RSS

A debate over the role of nuclear weapons in NATO is overdue. The recurrent controversy over nuclear weapons in Germany may help to boost change in NATO’s Strategic Concept. To make a meaningful contribution though, German politicians need to be constructive.

A recent report by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) points to security deficiencies at nuclear weapon sites in Europe and gives German politicians an opportunity to direct public attention to the existence of nukes on German soil.

An alliance of Liberal Democrats, Left- and Green-Party is unlikely under normal circumstances, but the three opposition parties are united in disapproving the deployment of nuclear weapons on German territory.

Indeed, the usefulness of the estimated 150 to 240 tactical nuclear weapons currently deployed by the United States in Europe is debatable. Tactical nuclear weapons are designed to be used in military situations. A number of European non-nuclear weapon states – including Germany – maintain “nuclear sharing” arrangements under NATO. In the case of large-scale conflict, German planes could conceivably drop nuclear free-fall bombs on the battlefield.

NATO’s nuclear posture is dated

This scenario goes back to the days of the Cold War when the West believed that tactical nuclear weapons would be a credible threat to the massive numbers of Soviet conventional forces. It is clearly dated. Nonetheless, these strategic conceptions continue to hamper current efforts at non-proliferation and disarmament.

NATO’s present reliance on “nuclear sharing” undermines those two pillars of the NPT. First, it does not go together with the vision of a nuclear-free world, which has been embraced even by Cold War veterans like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. Second, this policy – along with ballistic missile defense installations in former Soviet satellites – will not convince Russia to fulfill the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.

NATO needs to reconsider its nuclear posture during next year’s review. That review should not be conducted to accommodate Russia’s territorial threat perceptions but rather in view of a global threat scenario: nuclear terrorism. The security of Russian nuclear stockpiles continues to be of great concern. By withdrawing sub-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe, NATO can pursue a leverage strategy to persuade Russia to also eliminate its tactical nuclear weapons.

German politicians should be constructive

To make a meaningful contribution though, German politicians should not engage in opportune US-bashing. It is not helpful when the leader of the Left Party’s parliamentary group states that Germany should have the “backbone” to “demand from the United States to pull out and scrap its atomic weapons”.

Germany needs to engage in a true policy debate. It is not constructive of Merkel’s governing party, however, to claim that those tactical nuclear weapons should stay for deterrence. That is simply not the case since the weapons on German soil are not strategic weapons.

The FAS report shows the risks of perpetuating the old paradigm of tactical nuclear deployments. Germany should embrace this chance by playing a constructive role, for its own safety and Europe’s.

Fabian Martin Lieschke is a student at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is currently an intern with the Center for American Progress, working on national security and non-proliferation issues.

Related materials from the Atlantic community:

• Thomas Speckmann: The Renaissance of Nuclear Deterrence
• Daryl Kimball: We Can Not Afford to Delay Nuclear Disarmament
• Memo 5: NATO and Russia: Relationship Must be Redefined