| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Drawdown: Ramstein nukes removed |
| 2007-07-13 |
| Hattip Instapundit Without any official announcement, the United States appears to have reduced its once enormous nuclear weapons stockpile still further. An administrative document showing that there would no longer be nuclear weapons inspections at Ramstein airbase, means that the U.S. no longer stores nuclear weapons there. These bombs were intended for the use by German aircraft, in the event of a major war with, well, there don't seem to be any suitably scary enemies available any more. There are still apparently about 300 American nuclear weapons stored in Europe, all of them believed to be 1960s era B61 nuclear weapons, configured as a half ton bomb that can be carried by most U.S., and some European, fighter-bombers. Difficult to accidentally wander off with. During the early 1970s, the United States had over 7,000 nuclear warheads stored in Europe, most of them 8 inch and 155mm artillery shells. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #19 I can confirm what Natural Law said. Way back when, I sailed on a ship that carried Polaris and Poseidon missiles from Holy Loch to Charleston to King's Bay and back. Whenever those things were being handled in port, there were some VERY alert and no-nonsense Marines guarding them extremely closely. Our orders to the crew were just to stay as far away from the loading/unloading operation as possible because nothing good could come from being anywhere close to it. Getting shot or whacked with a rifle butt was a very real option. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-07-13 23:26 |
| #18 "2. The US saying 'f-you' to all those countries who didn't step up to the bar when article V of the NATO charter was invoked?" I don't think that's what your seeing. I think it's just a recognition that the Cold War is over. You don't want to have nukes in a location where they are a political nuisance unless there is a purpose for having them there. It's like having a safe full of Top Secret war plans for the invasion of Iran in an embassy in an embassy in Belize. They represent a costly and irrelevent risk. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-13 22:57 |
| #17 Somehow I feel better knowing US Navy nukes are guarded by Marines. I wish they were guarding the Pakistani nukes. Patience. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-13 21:13 |
| #16 All in all, anytime there was any handling of real or dummy Nukes, it was a no nonsense affair. Hope that makes you feel better. You are a dear, Natural Law. It does, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-13 20:48 |
| #15 Somehow I feel better knowing US Navy nukes are guarded by Marines. I wish they were guarding the Pakistani nukes. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-07-13 20:23 |
| #14 An MLRS nuke strike! OMG! |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-07-13 19:09 |
| #13 IIRC, once the wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed, the US made the decision to remove 95% of all nuclear weapons from Western Europe. I don't know where the 5% were supposed to be stocked, but that many could be aboard 6th Fleet ships and submarines. There ARE nuclear weapons that can be fitted to the rockets of the MLRS, and others that fit most 155MM howitzers. There are several different weapons that can be fitted aboard the F-111s at RAF Lakenheath, but I don't know that there are any actually stockpiled there. There are variants of the Tomahawk missile that can hit targets 1500 miles from their launch point with a nuke, so I guess it doesn't really matter if there are any stockpiled locally. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-07-13 19:06 |
| #12 could get you butt-stroked with a rifle Dang! I usually have to pay extra for that. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-13 18:05 |
| #11 I read somewhere that using the Davy Crockett was likely to irradiate the soldiers using it too, as the range on the thing was so short. Ah, I stand corrected (this saves time ;) - Wikipedia has details; "A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no immediate ill effects are likely." Apparently, 2100! of them were made - crikey! |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-07-13 16:39 |
| #10 Now I know. Thanks, Natural Law. You're welcome! Physically, they (the B61) can be moved by four strong folks, six would be better. But that doesn't mean it would be easy to actually get access to the weapons. I was in the Navy, and it is the Marines that guard and control access to the nuclear weapons. They were some very serious folks too, any breach of protocol related to movement or handover of the weapons (even dummies, practice like you fight) could get you butt-stroked with a rifle. I cannot speak for the other services weapons handling protocols. All in all, anytime there was any handling of real or dummy Nukes, it was a no nonsense affair. Hope that makes you feel better. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-07-13 16:27 |
| #9 Wikipedia: Nuclear Artillery |
| Posted by: KBK 2007-07-13 15:36 |
| #8 Not so. The B61 can be walked off with by four reasonably stout folks quite easily. Now I know. Thanks, Natural Law. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-13 13:19 |
| #7 Atomic Annie was 280mm. There were 203, 175 and 155mm nuke artillery. Though the 155mm version was hardly worth the effort unless you want to sterilize them with neutrons. Now the Davey Crockett was a sweet weapon. Your own personal nuclear rocket. Shades of Starship Troopers. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-07-13 10:27 |
| #6 Difficult to accidentally wander off with. Not so. The B61 can be walked off with by four reasonably stout folks quite easily. In the Navy we used to practice hand loading them onto aircraft weapons pylons. Just in case the need ever arose. Of course, they were practice dummies, but they weighed the same and had the same dimensions. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-07-13 09:57 |
| #5 Right there with you Adriane. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-07-13 09:55 |
| #4 most of them 8 inch and 155mm artillery shells. Ah, no. Only nuclear artillery shell was a, what, 240 mm job for Atomic Annie? That one didn't last long. We had a lot of bombs for aircraft and missiles. |
| Posted by: Steve 2007-07-13 08:17 |
| #3 Du Du hast Du hast mich ... oh, Ramstein. ahem, never mind. |
| Posted by: Adriane 2007-07-13 04:04 |
| #2 Two thoughts; 1. Last phase of the INF treaty? 2. The US saying 'f-you' to all those countries who didn't step up to the bar when article V of the NATO charter was invoked? Interesting times... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-07-13 01:51 |
| #1 And we don't want those available for the future Eurabians. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-07-13 01:38 |