7 ms·
22 American nuclear bombs are stored in The Netherlands
- switch33 13y agoLess liability if the blow up prematurely on site. lol?
- jabbernotty 13y agoWho exactly would be less liable? The Netherlands is a country with a very high concentration of people. I would think that one of the desert-like places in the USA would be a better storage space (assuming the intent is indeed just to store them).
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y agoWell, to be honest, I don't think the US government cares about foreign people - or any kind of people, for that matter.
- Ihmahr 13y agoOther, dutch artikel: http://nos.nl/artikel/516243-lubbers-22-atoombommen-volkel.html http://nos.nl/artikel/516243-lubbers-22-atoombommen-volkel.h...
- lena 13y agoFrom the article: A spokesperson of the Royal Dutch Airforce says they are surprised about the words of Lubbers[1]. 'We never disclose any information on this. As former prime minister, he knows that'. According to the spokesperson whether or not there are nuclear weapons is a state secret. [1] Lubbers was prime minister from 1982-1994, confirmed that there are in fact nuclear bombs in Volkel, and said that he never thought that "those silly things" were still there.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago> [Lubbers] confirmed that there are in fact nuclear bombs in Volkel No, he said they were there, and that there are still parts of those old bombs there.
- Mvandenbergh 13y agoNot really a surprise, given the role of nuclear deterrence in NATO strategy.
- arethuza 13y agoI wonder if the people of the Netherlands feel so threatened that they need this level of deterrence? I'm not that far from the Netherlands and I must admit that I fail to see why these weapons being there makes us any safer.
- hatsuseno 13y agoIf the fact that these nukes are stored in the Netherlands is kept from the public in general, and only leaks out every now and then, they must not be meant to make the population feel safer. They're probably just there as part of concessions made after WW2, where the USA wanted to extend it's reach into eastern Europe.
- lucb1e 13y agoI'm in NL; not worried at all.
- dsl 13y agoWould you be worried if you were facing World War II Germany? The whole point of a deterrence is to provide you with piece of mind.
- lucb1e 13y agoWhat do you mean, World War III starting or what? I'd think we're rather on the same side as most surrounding countries.
- arethuza 13y agoI can actually remember what it was like during the Cold War and I can assure you that one thing that deterrence does not do is provide peace of mind for anyone.
- digitalengineer 13y agoSilly bombs. Not like the Russians invade our Dutch (European) air space every other month or so... Oh, wait they do! Russian nuclear bombers (TU-95) do in fact invade our airspace on a regular basis. I can hear the F-16 Quick Reaction Force scramble every now and then. http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_16_s_onderscheppen_russische_bommenwerpers http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_...
- t0mas88 13y ago[conspiraciy mode] They made a deal with the Russians to fly-by once every 6 weeks to make sure we can justify spending 7.6 billion euros on the JSF program ;-) [/conspiraciy mode]
- arethuza 13y agoLooks to me more like simple macho posturing by Putin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa
- digitalengineer 13y agoGood find! From the article: "In another move with cold war overtones, Russia took the BBC's Russian-language FM broadcasts off the air. The Moscow distributor of the broadcasts said the programmes were "foreign propaganda." Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.
- arethuza 13y agoI can remember the Cold War rhetoric quite clearly - we were told that the Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap and drag us all of to Gulags. Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West, which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country. My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a bad idea when you are facing an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather than threats. I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.
- config_yml 13y agoI think this is part of NATO weapons sharing. Italy and Germany (and possibly other NATO states) store them as well.
- angersock 13y agoThe only people allowed to proliferate these weapons are of course NATO. It's only reasonable. :\
- div 13y agoCablegate pretty much confirmed the (until then assumed) storage of US nuclear weapons in Kleine Brogel, Belgium.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoYup. “As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy. Canada hosted weapons until 1984, and Greece until 2001. The United Kingdom also received U.S. tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany. In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing Also, let’s not forget the US has 2,150 active warheads in total; the vast majority of those are located on American soil.
- pr0filer__ 13y agoI would have been startled if they didn't keep any. Also Dutch/NL here.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoI don’t think the title is accurate. Former prime minister Ruud Lubbers told National Geographic that nuclear bombs were stored at Volkel Air Base in the past. However, he said that only parts of those bombs are still present at the site. Also, they’re decades old, so fairly outdated. Because of their limited purpose, Lubbers said the remaining parts should be done away with. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2F2013%2F06%2F10%2Foppositie-wil-kernwapens-weg-uit-nederland%2F&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
- dm2 13y agoThere are also hundreds of nuclear missiles and thousands of nuclear warheads stored in the oceans all around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_mi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile This part is VERY interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile#Conventional_Trident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile#Conventional_Tr... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States#United_States_strategic_nuclear_weapons_arsenal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_... Wow, in 1967 the US had 31,000 nuclear warheads.
- VLM 13y agoI'm confused, probably intentionally, about who owns what where (merely the basic task of journalism) What I do know is there's a report of some bombs at Volkel field. And the US Air Force 52nd fighter wing has a MUNSS unit based on that field. So if the MUNSS isn't hovering over bombs like a hen hatching its eggs, what exactly are they doing? It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the lease. For example my swinging bachelor pad lease specifically contained a "no dogs" clause so in a similar way, what if any written rules they have about B61s and the like. If the lease permits it, it doesn't seem to be much of a story. If the lease specifically bans them, then the question is will the landlord kick them out and/or keep the security deposit?
- runarb 13y agoI am not familiar with the law in The Netherlands, but possession of a nuclear weapon is probably something one would need to clear with the government, regarding the terms on ones lease. The bombs are a part of the "Nuclear sharing" initiative, where they are under the direct control of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
- msantos 13y agoWhether there are nukes stored in the Volkel Air Base or not is debatable. But that place surely is more secretive than any other base in the Netherlands. Here's the official "map" of the base http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/volkelmap.jpg http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/volkelmap.jpg And here is a post highlighting the Base's obscurity http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/28/volkel/ http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/28/volkel/
- bobsy 13y agoOn the topic of nukes. What is the point of them... Conventional warfare.. you cannot send in nukes before your troops to soften up the enemy. Assuming you lose an invasion you cannot send them in after you pull your troops out. You cannot use them for precision strikes. You cannot use them over your own country should it get invaded. Apparently they are a deterrent from getting nuked yourself. Are they though? Nukes blow up civilians. Civilians do not press the big red button. Crack pot lunatics do from some deep underground bunker. Would you really launch a counter-strike killing potentially millions of civilians. I wouldn't. You don't answer genocide with genocide. The only use I can see is a small tactical nuke which could be used to blow up an enemy fleet at sea. Even then, launching the nuke in way that it wouldn't get intercepted I guess would be difficult. The implications for such a use would also be pretty profound. In the UK the Government want to / will renew trident. The UK nuke system. I don't really understand why. The cost is in the billions. The weapon is unsafe, as well as expensive to protect and maintain. I don't know what the current state of the UN is right now is but it seems to me a better solution would be to give the UN 50 nukes or whatever. The UN then becomes the deterrent. Pass a resolution. 'Those who use Nuclear weapons will be counter-nuked.' Other nations can then give them up. The only danger with nukes is that only one country has them. They can then threaten others 'Do as I say or be obliterated.' Realistically though so many countries know how to make nukes I can't imagine it would take too long to rearm in this scenario.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- guiomie 13y agoNukes are political/psychological tools. You'd rather be the guy with nukes, then without in my opinion. I'm sure you'd love every country simply not having any nukes, but I'm afraid this situation is impossible.
- arethuza 13y agoHere is a good article by Charlie Stross (HN cstross) on how silly the UK's "indepedent" deterrent is: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-nuclear-disarmam.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u... Another reason why other might people might want to worry a bit about UK nukes is that our Trident submarines are unique in that they don't have PALs - they do not require any authorization through the chain of command to launch weapons - they can do it all by themselves if they wanted to. Of course, being the RNs finest they are probably pretty decent chaps... [NB Charlie does say the UK Tridents have US PALs - I need to check that, my understanding is they don't due to fear of a decapitation strike and the famous Letters of Last Resort]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
- runarb 13y ago> Experts told the Telegraaf the bombs are B61 nuclear weapons and up to four > times as powerful as the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Som expert. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons and Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. The B61 on the other hand is up to 340 kilotons, or up to 21 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Why can't journalist newer understand that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was relatively small compared to the thermonuclear weapons we have today.
- 542458 13y agoFour times the blast radius of the weapon used on Nagasaki.
- dirktheman 13y agoOh please. It's common knowledge these things have been stored here, as well as other parts of the world. They're cold war relics, stored near the borders of the former cold war countries. I mean, they had a complete air base (Soesterberg) here in the Netherlands, which was actually part of US territory. Complete with border crossings! They left the base in 2008, it makes for a pretty good museum about aviation history now.
- _k 13y agoThey have nuclear bombs in Belgium as well. It has been in the news, they are probably in Kleine Brogel.
- plantain 13y agoThe Telegraaf says former prime minister Ruud Lubbers has confirmed the bombs are being kept at the base in a National Geographic documentary. Inside a National Geographic documentary doesn't seem like a particularly secure storage place. I would have thought, y'know, a vault or something.
- 1morepassword 13y agoThis is pretty much a public secret, including the location (there aren't that many potential secure locations in NL). I vaguely remember protesting against this back in the eighties.
- thinkling 13y agoI'm not sure this is of great interest to HN overall, but as perspective to those who weren't in Europe in the 1980s: This is interesting to the Dutch in particular, because the political decision to accept or reject (American) cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on Dutch territory was highly, highly controversial in the mid-1980s. There was a substantial division in the population on the topic, and it was the subject of some of the largest public protests seen in the country. We learned in the past few years that nuclear weapons were allowed to be stored anyway, and now we learn that the prime minister of the era knew that all this civic debate was in fact moot, as he had been aware for 20 years that there were already nuclear weapons in place. That's interesting to me and I think it leaves room for reflection and debate about the functioning of a democracy.