The idea would be to place the nuclear arsenal of France under European dictatorship in defense of the continent. With the exit of Britain, France is the only nuclear power of the European Union. If such a plan was ever approved and shared, it would trigger an unprecedented escalation in Europe’s collective military power.
The idea of a Europe equipped with a collective strategic nuclear arsenal circulates for some time, but came back into vogue in recent months following the change in the White House. Last November, Roderich Kiesewetter, spokesman for the German Christian-Democrats, said that the European nuclear option should be structured on the existing arsenals of Britain (if Brexit fails) and France.
Currently, the six NATO bases: Belgium (Kleine Brogel AB), Germany (Buchel AB), Italy (Aviano and Ghedi AB), the Netherlands (Volkel AB), and Turkey (Incirlik AB), are home to about 180 American nuclear bombs B61 mod. -3, -4, -7, -10. The Italian bases of Aviano and Ghedi should accommodate a total of 30 – 50 B61 nuclear bombs, against the popular will and maintained at our expenses.
The B61-12 nuclear bomb is designed to be carried by tactical fighter F-35 (which the Americans forced us to buy even without we had the money for that). The hundred and eighty B61 warheads located in the six bases in Europe, according to the political concept of “nuclear sharing”, will be converted to Mod-12 version by 2018.
Those 180 warheads, rather than a rapid reaction force (not sufficient to rebut a powerful enemy as Russia) should be a strategic deterrent deemed able to deter the same external allies from developing homemade nuclear weapons. It should therefore be seen as a political guarantee of the United States, which ultimately own the property of those bombs, at European protection.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was conceived to logistically support the presence in the United States in Europe. We speak of a geopolitical archaeological hulk of the Cold War.
The European atomic program should be conceived as a program parallel to NATO. France should engage its nuclear arsenal in the common European defense. The program should be funded almost entirely by Germany. A separate European Strategic command should be created and get the availability of the member countries in hosting the French warheads. According to the German view, the European nuclear capability would be crucial to ensure its internal and international integrity against populist parties (UKIP, Marine Le Pen’s Front National, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, Alternative fuer Deutschland, Matteo Salvini’s Lega Nord, Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia, Norbert Hofer’s Party for Freedom, Jobbik, Vlaams Belang, etc) and the new superpowers (China, Russia, North Korea) in front of the collapse of international influence of the US.
In the event of an invasion war against the Russia-China block, French warheads should hit Russia beforehand. The European atomic project will then be based on the French platforms, cruise missiles, equipped with such tactical asset. A number certainly lower than the 180 American warhead in Europe today.
If a world war would trigger, the Russian nuclear warheads would affect almost certainly the United States of America to which the nuclear coverage of Europe was entrusted. An eventuality no longer acceptable today, in front of the collapse of the US and the rise of Russia-China block.
Since the creation of NATO, the United States has dominated the decision-making process, investing most resources and forces at the continental security protection on nuclear assets. France and Britain have created their own nuclear forces, but would probably have been reluctant to launch nuclear warheads against the Soviet Union, leaving the US this prerogative.
The basic structure of NATO has not changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It’s even grown to include former Soviet states. Today’s Europe is no more struggling to recover from World War II, while its overall military capability should be at the US level. The NATO area focuses mainly on Europe, but there are no wars in this area. It is evident the US hidden plan to continue the Cold War after the USSR.
NATO can no longer define its reason for being as Europe’s protection against Russian invasion, neither consider the US as the guarantor of European security at no cost. Nor can continue to ignore that every bomb set in contrasting of Russia, is a bomb at the advantage of the Caliphate.
“The United States will respect the obligations within NATO, but could resize their commitment to those European States that later this year will not put in place a plan to achieve the 2% threshold for military spending.” – James “mad dog” Mattis
Source: Gli occhi della guerra