Umbrella States Should Quit Nuke Dependency By Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm ! "DN-"nDepth Ne#s$ie#point B%&L"N '"DN !

"(AN) - "n addition to the nine nuclear-armed states* there are fi+e NA,states #ith nuclear #eapons on their soil. /0 years after the fall of the Berlin 1all* Bel2ium* 3ermany* "taly* the Netherlands and ,urkey still host for#ard-deployed US B-45 thermonuclear 2ra+ity bombs. ,hey offer 6ero military +alue 7 in fact* the fi2hter 8ets that are responsible for carryin2 and droppin2 these bombs* should such an order be 2i+en* are barely able to lea+e %U territory #ithout refuelin2. 9ost NA,--states are opposed to nuclear sharin2* a dan2erous relic of the cold #ar. Despite multiple bipartisan parliamentary resolutions and coalition a2reements #hich ha+e called for their remo+al* successi+e 3erman 2o+ernments ha+e failed to do so. ,he next coalition 2o+ernment a2reement* #hich is currently in ne2otiations* should be une:ui+ocally callin2 for their #ithdra#al. "nstead* the #eapons are expected to under2o the most ambitious moderni6ation pro2ram yet. Ne# details ha+e come to li2ht o+er the course of the re+ision and appro+al of the bud2et. ,heir cost has spiraled out of control* from an initial ;<.= billion estimated in />5>* to an estimated ;5>.0 billion. 1ith 0>> B-45s due for moderni6ation* that is approximately ;/? million a pop* d#arfin2 e+en the cost of solid-2old replicas. ,he 3erman 2o+ernment@s disarmament en+oy is already askin2A B"s the money spent on life-extension of nuclear #arheads #ell-spentCD ,he ne# B-45s are expected bet#een />5= and />//. ,he #indo# of opportunity to rid %urope of these American #eapons is therefore limited* but similar to other consensus-based bodies dealin2 #ith nuclear #eapons* NA,- faces deadlock. Ho#e+er* more is at stake here. ,he US National Nuclear Security Administration is really testin2 the parameters on #hat constitutes a Blife extension pro2ramD. ,he -bama administration had pled2ed that any moderni6ation #ould not entail ne# desi2ns* nor Bsupport ne# military missions or pro+ide for ne# military capabilities.D Eet the ne# B-45 9od 5/ #ill no lon2er be a free-fallin2 bomb* but rather a laser-2uided* precision cruise missile #ith a 2uided tail-kit to be manufactured by Boein2. ,he ne# bomb #ill mer2e the capabilities of a #hole ran2e of different pre+ious B-45-desi2ns* makin2 it an Ball-in-one nuclear bomb on steroids*D in the #ords of Hans Fristensen of the Gederation of American Scientists 'GAS). New capabilities ,his is indeed a #eapon #ith ne# capabilities. ,he fact that its de+elopment continues should not be surprisin2 thou2hA it is nothin2 if not consistent #ith the kind of B2ood faithD the NH, nuclear #eapons states ha+e been sho#in2 lately* epitomi6ed by their repeated refusals to e+en ackno#led2e the humanitarian conse:uences of their #eapons. "f NA,- states cannot 2et their act to2ether* increased international pressure is needed. ,he Humanitarian "nitiati+e has 2ro#n from 54 states in />5/ to 5/? states no#. ,his is :uite possibly the tippin2 point* replacin2 yesterday@s theoretical deterrence considerations #ith a ne# focus on the actual humanitarian conse:uences of these #eapons. ,hese conse:uences are such that* accordin2 to 5/? states* it Bis in the interest of the +ery sur+i+al of humanity that nuclear #eapons are ne+er used a2ain* under any circumstances.D

Statin2 as much should not constitute a stretch for %uropeans* as four NA,- and six %U states already did. Ans#erin2 a parliamentary interpellation supported by "(AN campai2ners in 3ermany* the 3erman 2o+ernment claimed on -ctober 55* />5< the :uoted passa2e to be inconsistent #ith NA,- posture* accordin2 to #hich nuclear #eapons should indeed be used under certain circumstances. Eet 3ermans are united in their re8ection of nuclear #eapons* #ith as many as =4 percent fa+orin2 a treaty bannin2 nuclear #eapons in a />>I representati+e poll. -nce ne2otiations for a ban treaty are under#ay* it #ill be hard for any 3erman 2o+ernment to snub the initiati+e. As a host of US nuclear #eapons* it #ould be difficult to ratify any ban treaty* but the contro+ersy #ould 2enerate considerable domestic pressure in fa+or of a ban. ,his #ould not 2o unnoticed #ith NA,- partners* #ho #ould ultimately ha+e to concede #ithdra#al. 3i+en the pace of moderni6ation* such pressures can be brou2ht to bear e+en before the ne# B45s are deployed. Non-nuclear #eapon states ha+e fe# other options than to chan2e the rules* and chan2e the 2ame. An une:ui+ocal le2al re8ection of nuclear #eapons #ill pa+e the #ay for the sti2mati6ation of all #eapons of mass destruction. "t #ill increase the pressure on nuclear #eapon states* and in so doin2 facilitate the concrete implementation of disarmament and non-proliferation measures. ,hese include the step-by-step a2enda as #ell as the #ithdra#al of US nuclear #eapons from NA,- states in %urope. Any residual risk of a nuclear #eapon detonation is unacceptable* #hich is #hy they must be eliminated. "t is in 3ermany@s and in %urope@s interest to ban nuclear #eapons* no#. Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm is "(AN campai2ner in 3ermany. ,his article is reproduced from "(AN #ebsite #hich carried it on No+ember 5/* />5<. J"DN-"nDepthNe#s 7 No+ember 5<* />5<K />5< "DN-"nDepthNe#s ! Analysis ,hat 9atters "ma2e creditA "(AN Send your comment ! Subscribe to "DN ne#sletter Gollo# us on ,#itter and GacebookA httpALLt#itter.comL"nDepthNe#s httpALL###.facebook.comL"DN.3oin2Deeper