEFOVERVIEWHISTORY OFNATO NUCLEARWEAPONS

US NATO NUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYED IN THENETHERLANDSAND GREECE

US NATONUCLEARWEAPONSDEPLOYEDIN BELGIUM

200,000 IN LARGEST DEMONSTRATION INBELGIAN HISTORY AT THIS TIME- THIS WASDOUBLED TWO YEARS LATER

300,000 IN LARGEST DEMONSTRATION IN WESTGERMAN HISTORY AT THIS TIME.10

THE BIGGEST DEMONSTRATION ON EARTH -NEW YORK,ONEMILLION PEOPLE GATHERED TO PROTEST NUCLEARWEAPONS.THE WORK DONE IN EUROPE HAD HEIGHTENEDAWARENESS AROUND THIS ISSUE.

“ ....IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC,...THERE WERE MASSIVE PROTESTS INSEVERAL CITIES THAT OCTOBER DAY AND A HUMAN CHAIN THATSTRETCHED NINETY KILOMETERS FROM STUTTGART TO NEU-ULM, WHERETHE PERSHING MISSILES WERE TO BE BASED.” CATHERINE FOSTER, WOMENFOR ALL SEASONS:THE STORY OF THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUEFOR PEACE AND FREEDOM (UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA PRESS, 1989)

26 | SAFE?

ANNEX 1 NATO and movement timelineSECURING OUR SAFETY,ENSURING OUR SURVIVALWHY US NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS IN EUROPE MUST GO

1 |

2 |

3 |

4 |

These were pre-positioned casings or assemblies ready for delivery of the nuclear “capsule”which was kept separately according to bomb design technology at the time.

Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin and William Burr, “Where They Were” Bulletin of the AtomicScientists, November/December 1999 (vol. 55, no. 6) pp. 26-35.

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, ForceLevels, and War Planning” (Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC, February 2005)http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/EuroBombs.pdf. p 26-27.

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, ForceLevels, and War Planning” (Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC, February 2005)http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/EuroBombs.pdf. p 27-28.

5 |

6 |

7 |

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, ForceLevels, and War Planning” (Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC, February 2005)http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/EuroBombs.pdf.p32

The Alliance's Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government, participatingin the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C. 23rd and 24th April 1999,Paragraph 46. http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm.

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, ForceLevels, and War Planning” (Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC, February 2005)http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/EuroBombs.pdf.

© REDWINE

1991

NATO DECISION TO DEPLOY CRUISEAND PERSHING IIMISSILES INWESTERN EUROPE

US REMOVED ALL BUT 1,400AIR-DELIVERED NUCLEARBOMBS IN SEVEN EUROPEANCOUNTRIES.[II]

1ST CRUISEMISSILEDEPLOYMENT INEUROPE

NATO'S 50THANNIVERSARY SUMMIT INWASHINGTON DC.NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCILSUMMIT MEETING

GREENPEACE ACTIVISTS HUNGA MASSIVE BANNER FROM THEBOSPHORUS BRIDGE INISTANBUL TURKEY FOR ALLTHE DELEGATES OF THE NATOSUMMIT TO SEE.

GREENPEACE BLOCKS THENATO HEADQUARTERS INBRUSSELS DURING A DEFENCEMINISTERS’ MEETING.

MILLIONS JOINEDDEMONSTRATIONS AGAINSTTHE US LEAD WAR IN IRAQ

THE INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES (INF) TREATYSIGNED BY THE US AND SOVIET UNION REQUIREDELIMINATION OF ALL LAND-BASED INTERMEDIATE-RANGE AND SHORTER-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES. INPARALLEL, NATO RETIRED OLDER WARHEADS. 4

1999 STRATEGIC CONCEPT STATES THAT NATO WILLMAINTAIN A MIX OF NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONALWEAPONS “FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE” INORDER TO “PROTECT PEACE AND TO PREVENT WAROR ANY KIND OF COERCION”.6

NATO ANNOUNCED THE UNILATERALREDUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS INEUROPE BY MORE THAN ONE THIRDSINCE 1980 TO ABOUT 4000 .4

UNTIL RECENTLY IT WAS THOUGHT THAT FEWER THAN 200 US-OWNED NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS REMAINED IN EUROPE, HOWEVER AN INDEPENDENT REPORT PUBLISHED BY THENATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL REVEALED THAT APPROXIMATELY 480 NATONUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE STILL DEPLOYED AT AIR BASES IN BELGIUM, GERMANY, ITALY,THENETHERLANDS,TURKEY, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.7

WITH THE END OF THE COLD WAR, NATO’SFUNDAMENTAL AND ORIGINAL REASON FOREXISTING – THE SOVIET THREAT – DISAPPEARED.THIS WAS A KEY OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPEANDECISION MAKERS TO ELIMINATE US NATONUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE.

2006, AN OPPORTUNITY: AS NATO BEGINS AREVIEW PROCESS OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSEAND OBJECTIVES, EUROPEAN LEADERS CAN USE THISOPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THESE NUCLEAR WEAPONSFROM NATO’S ARMOURY AND FROM EUROPE.

1000 ACTIVISTS CARRY OUT “CITIZEN’S WEAPONSINSPECTIONS” IN BELGIUM.THIS CITIZEN LEADINITIATIVE TO PROTEST AGAINST NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS BY CARRYING OUT “CITIZENSINSPECTIONS” IN EUROPE HAS BEEN GROWINGSINCE 1998.

2004 IN TURKEY GREENPEACE COMMISSIONED POLL FOUNDTHAT ABOUT HALF OF OUR RESPONDENTS STATED “THEY DON’TSUPPORT AT ALL” HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN TURKEY TOPROVIDE SECURITY FOR TURKEY AND OTHER NATO MEMBERS.57% OF RESPONDENTS STATED THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORTTHE GOVERNMENT TO REQUEST NUCLEAR WEAPONS REMOVED.

RADIO 1 IN THE NETHERLANDS OPINION POLL, SHOWED 60% OFDUTCH POPULATION WANTS NATO NUCLEAR WEAPONS REMOVED.

DER SPIEGEL IN GERMANY OPINION POLL SHOWED THAT A LARGEMAJORITY OF THE GERMAN POPULATION WANTS NATO NUCLEARWEAPONS WITHDRAWN.

3.75 MILLION SIGNED THE LARGEST PETITION INDUTCH HISTORY REJECTING NATO’S PLANS TO DEPLOYCRUISE MISSILES IN THE COUNTRY.14

IN THE UK CND’S NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP RISES TOOVER 100,000 FROM 9,000 IN 1980.15

A GREENPEACE ACTION IN CANADA INCLUDEDDEPLOYING A GIANT NET TO TRY AND CATCH A CRUISE MISSILE.

FROM 1991 ONWARDS THE NPGTHEN DECIDED ON FURTHERREDUCTIONS IN AIR-DELIVEREDWEAPONS, RESULTING IN 80-85%CUTS OVER THE COMING YEARS.5

1982

1979

1979 1981

19901983

1983 1985

1987

ONSULTATION OR THE CONSENT OF CITIZENS AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF THESE WEAPONS.CLEAR DANGERS AND EXPRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE UNDERLYING POLICIES.

2000

1999

2003 2004

2005 2006

2005

SAFE? | 27

AL

L N

ATO

IM

AG

ES

© N

ATO

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

Lawrence Wittner,Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear DisarmamentMovement, Volume 3: 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press, 2003) p. 67-70.

Barbara Harford and Sarah Hopkins, eds., Greenham Common: Women at the Wire (TheWomen’s Press, London, 1984); Alice Cook and Gwyn Kirk, Greenham Women Everywhere(South End Press, Boston, 1983).

Lawrence Wittner,Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear DisarmamentMovement, Volume 3: 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press, 2003) p. 143-145

Lawrence Wittner,Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear DisarmamentMovement, Volume 3: 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press, 2003) p. 139.

12 |

13 |

14 |

15 |





© GP/GLEIZES

© GP/LANGROCK

© GP/ALI OZ

© GP/DE MILDT

“No!”

FOR A PEACEFUL FUTURE

greenpeace internationalOttho heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam,The Netherlandst +31 20 718 2000 f +31 20 514 8151www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/peace

© R

EY

NE

AR

S/G

P

Documents

2906 gpi disarm 9 , page 1-28 @ Normalize ... · PDF fileregina hagen (inesap), otfried nassauer (bits), hans kristensen, karel koster (penn), daryl kimball (arms control association),martin