7 ms·

(When Russia opened its archives in the 90s we learned were all the nukes in Europe were stored. It wasn't a secret to the KGB). Officially to this day this is

(When Russia opened its archives in the 90s we learned were all the nukes in Europe were stored. It wasn't a secret to the KGB). Officially to this day this is all a Dutch state secret (can neither confirm nor deny bla bla bla). But there was an interview with ex prime minister Lubbers and he talked about the nukes. The poor man's mental faculties were already slipping. If anyone is wondering according to NATO plans as I understand it the Dutch Airforce is supposed to be under US command dropping the bombs. A bit of a democratic cluster fuck that bypasses parliament to initiate nuclear Armageddon.

Someone 4y ago
> But there was an interview with ex prime minister Lubbers and he talked about the nukes. He wasn’t the only one. FTA: “two former Dutch prime ministers and a defense minister in 2013 even acknowledged the presence of the weapons.”
gambiting 4y ago
That last part is literally in the article. If US President, UK Prime Minister and NATO Nuclear planning group all approve the strike, then the weapon is loaded on a Dutch F-16 and dropped by a Dutch pilot.
- bpye 4y ago
  They had a linked article talking about a prior exercise [0] which includes the source for that procedure [1]: > “If NATO was to conduct a nuclear mission in a conflict,” NATO says, “the B-61 [sic] weapons would be carried by certified Allied aircraft…However, a nuclear mission can only be undertaken after explicit political approval is given by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and authorisation is received from the US President and UK Prime Minister.” It is unclear why the U.K. Prime Minister would have to authorize employment of U.S. nuclear weapons, and unless NATO territory had been attacked with nuclear weapons first, it seems unlikely that the 29 countries in the NPG would be able to agree to approve of employment of non-strategic nuclear weapons from bases in Europe. It is interesting that use of the weapons would require authorisation by the UK PM. In WW2 mutual consent was required due to the Quebec Agreement [2], but that requirement was included in later treaties. [0] - https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exercise-and-nuclear-modernization/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exerci... [1] - https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pd... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement
  - gambiting 4y ago
    I imagine that in reality the entire thing is structured in such a way that these bombs don't have any scenario in which they could actually be used. Like you said, no way all of NATO would agree to deploy any of them unless NATO was being actively attacked with nuclear weapons, and if that happens then Brits and the French will be launching their own nukes already, and US will be sending ballistic missiles instead of launching figher plane mounted nukes. It's just political posturing, show of strength and political friendship between countries - we value US alliance so much that we allow them to station nuclear weapons on our soil, that kind of thing. But the agreements around their use make them practically pointless.

Someone 4y ago

> But there was an interview with ex prime minister Lubbers and he talked about the nukes. He wasn’t the only one. FTA: “two former Dutch prime ministers and a defense minister in 2013 even acknowledged the presence of the weapons.”

gambiting 4y ago

That last part is literally in the article. If US President, UK Prime Minister and NATO Nuclear planning group all approve the strike, then the weapon is loaded on a Dutch F-16 and dropped by a Dutch pilot.

bpye 4y ago
They had a linked article talking about a prior exercise [0] which includes the source for that procedure [1]: > “If NATO was to conduct a nuclear mission in a conflict,” NATO says, “the B-61 [sic] weapons would be carried by certified Allied aircraft…However, a nuclear mission can only be undertaken after explicit political approval is given by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and authorisation is received from the US President and UK Prime Minister.” It is unclear why the U.K. Prime Minister would have to authorize employment of U.S. nuclear weapons, and unless NATO territory had been attacked with nuclear weapons first, it seems unlikely that the 29 countries in the NPG would be able to agree to approve of employment of non-strategic nuclear weapons from bases in Europe. It is interesting that use of the weapons would require authorisation by the UK PM. In WW2 mutual consent was required due to the Quebec Agreement [2], but that requirement was included in later treaties. [0] - https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exercise-and-nuclear-modernization/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exerci... [1] - https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pd... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement
- gambiting 4y ago
  I imagine that in reality the entire thing is structured in such a way that these bombs don't have any scenario in which they could actually be used. Like you said, no way all of NATO would agree to deploy any of them unless NATO was being actively attacked with nuclear weapons, and if that happens then Brits and the French will be launching their own nukes already, and US will be sending ballistic missiles instead of launching figher plane mounted nukes. It's just political posturing, show of strength and political friendship between countries - we value US alliance so much that we allow them to station nuclear weapons on our soil, that kind of thing. But the agreements around their use make them practically pointless.