Some NATO member states find increasing value in U.S. nuclear arms deployed in Europe, amid continued worries about Russian actions in Ukraine.
Current and former officials from Poland and the Czech Republic spoke of the importance of maintaining the role that nuclear weapons play in NATO in a Tuesday Newsweek article.
“Nuclear deterrence is a very important factor that NATO has at its disposal, and it’s becoming increasingly important,” Polish National Security Bureau chief Stanislaw Koziej said in an interview.
Jiri Schneider, who served as the Czech Republic’s first deputy foreign minister until two months ago, said it was important for NATO to “show some muscle” in the face of Russia’s ongoing destabilizing actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Sources close to Schneider said that means continuing to deploy U.S. B-61 nuclear warheads in Europe and maintaining the air capability to deliver the gravity bombs in an attack. Less than 200 of the weapons are broadly understood to be fielded in five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Before the recent tensions with Russia, there was a strong movement among some Western NATO members to send the tactical weapons back to the United States, based primarily on the argument that their deployment did not provide much military value to the alliance. Proponents of that view now acknowledge there is little chance of a tactical nuclear withdrawal happening in the near future.
A March paper by the Center for European Policy Analysis recommended that NATO weigh ending its voluntary prohibition against the deployment of U.S. nonstrategic weapons in Central and Eastern Europe.
“Nuclear deterrence in Europe should have some kind of European participation, simply for reasons of burden sharing,” Schneider said.
Currently, the five NATO states that host U.S. gravity bombs each maintain nuclear-capable aircraft that can deliver the weapons in an attack. But many of those planes are scheduled to be retired in the next decade and not all five of the countries are planning to buy dual-role planes to replace them.
Schneider suggested the Czech Republic could be willing to participate in a potential new NATO basing arrangement for the U.S. weapons.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"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."