Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of Nato, says that NATO is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”
He went on to explain:
“NATO’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons, and NATO does not, is a more dangerous world.”
| Jens is talking about his size… |
The Russians say that Stoltenberg’s nuclear weapons declaration, was “bully tactics.”
Stoltenberg could not act on NATO’s nuclear deterrent unless deeply coordinated with the United States. Thus the NATO expansion of nuclear weapons is a Biden administration policy and program.
Nuclear Sharing in NATO
NATO’s nuclear deterrence is based on nuclear sharing arrangements. As described officially: “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, as well as on the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. A number of NATO countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear weapons in a conflict, and personnel are trained accordingly.
”The United States maintains absolute control and custody of their nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, while Allies provide military support for the DCA mission with conventional forces and capabilities.”
While NATO’s nuclear weapons are American, the UK and France have nuclear weapons too.
US nuclear weapons stored in Europe are nuclear gravity bombs that can be launched by NATO aircraft or by the US operating independently of NATO.
Technically nuclear gravity bombs fall into the category of tactical nuclear weapons. The US, UK and France also deploy strategic nuclear weapons in and around Europe. The UK has around 225 nuclear warheads (more than half in storage) for its Trident nuclear submarine program. The British nuclear capability requires US coordination.
France is the only NATO country with a fully independent nuclear arsenal that consists of ballistic missile submarines and a small number of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. The French have floated the idea of replacing the US nuclear deterrent with a French one, and there have been discussions with Germany about the idea. To some degree, Stoltenberg’s announcement on upgrading NATO’s nuclear alliance could be interpreted as offsetting French pressure to diverge from the US-led deterrent in Europe.
There has long been suspicion in Europe that the US would not launch nuclear weapons to defend European territory because of the risk of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. To an unknown extent, the presence of tactical nuclear weapons (under US control) is intended to enable the US to use the tactical part of its nuclear arsenal reducing the risk of a strategic nuclear exchange with Russia.
Yet it is certainly the case that Stoltenberg’s emphasis on NATO as a nuclear alliance was primarily intended to offset fears that Russia could turn to nuclear weapons to settle the Ukraine conflict. Compared to the US, Russia has a vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and many of its tactical missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads. In fact, the Ukrainians have been warning Europe this is exactly what Russia could do.
The Russians have been conducting nuclear exercises and claim to have put nuclear weapons in Belarus, although none have been spotted there as of now. Likewise the US has been flying its strategic bombers close to Russia’s borders as a US warning.
Ukraine has also attacked two sensitive radar sites that are important parts of Russia’s early warning system. It is not clear why these targets were selected either by Ukraine or by NATO which supplies the weapons and intelligence for these attacks.
NATO relies on nuclear gravity bombs for deterrence. These weapons would be delivered against Russian targets by NATO aircraft. About 150 bombs are stored at six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. These are part of NATO’s nuclear sharing agreement.
In addition, the US announced in January that it was upgrading parts of the RAF Airbase at Lakenheath, Surrey, in the UK, where a special squadron, the 48th Security Force, of F-35s will be capable of carrying B-61 gravity bombs. The US is building special hydraulic loading ramps, upgrading storage facilities and installing a nuclear “shield” to protect personnel at the base. These F-35s will be operated solely by US pilots and are outside of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, meaning that their mission could be linked to NATO’s security and deterrence, but could be used outside of any general NATO agreement.
The weapon was designed and built by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico beginning in 1961, and has been produced in several versions.
Unanswered Questions
It is important to point out that neither the US nor NATO have any treaty obligation, or any other responsibility, to protect Ukraine from a nuclear attack.
Therefore, NATO deterrence, at least insofar as it is understood, does not apply to Ukraine in any formal manner. But that does not mean that Stoltenberg, and by proxy the United States, is not shifting the alliance towards extending a nuclear umbrella over Ukraine.
One reason to assess this may be the change in strategy underway; is the NATO-US decision to unleash long range weapons in Ukraine on Russian territory.
In the proxy wars prior to Ukraine, the US and Russia have been careful to avoid directly attacking each other.
And that is precisely why president Truman was against US forces crossing the Yalu River in Korea.
Of course that is also why neither China, nor Russia, nor their installations in North Vietnam, nor their embassies, and certainly nor their military”advisors” camps, were attacked by the US, during the Vietnam war.
That is also exactly why during the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy, refused any nuclear attack on Cuba, or the vessels of the Soviet Union fleet circling Cuba.
And that is exactly why no interference is given to the Russian fleet today as they sail around Florida fully armed with nuclear weapons today as President Biden is lost inside the White House and wherever he goes and requires a lifeline from his handlers to allow him to find his way to the exits…
Yet indeed, there were moments when tensions grew and the approach to the nuclear threshold became evident.
That was especially the case in 1973, when Russia began threatening intervention with nuclear weapons in the Yom Kippur war, and the US declared a DEFCON-3 alert.
Because even in the context of superpower rivalries and proxy and other conflicts, indisputably, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a proxy conflict but a direct confrontation between the US and USSR, whereas the Yom Kippur war was not … and thus is always easier to play Nuclear Chess, Armageddon dominoes, and Cadaver Mahjong, on top of other people’s houses.
That is why today’s NATO-approved attacks on Russian territory, appear to have crossed a dangerous red line, but are simply nuclear brinkmanship over the last irradiated Ukrainian person still standing.
Yet, this attitude, when combined with the “No Negotiations, No Talks, No Peace” posture of the US and most of Europe on Ukraine, the danger of an expanding conflict, or even one involving nuclear weapons, is constantly increasing.
As for the tiny-small sized, Jens Stoltenberg — the fear of Nuclear Winter is not registering in his tiny-small mind.
And of course, upgrading nuclear arsenals in that context — simply adds fuel to the fire.
Yours,
Dr Churchill
PS:
Dr Churchill
Bleeding Edge 
Leave a comment