It's not simply a risk of a loose nuke. > It is feared that removing the weapons could signal the end of relations between the Nato allies, while leaving them

It's not simply a risk of a loose nuke. > It is feared that removing the weapons could signal the end of relations between the Nato allies, while leaving them in place could put the weapons of mass destruction at risk. From your wikipedia link: > The conventional explosives needed to start the chain reaction are tailored to the characteristics of the fissile material in the core of the weapon. If the detonation does not occur exactly as planned, such as in the case of a misfire, a nuclear reaction is unlikely to occur—the explosion will be no greater than the amount of conventional explosive (although radioactive material—the unreacted nuclear fuel—may be dispersed). The anti-tamper protection results in a misfire. One does not need to have a ballistic nuke to cause unspeakable damage. Misfire 50 nukes in a water supply, eg Lake Assad[1] and you could have a major humanitarian disaster on your hands. If a misfire is safe against dispersal (as some googling indicates might be true), why not detonate them in a bunker, then retrieve the nuclear material for incorporation into a dirty bomb? Now, yes thanks to PAL it may not be a risk like 9/11, but it's much more than a non-issue. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...