Since the governments of those countries have not requested that the nukes leave, i suspect that they will stay. Along with the thousands of troops.

I agree that's the theory Nygdan but then I wonder just how few people are aware of this kind of information.

Sooner or later the people of Europe will begin to start talking about this and pressurising their govs about the continuing US presence.
Remember the anti-nuclear demos in Europe not so long ago?
European people really do not like these things being around - especially if they have no actual 'mission' and are, as the article says, there for 'political purposes' now.

Why are they still there? What are these hundreds of nuclear weapons doing on our territory?

None of this would be acceptable to Americans were the situation reversed so why should we tolerate this situation or this kind of behaviour from those who are supposed to be our friends and allies?

At the very least those nuclear weapons should be returned to the USA for storage ASAP.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Boldly Posted!
I suppose if this thread starts, bombs will be going off all over..
Dallas

Those weapons are there as part of MAD which is still in effect i might add even with the end of the cold war. So the mission is not over and the job is not done. Actually it will probably get worse now that north korea admits it has nukes and iran is about to get them in a few years. The world is on the verge of another nuclear arms race.













[edit on 10-2-2005 by transient]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I agree that's the theory Nygdan but then I wonder just how few people are aware of this kind of information.

Sooner or later the people of Europe will begin to start talking about this and pressurising their govs about the continuing US presence.
Remember the anti-nuclear demos in Europe not so long ago?
European people really do not like these things being around - especially if they have no actual 'mission' and are, as the article says, there for 'political purposes' now.

Why are they still there? What are these hundreds of nuclear weapons doing on our territory?

Ukraine. Georgia. Concentration of executive power in the hands of putin. An unstable situation in the balkans that can potentially lead to russian action.

None of this would be acceptable to Americans were the situation reversed

America wasn't saved from nazi totalitarianism and soviet expansionism by europe tho.

so why should we tolerate this situation or this kind of behaviour from those who are supposed to be our friends and allies?

What kind of behaviour?

At the very least those nuclear weapons should be returned to the USA for storage ASAP.

Why? What difference does it make? Storage? Meaning that if europe is threatened then the US should bring them back?

Europe doesn't spend as much on it military as the US. The US protected Europe from the nazis, and the nukes and bases were part of a soviet protection plan. Now all of a sudden they are offensive? I'm just trying to understand, I mean, do you think that the removal of the nukes from europe would result in a change of the geopolitical situation for europe? Would this be a good or a bad change? What are the relative benefits and detriments?

as posted by sminkeypinkey
The Russians left Europe 15yrs ago, thanks and all America but it's long since time you took all your nightmare stuff and left too.

Sminkeypinkey, have you researched as to why those weapons are still there? Just when they were placed there? What agreements were made for them being there? Do those agreements prevent those weapons from being returned or moved?



seekerof

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Over 100 nuclear weapons stored on British soil and nearly 500 in Europe in total.

I think it's time the US looked after this dangerous stuff on it's own soil, not ours.

Umm...doesn't Britian and France have nukes?
What's the diff?

WHY does some countries have the right to have nukes and some don't???? Why the USA are not getting attacked because they have nukes and other countries are even if they don't have nukes? Is it because USA is hypocrite????

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ukraine. Georgia. Concentration of executive power in the hands of putin. An unstable situation in the balkans that can potentially lead to russian action.

- Naaa, I don't think so.

.....and as for the Balkans? Well if Russia didn't march before when they had a wholescale war going on why fear they will now?

I do not see an attack on Europe coming from Russia or the Ukraine or Georgia. The biggest problem I see mostly coming from those guys is adequate storage and maintenance of their missiles and bombs.

....and if an attack in the imagined old-style ever was to be threatened then we have our own nuclear response available.

Given the state of the Russian military and their complete lack of any interest in going back to that kind of nonsense I fail to see why we should act as if it might be a possibility.

America wasn't saved from nazi totalitarianism and soviet expansionism by europe tho.

- ....and what?
We are free sovereign peoples, why should we have a permanent US presence?

Do you actually imagine a permanent presence?
If not then just when should the US go?

Like I said it's all a long time ago now and the threats to Europe have gone.

.....and anyone who wishes to fantasize that north Korea or China equate to any kind of threat that necessitates a huge US presence with large stock-piles of nuclear weapons in Europe is simply wrong IMO.

What kind of behaviour?

- The kind of behaviour that involves the storage of several hundred nuclear weapons on our soil without any kind of public consent for a start.....along with the general whole arrangement simply being taken for granted that we should simply treat as 'normal' the fact that over 100 000 US military personnel are still based in Europe.

Why? What difference does it make?

- Your weapons your rish having them lying around.

Storage? Meaning that if europe is threatened then the US should bring them back?

- That would depend on the circumstances and the treaty obligation I suppose.

Europe doesn't spend as much on it military as the US. The US protected Europe from the nazis, and the nukes and bases were part of a soviet protection plan. Now all of a sudden they are offensive?

- No, now the threats have passed and I think you should take this stuff home along with the vast bulk of the forces stationed in Europe.

I'm just trying to understand, I mean, do you think that the removal of the nukes from europe would result in a change of the geopolitical situation for europe? Would this be a good or a bad change? What are the relative benefits and detriments?

- I see no reason for the US to maintain the huge presence in Europe. For exactly the same reasons the US would never tolerate anything like the same level of European presence in the continental USA.

WW2 ended 60yrs ago this year, the cold war 15yrs ago.

Time to go.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

sminkeypinkey.


I still wonder why it's okay for the USA to proliferate and breed WMDs - but not okay for anyone else to do it. ...???

Another one of life's confusing mysteries.



.

Originally posted by Amelia
WHY does some countries have the right to have nukes and some don't

Every country has the right to develop nukes. The US and other powers have decided that that 'right' is to be abbrogated.

Why the USA are not getting attacked because they have nukes

Because the US has nukes.

Is it because USA is hypocrite

Sure, why not. Thats as good an answer as any really.

Although, in another sense its not really 'hypocritical' as much as its simply position, 'we have them, we don't want you to have them, so we will stop you from having them', rather than 'sure you can have them' and then attacking when they do.

---

Sp
Naaa, I don't think so.

I was thinking more along the lines of Russian intervention in the ukraine and georgia and NATO or EU actions there.

We are free sovereign peoples, why should we have a permanent US presence?

Certainly, if the peoples of Europe want the US out then the US has to leave. I'm merely suggesting that the peoples of europe might be better off with american protection. Although, in the long run, europe would be better off investing in its military and creating a force similar to that of the US on its own.

Do you actually imagine a permanent presence?

Sure, why not?

Like I said it's all a long time ago now and the threats to Europe have gone.

Well, I am skeptical as to how 'aggressive' russia would be anyway, tho the possibility is there. But I'd think that a removal of massive US firepower and troop presense would change the geostrategic situation in europe drastically, and that this in itself, change, might not be desirable.

and anyone who wishes to fantasize that north Korea or China equate to any kind of threat

No, that would be unreasonable. I don't think a consideration of Russian intentions is 'unreasonable' tho. Unlikely admitedly, but not 'unreasonable'.

The kind of behaviour that involves the storage of several hundred nuclear weapons on our soil without any kind of public consent for a start

Why would the US even be permitted to pole the peoples of the various countries as to that matter? The US gov can only directly deal with those people's gov.

along with the general whole arrangement simply being taken for granted that we should simply treat as 'normal' the fact that over 100 000 US military personnel are still based in Europe.

Thats not something that only americans are guilty of tho, tho I will agree, the situation isn't strictly speaking 'normal'.

Your weapons your rish having them lying around.

Ah, so the concern is mainly that the weapons themselves, regardless of usage or wether they provoke or prevent attack, might in and of themselves by dangerous. A valid concern, but does it outweigh any benefits? Do you see any benefits, even if they are outweighed by these detriments?

That would depend on the circumstances and the treaty obligation I suppose.

I would have to say that it'd be pointless to request that they be removed but have any expectation of having them brought back in.

---

soficrow
still wonder why it's okay for the USA to proliferate and breed WMDs

How does the US do this? The US has reduced its stockpile dramatically. True enough, its considering testing nad developing new sorts of weapons, but is that proliferation, when taken into account with the other reduction? If the US can reduce its stockpile even further, but would have to test some current ones, and build some new ones (but, agian, still dramatically reduce that stockpile from what it is right now), is that not anti-proliferation?

Well, I don't know why are you talking about it to the Americans. They are surely not forcing the UK to keep them there. Complain to YOUR goverment first. And I don't know why complaining about US nukes, when UK surely has some too.
BTW US military presence in EU they are planing to move most of the soldiers further east, but guess what? The Germany doesn't want them to go (100 000 soldiers has quite a positive impact on their economy).

Originally posted by Nygdan
I was thinking more along the lines of Russian intervention in the ukraine and georgia and NATO or EU actions there.

- Ok, but I don't see a world that has effectively ok'd anything Russia does in Chechnya as getting that worked up about either of those states.
In any case the Ukraine seem to be managing ok now they've settled their polling problems, the first thing the new guy did was go see Putin.

.....a permanent presence? Sure, why not?

- That in itself I do not see as a problem but on the current scale?! Naaa.

Well, I am skeptical as to how 'aggressive' russia would be anyway, tho the possibility is there.

- I think it's a possibility that grows ever more remote as Russians demand their gov attend to their own problems....and boy do they have some difficulties that need attending.

But I'd think that a removal of massive US firepower and troop presense would change the geostrategic situation in europe drastically, and that this in itself, change, might not be desirable.

- I can understand that point. But I think it's one of those double edged things. Whatever the initial difficulties I think in the longer term we all benefit if we normalise things.

Why would the US even be permitted to pole the peoples of the various countries as to that matter? The US gov can only directly deal with those people's gov.

- That is so, but I do find it rather suspicious and pretty disturbing that the national govs seem to prefer to let this quietly lie rather than actually seek the people's consent or approval.....a shallow and tenuous basis for all this, no?

Ah, so the concern is mainly that the weapons themselves, regardless of usage or wether they provoke or prevent attack, might in and of themselves by dangerous.

- Hell yes; that too!

In the same way as I see any kind of attack unlikely I'd say that they, in themselves, will be just as unlikely to provoke or prevent an attack.
I don't believe they're really about that now.
It's politics and I don't think political posturing justifies the risks nuclear weapons entail.

A valid concern, but does it outweigh any benefits? Do you see any benefits, even if they are outweighed by these detriments?

- In the current situation I can see benefits to their removal.
Russia has been dragging her feet on the removal and destruction of 'theatre' weapons because of these. I would rather see them all go.

If we are to be stuck with the damn things then I'd rather as few as possible were around.

I would have to say that it'd be pointless to request that they be removed but have any expectation of having them brought back in.

- Well that would depend on the maintenace of sensible relations and our obvious shared interests, it might even be that by removing them in times when there is no obvious 'need' the European public might not be so hostile to them in any actual times of need, their possible return and any subsequent actual return might be a nice relatively safe intermediate step in any times of tension too, their actual use and effectiveness improved no?

Originally posted by Longbow
Well, I don't know why are you talking about it to the Americans. They are surely not forcing the UK to keep them there.

- Frankly given the levels of secrecy surrounding the entire 'defense' issue - particularly in an ultra secret state like the UK with out 'Crown perogatives etc - God knows what treaty obligations ensure there is God knows what kept on British soil.

Complain to YOUR goverment first.

- Oh people do you know.

And I don't know why complaining about US nukes, when UK surely has some too.

- Of course I know that.
But what kind of an arguement is that?!
Looking after our own nuclear weaponry is one thing but having the US keep some of theirs on our (rather small) island for no apparant good reason is quite another.

BTW US military presence in EU they are planing to move most of the soldiers further east, but guess what? The Germany doesn't want them to go (100 000 soldiers has quite a positive impact on their economy).

- No doubt some will go to the newer NATO members. (Hmmm, basing US troops closer to Russia, yeah that'll help relations with the Russians)

But I wouldn't believe everything you read about the supposed desire for US troops in Europe.

In any case as your dollar continues to drop in value and the cost of keeping 100 000+ here escalates your own gov will be pulling many of them back soon enough.