Comments on: NATO's Nuclear Opacity http://pollack.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2662/natos-nuclear-opacity an ACW Network site Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:28:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: A http://pollack.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2662/natos-nuclear-opacity#comment-922 A Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:25:54 +0000 http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2662#comment-922 Indeed, now that the debate is open it should progress at an almighty pace as a <a href="http://www.rusi.org/publications/occasionalpapers/ref:O4B991ABDC4148/" rel="nofollow">new paper</a> by Malcolm Chalmers and former NATO Parliamentary Secretary Simon Lunn make clear. Especially interesting is the fact that the German capability to deliver these weapons will disappear, with no planned replacement, as soon as 2012. Looks like NATO’s in for some interesting times… Indeed, now that the debate is open it should progress at an almighty pace as a new paper by Malcolm Chalmers and former NATO Parliamentary Secretary Simon Lunn make clear.

Especially interesting is the fact that the German capability to deliver these weapons will disappear, with no planned replacement, as soon as 2012. Looks like NATO’s in for some interesting times…

]]> By: shaheen http://pollack.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2662/natos-nuclear-opacity#comment-921 shaheen Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:51:57 +0000 http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2662#comment-921 I sometimes wonder. Why the obsession with a few ol’ B61s? Why are so many analysts seemingly more concerned with them than with, say, Russian TNW? And why not more interest in having transparency on the US arsenal as a whole (as opposed to an interest in transparency on a very, very limited portion on that arsenal)? The Fulda Gap argument is a tad tiresome. Anyone who has discussed the matter in NATO circles knows that no one in Brussels or Evere expects to fight any war with these weapons. Those who should be told that the Cold war is over are on the right-hand side of the continent, not on the left-hand side. The real issue is what you lose (if anything) by withdrawing the B61s, especially unilaterally. Agree with Josh that all should rejoice that the debate is now open. I sometimes wonder. Why the obsession with a few ol’ B61s? Why are so many analysts seemingly more concerned with them than with, say, Russian TNW? And why not more interest in having transparency on the US arsenal as a whole (as opposed to an interest in transparency on a very, very limited portion on that arsenal)?

The Fulda Gap argument is a tad tiresome. Anyone who has discussed the matter in NATO circles knows that no one in Brussels or Evere expects to fight any war with these weapons. Those who should be told that the Cold war is over are on the right-hand side of the continent, not on the left-hand side.

The real issue is what you lose (if anything) by withdrawing the B61s, especially unilaterally. Agree with Josh that all should rejoice that the debate is now open.

]]>