NATO in rather a mess, as USA escalates its nuclear weaponry

Astonishingly, many people may think, the US is planning to upgrade its estimated 180 tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey, replacing them with precision-guided ones at a cost of $4bn. The decision has been described as “nuclear escalation by default”.

The credibility, indeed raison d’être, of Nato is at stake.

A Sceptic’s Guide to the Nato Summit by Richard Norton-Taylor, 16 May 2012 guardian.co.uk

A quick route through the Chicago agenda
Four main issues: Afghanistan, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, Burden-sharing…..
2. Nato-Russian relations and Missile Defence. Nato’s relations with Moscow are bedevilled by US plans to base anti-missile missiles in Romania and Poland. Vladimir Putin, recently re-elected as Russia’s president who has declined an invitation to attend the Chicago summit, claims the missile defence system could be used against Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the US. The US strongly denies any such intention, insisting the system is directed at a potential threat posed by Iranian missiles.

Given Putin’s sensitivities, Nato could do more to assuage his (genuine or not) hurt pride. “The alliance has for too long neglected Russia and failed to devote to it the same degree of positive attention devoted to EU candidate members”, says former German defence minister Volker Rühe.

Judging by Obama’s 26 March “hot mike” moment with then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Moscow – and the Europeans – will have to wait until after the US presidential elections in November…..

3. Nukes.

Creating “the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons” was a goal endorsed by Nato leaders at their summit in Lisbon in 2010. “That will remain an empty box if the Deterrence and Defence posture to be adopted by the Chicago summit…contains no real substance on arms control”, writes Italy’s former UN disarmament negotiator.

The summit should adopt a clear declaration saying Nato would not use nuclear weapons against countires which have renounced such weapons – so-called Negative Security Assurances.

America’s total nuclear arsenal should be cut to 900 warheads, the former commander of US nuclear forces, General James Cartwright, saidthis week, adding that those in the field should be taken off hair-triggers so that they could not be fired immediately, thus also reducing the risk of accidental war.

The US and Russia have an estimated 5,000 nuclear weapons each, either deployed or in reserve. Cartwright’s proposal, in a report drawn up by the nuclear disarmament campaign, Global Zero, could encourage other nuclear weapons countries to join international talks……

4. Burden-sharing and Nato’s role in the world. While the US is looking west, towards Asia and the Pacific, it has been pressing Nato’s European members to contribute more, both in cash and in terms of willingness to take part in military operations. Just before leaving his post as US defence secretary a year ago, Robert Gates, warned the Europeans that Nato risked “collective military irrelevance”. Only nine of its 28 members took part in the bombing campaign against Libya.

Intervening in Libya, with UN backing, was easy. Other conflict – Syria today – is not.

“Coalitions of the willing” in military operations increasingly include non-Nato countries, including Australia (Iraq, Afghannistan) and Qatar (Libya) .

The Europeans could share the burden among themselves much more effectively in terms of both money – so vital in this age of austerity – and military equipment.

The credibility, indeed raison d’être, of Nato is at stake. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/defence-and-security-blog/2012/may/16/nato-afghanistan-nuclear