House Bill Seeks Answers on Costs of NATO Nuclear Burden-Sharing

A demonstrator is arrested by police during a 2005 protest against nuclear weapons in front of NATO headquarters in Brussels. Language inserted into a House defense spending bill would require the Pentagon to report on how the alliance pays for keeping tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
Add to Briefcase
Rachel Oswald
June 11, 2014, 10:31 a.m.

A de­fense bill ap­proved by a House pan­el on Tues­day con­tains lan­guage that seeks to spot­light the costs of nuc­le­ar bur­den-shar­ing with­in NATO.

A meas­ure con­tained in the House Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee’s an­nu­al mil­it­ary spend­ing bill would re­quire the Pentagon to is­sue a re­port out­lining “the pro­por­tion­al con­tri­bu­tions of NATO mem­bers to the cost of sus­tain­ing for­ward-de­ployed nuc­le­ar weapons” as well as the im­pact that pro­por­tion­al cost-shar­ing would have on the U.S. mil­it­ary’s budget.

The United States presently shoulders the vast ma­jor­ity of the ex­pense — about $100 mil­lion an­nu­ally — for the op­er­a­tion­al de­ploy­ment of less than 200 B-61 grav­ity bombs in Europe. The non­stra­tegic weapons are broadly un­der­stood to be fielded in Bel­gi­um, Ger­many, Italy, the Neth­er­lands and Tur­key. Those five na­tions in turn are sup­posed to main­tain the air­craft cap­ab­il­ity ne­ces­sary to de­liv­er the nuc­le­ar bombs in an at­tack. The host states ad­di­tion­ally pay for fa­cil­ity and se­cur­ity costs at the mil­it­ary in­stall­a­tions where the weapons are stored.

However, none of the oth­er 22 mem­ber coun­tries of NATO are un­der­stood to con­trib­ute dir­ectly to the tac­tic­al-arms mis­sion, ac­cord­ing to Hans Kristensen, who dir­ects the Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­ic­an Sci­ent­ists’ Nuc­le­ar In­form­a­tion Pro­ject.

Sep­ar­ate from the op­er­a­tion­al ex­pense of keep­ing B-61s in Europe is the cost of mod­ern­iz­ing the grav­ity bomb. The B-61 life-ex­ten­sion pro­gram is an­ti­cip­ated to cost as much as $11.5 bil­lion — all of it cur­rently to be borne by U.S. tax­pay­ers, Kristensen told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire.

Some of the fu­ture costs of main­tain­ing U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons in Europe in­clude an es­tim­ated $1 bil­lion to in­teg­rate the up­dated B-61 with European Tor­nado and F-16 air­craft and U.S. F-15E, F-16 and B-2 bombers; and about $154 mil­lion to en­hance se­cur­ity at the European mil­it­ary bases that store the nuc­le­ar war­heads, ac­cord­ing to re­search com­piled by Kristensen.

The House bill cites “the grow­ing costs of this mis­sion” as the reas­on for re­quir­ing a re­port on pro­por­tion­al cost-shar­ing with al­li­ance mem­bers no later than six months after the le­gis­la­tion be­comes law.

U.S. Rep­res­ent­at­ive Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) in­ser­ted the lan­guage dur­ing the bill’s markup on Tues­day. He sees the re­ques­ted re­port as a “first step” to­ward achiev­ing a “more equit­able cost-shar­ing among NATO al­lies,” ac­cord­ing to a press re­lease from his of­fice. He ex­pects the re­port also will be use­ful in en­abling U.S. le­gis­lat­ors to bet­ter eval­u­ate the cost-ef­fect­ive­ness of the B-61 mod­ern­iz­a­tion pro­gram and a plan give a nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­ity to a fu­ture vari­ant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fight­er.

The mil­it­ary value of main­tain­ing U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons in Europe has been ques­tioned on both sides of the At­lantic, al­though na­tions shied away from al­ter­ing the status quo at the 2012 NATO sum­mit. In 2010, then-Vice Chair­man of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright in­dic­ated that U.S. long-range nuc­le­ar weapons and con­ven­tion­al arms could handle all of the mil­it­ary mis­sions cur­rently as­so­ci­ated with the B-61 in Europe.

In a Monday in­ter­view, Quigley said he be­lieves the Re­pub­lic­an-led House Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee sup­por­ted the in­clu­sion of the re­port­ing re­quire­ment “not be­cause they are ‘anti-nukes,’ but be­cause they want NATO to pay a pro­por­tion­al share of their own de­fense.”

An ef­fort along sim­il­ar lines last month by Rep­res­ent­at­ive Lor­etta Sanc­hez (D-Cal­if.) to in­clude an amend­ment in the House’s an­nu­al de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion le­gis­la­tion failed. Sanc­hez’s amend­ment would have re­quired the Pentagon and En­ergy De­part­ment to cer­ti­fy that the cost of main­tain­ing the B-61 mis­sion in Europe would be pro­por­tion­ally shared by NATO coun­tries.

The Cali­for­nia Demo­crat told GSN on Monday that sus­tain­ing the for­ward-de­ploy­ment of the B-61 “is in­cred­ibly ex­pens­ive for us to do. I just think that we need to talk to our NATO al­lies and if this is an im­port­ant thing for them, to have them … help us in the cost-shar­ing of it.”

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
14 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
WHAT WILL PASS?
McConnell Doubts Criminal Justice Reform Can Pass This Year
17 hours ago
THE LATEST
×