By approving the new Strategic Concept NATO is deciding about its future. This future seems to consist of continuing old recepies like nuclear weapons. 20 years after the end of the Cold War, NATO decides it still needs nuclear weapons for its safety.

At the same moment it is not even capable of naming an enemy against which nuclear deterrence is a necessity. No political interest proves capable of legitimating the use of nuclear weapons. By consequence NATO is, in the new as in the old Strategic Concept, only able to point to hypothetical dangers as legitimation for its nuclear posture. Although it will prove lip service to nuclear disarmament, NATO is rather an obstacle for the new nuclear disarmament dynamic.

The only interest served by the 150-250 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO’s disposal are the interests of the NATO bureaucrats. These nuclear weapons serve no military purpose anymore, but give NATO diplomats an opportunity to discuss nuclear strategy with the US. In other words, these bombs deliver prestige to some NATO bureaucrats and they do not want to lose it. But with security these nuclear bombs have nothing to do.
Even the US military, who have these weapons under control, state that these nukes are useless and a waste of money. A report of a Defense Secretary Task force on nuclear weapons management quotes a USEUCOM senior leader: "We pay a king’s ransom for these things and . . . they have no military value.” and states that according to USEUCOM "there is no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe" and that "strategic nuclear capabilities outside of Europe are more cost effective". (source: Report Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management, (dec 2008), p.59)

A similar attitude can be found at the European air forces with nuclear tasks. Result is that the military continues to do nuclear tasks, but try to spend as little money on it as possible. Security problems are the logical consequence of this gap between the military reality and the bureaucratic power games.

Bombspotting exposed the security problems in the video ’Nuclear Terrorism: Proof of Concept’, showing the weak security at the nuclear weapon base in Belgium. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1fnDhwWm-U)

NATO’s Cold war recepies do not bring security but are rather a source of insecurity. NATO brings no solution but is part of the problem. If Europe wants more security, it can better give NATO a burial: NATO Game Over. NATO keeps Europe catched in a military approach of international relations. NATO has no future anymore, it merely can prolong the past. Europe would be better of without NATO.

www.bombspotting.org - www.vredesactie.be