You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
US says its nuclear arsenal in Europe is poorly guarded
2008-06-26
Most American bases in Europe where nuclear weapons are stored have inadequate security, a secret internal US air force review has found. The report, which was ordered after the US air force lost track of six nuclear cruise missiles last August, found that "support buildings, fencing, lighting and security systems" were in need of repair.

In some cases, it was found that conscripts with less than nine-months experience were being used to guard the nuclear weapons. Elsewhere private security guards were used to protect the bombs.
We don't have conscripts in the U.S. armed forces. That's a clue that this article is crap. Second clue: we don't have private security guards protecting nuclear weapons.
The report recommends that the US nuclear arsenal in Europe be consolidated to "reduce vulnerabilities at overseas locations". That would involve the withdrawal of significant numbers of US nuclear weapons from Europe.

The US air force does not publicise details of its nuclear arsenal, but it is believed that it has up to 350 bombs in seven bases, including up to 110 B61 bombs at Lakenheath in Suffolk. It is not clear whether Lakenheath is one of the bases that fall short of Pentagon security standards, but the report states that "most sites require significant additional resources to meet [US department of defence] requirements."

The current stockpile in Europe is only a fraction of its cold war size. Analysts say the residual arsenal, consisting of free-fall bombs rather than missiles, is of little military significance in the 21st century. "They fulfil no military function. They are a political symbol for Nato," said Paul Ingram, of the British American Security Information Council. "Withdrawing them from Europe would be the logical next step in nuclear disarmament."
Or as we disengage ourselves from NATO and the defense of Europe ...
The classified US report, entitled Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures, was circulated internally in February. But the Federation of American Scientists, an independent watchdog group, obtained a leaked copy this month and has published it on its website.

Hans Kristensen, an FAS nuclear specialist, wrote: "The main implication of the ... report is that the nuclear weapons deployment in Europe is, and has been for the past decade, a security risk ... This contradicts Nato's frequent public assurances about the safe conditions of the widespread deployment in Europe."

The leaked review has triggered a political storm in Germany, where the Social Democrats, a partner in the governing coalition, this week called for the removal of all nuclear weapons from the country as a result of the findings. But the Christian Democratic Union, of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has argued against making any quick decisions, saying that the weapons remain a factor in Germany's defence.
In what way? Who would we use them against? I'm not an isolationist, but I see no real reason to keep American nuclear weapons of any kind in Europe. Keep them at home and make sure they're properly looked after.
As well as unearthing shortcomings in security in Europe, the review found the equipment used to transport nuclear weapons was aging, there were "potential vulnerabilities" in the convoys used to move them, and "stubby pencil" note-keeping was used to keep track of them.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  I knew, back in 1980-1990, where all the nukes in Europe were stored, and there were certainly more than 350. Nor was the Air Force the only ones that had access to nuclear weapons. There are usually nukes aboard submarines and aircraft carriers assigned to the 6th Fleet, and the Army had some as well, especially for the Pershings. As for security, nukes are guarded much differently than conventional explosives, but some of that security is usually not visible. NO ONE but US forces who have been approved for nuclear security can guard a nuclear weapons storage site. Those personnel are re-certified every 180 days.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-06-26 23:38  

#11  NEW SCIENTIST > UK MOD: CAN NUCLEAR WARHEADS GO OFF LIKE "POPCORN"? Contempor "Single-Point" Warhead Safety mechanisms are now deemed insufficent e.g. TRIDENT SUBS.

Methinks the Brits are anticipating NUCLEAR TERROR EVENTS AS DE FACTO OCCURRING/REALISTIC IN NEAR FUTURE.

Chalk anuther 'un for 2008-2012 Post-Dubya POTUS Period.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-06-26 21:31  

#10  Dibs on the nuclear bunker buster.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-06-26 16:23  

#9  there might be private security at the main base gates,

That's a given these days. Most shifts on military base gates worldwide will be contract guards with GI's on call. Been this way for years.

but the areas where the stuff that is 'neither confirmed nor denied' is certainly under uniform control.

Yeah, and still behind those red "deadlines".
Posted by: Steve   2008-06-26 14:36  

#8  Shhhh, don't tell anyone. It's a secret...
Posted by: mojo   2008-06-26 12:38  

#7  Dunno, you'd think we could float the bill for guarding our own NUCLEAR BOMBS though.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-06-26 11:08  

#6  Is it possible that the conscripts described are Bundeswehr troops guarding joint bases?
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-06-26 10:02  

#5  Note, there might be private security at the main base gates, but the areas where the stuff that is 'neither confirmed nor denied' is certainly under uniform control. Not that the media could care about the difference.

The report recommends that the US nuclear arsenal in Europe be consolidated to 'reduce vulnerabilities at overseas locations'.

Cause we all know how well that worked out for General Short in Oahu when he pulled all the aircraft to one location to preclude vulnerabilities to local sabotage.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-06-26 09:23  

#4  I must really be out of the loop, I had no idea we still conscripted soldiers.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-06-26 07:59  

#3  No. Obama is right. The war is unwinnable and we should bring all the American troops home from EUrabia now, weapons and all.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-06-26 07:08  

#2  They have a point. There is no reason to have the nukes in Europe at this point. Bush should announce they will be withdrawn and kill this before it expands into the next mem.

He should also leave it vague on if we're withdrawing just nukes or if bases will be closed as well. The timing of such can be used to screw with the green party and others in Europe who started this story for their own gain. Most Germans understand how much those American Paysets are worth and it'll cost the Greens and others if the US pulls out or if Germany has to beg for us to stay.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-06-26 03:22  

#1  Is the Guardian just makign this shit up as it goes and publishign it as FACT?

I was PRP and this whole thing is dead f**king wrong unless the USAF and USAEUR has completely gone to shit there. And there is no sign of that.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-26 01:13  

00:00