The Impact of Nuclear Weapons on the Relationships Between Allied Nations

As part of its "nuclear sharing" policy aimed at defending against nuclear threats, NATO involves member nations in the storing and delivery of nuclear arms, even if they've got no weapons of their own. Belgium, Germany, and Italy, for example, host a number of U.S. nuclear weapons and means of delivering them should the need arise.

In an effort to lessen NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons as means of global power, Germany (with support from the Belgians and the Dutch) is pleading for the removal of such U.S. arms from European soil. Reactions and arguments have been mixed, and most of them don't even involve war—but they all exhibit the crucial role that nuclear weapons play in the relationship between the U.S. and Europe.

Obama's been talking a big "visions of a nuclear-free world" game since he was elected. So it makes sense that he'd acquiesce the Germans and get rid of U.S. nukes in Europe. But it's more complicated than that.

France and Britain, the two official nuclear powers of Europe, fear that if U.S. weapons are removed, their own nuclear capabilities will be compromised. There are also enormous fears that if the weapons are removed, the military alliance between Europe and the U.S. will be weakened, particularly as debates over the war in Afghanistan forge on. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has gone so far as to argue that removing the nukes from Europe will weaken our credibility among those who depend on us for security. And at a more fundamental level, removing the weapons marks a shift in a balance that has not been disturbed in many years.

It's a complicated shuffle that highlights the bureaucracy involved in NATO operations and the inability of its member states to see the nuclear weapon debate in a larger context—the struggle to either keep or discard of the nukes in Europe is based in power dynamics, stubbornness and historical precedent, not in an effort to responsibly defend member states from nuclear attack.

“The bombs are there because of bureaucratic resistance to change and NATO’s inability to address the issue of the future of nuclear weapons in NATO,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, a group that monitors U.S. nuclear weapons.