The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the latest dead accord

As a pre-amble this piece on NATO nuclear capabilities is taken from www.armscontrol.org...

Slightly more than 180 B61 bombs are currently deployed in underground vaults inside 87 protective aircraft shelters at six bases in five NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey). About half of the bombs are earmarked for delivery by the national aircraft of these non-nuclear-weapon states, although they all are parties to the NPT and obliged “not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” In peacetime, the weapons at the national bases are under the control of a U.S. Air Force munitions support squadron, but in a war, the United States would hand over control of the weapons to the national pilots who would deliver the weapons and effectively violate the NPT at that moment.

The combination of a guided standoff nuclear bomb and a fifth-generation stealthy fighter-bomber will significantly enhance the military capability of NATO’s nuclear posture in Europe.[6] The upgrade contradicts the Obama administration’s pledge that LEPs “will not…provide for new military capabilities”[7] and NATO’s conclusion that its nuclear force posture “currently meets the criteria for an effective deterrence and defense posture.”[8] Neither the administration nor NATO has officially addressed this contradiction, but officials privately insist, incorrectly, that the B61-12 will not add military capabilities to NATO’s posture in Europe. Some NATO countries scheduled to receive the B61-12 have recently begun to ask questions about the B61-12 program via diplomatic channels.[9]

Note: These B61 will be deliverable by F-35s by 2024. Any nation that buys F-35s will have the capability to become 'nuclear powers' almost overnight when provided the arms by either NATO or directly by the U.S..

Now, after the 'agreement' with Iran, the WH has apparently offered additional defensive weapons to Israel as an appeasement to the Iran deal.

www.foxnews.com...

IMHO, we now face the inevitable future of a completely nuclear proliferated ME-and others outside the ME-as there is no consequence/enforcement of the NPT.

Cutting through all the rhetoric for and against Iranian Nuclear arms development, the only other likely scenario is a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

As the offer by the WH for defensive weapons are only for 'discussions'-one would assume strings attached to those weapons IF and only if, Israel doesn't move unilaterally.

Does Israel buy into this deal? I'd bet not.

To simplify, we are faced with non-NPT world and a virtually inevitable WWIII or a pre-emptive strike by Israel with a slightly less chance of an outright WWIII.

Could some other scenario play out? I sure hope so. The cold war era somehow avoided WWIII, it's not impossible.

What is the difference between defensive weapons and offensive weapons?

a reply to: JHumm

Off the top, I'd say for example, a Patriot Missile system is defensive in that it is for intercepting incoming missiles and wouldn't be useful offensively.

Access to intel, satellite imagery, computer systems, the like would fall in the defensive category.

Lots of goodies would overlap though. One of those typical, political grey areas....

a reply to: JHumm

An afterthought, the U.S. 'could' offer a real bone to Israel and throw in the Anti-ballistic missile system!

The rest of the world would cry bloody blue murder though. Envision an ICBM equipped nation WITH an ABM system!

The U.S. is the only country with that capability.....

Yes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead, it died when President Obama decided to make a deal with IRAN. As for the B61 nuclear bombs we are stationing in Europe this is old news. During the cold war, we did the same thing. In the event of a Soviet Military Invasion fought with purely conventional weapons, US and NATO forces would be push back to the English Channel in 6-7 days. The Soviets had the numerical advantage, so to level then playing field we deployed Pershing Missiles to Europe and we also had a stock pile of nuclear weapon we could quickly transfer to NATO countries in the event of a Soviet Invasion.

The only way to Prevent a Full blown Soviet Invasion was Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). And with current Russian actions in Eastern Europe with Crimea and Ukraine, nations in the region are on edge, so by reinstalling out nuclear deterrent we can stop any further Russian aggression.

a reply to: JHumm

Follow-up afterthought...LOL

If I was Israel, I'd demand the ABM system in exchange for agreeing not to strike Iran...

That would be a valid quid pro quo.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Russia must have some kind of ABM system right? I mean the US can't be the only country with both, since we know the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea plus probably countless others have nukes and would have a way to protect themselves from the same.

OK, I see, either way the grey area has to be pretty big right?
And I don't think that the US is the only one who has that kind of defensive weapons. I'm sure that Russia has their own version of these.

a reply to: thov420

If they do, I don't know about it. If one looks at the expenditures of the U.S. on their military, one can see where a lot of that money went. A pretty penny went to the 'multi-layered' ABM systems.

Ship borne missiles, land based ABMs, perhaps laser/particle beam systems(?)...well ahead of the pack in that regard.....as far as we know.....

a reply to: JHumm

Sorry, but the Russians are having problems even with their PAK-FA. Their engine development is just now matching the F-22 F-119 engine with 'bench tests" scheduled for next year. The F-119 is aq full generation-20 years old- ahead of Russia and China's are even worse.

The Russians have cut their first order of the PAK-FA to 12 planes. Money and technology issues.

The traditional advantages the U.S. had over the Soviet Union still seems in play...

a reply to: JBRiddle

I understand the positioning of nukes was 'old news'.

There was a thread in aircraft projects where the U.S. was developing a new nuke that would be deliverable only by the F-35.( To induce more F-35 sales?)

I couldn't find it.

Zaph said there were more reasons for this new weapon but chose not to elaborate...Cough, cough.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: JHumm

Follow-up afterthought...LOL

If I was Israel, I'd demand the ABM system in exchange for agreeing not to strike Iran...

That would be a valid quid pro quo.

We already give that welfare nation enough as it is there is no need for American give them anything more. If we were to give them anything then we should demand they allow inspections of their nuclear sites. If Israel wants to act like they are wearing big boy pants now let them attack Iran instead of crying for America to do the fighting for them.

a reply to: buster2010

Hi Buster....LOL

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Slightly more than 180 B61 bombs are currently deployed in underground vaults inside 87 protective aircraft shelters at six bases in five NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey). About half of the bombs are earmarked for delivery by the national aircraft of these non-nuclear-weapon states, although they all are parties to the NPT and obliged “not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” In peacetime, the weapons at the national bases are under the control of a U.S. Air Force munitions support squadron, but in a war, the United States would hand over control of the weapons to the national pilots who would deliver the weapons and effectively violate the NPT at that moment.

As soon as war is declared the NPT ceases to be in effect.....so no, it is not violated at all.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No its not.

UK has one.

Not as effective overall as the US though Im thinking but our Type 45 destroyers apprently have a good system. Our ground based system though is abit crap from what I hear but we have one.

France has one too and so does Russia and China but no idea on its capabilitys.

In fact the French, Italian and UK system is shared. Its called the Astor I think.

At the end of the day though ABM systems are liklely useless against advanced nuclear powers as the MIRV would overwelm them.

a reply to: crazyewok

Really! I wasn't aware of them...obviously. Have you a link on them?

I knew the ABM systems were for small/single missile attacks. They'd be overwhelmed by MIRVS. Although the ship borne units, at a guess, would get them outbound before 'mirving'. Likewise the big ground based systems.

Still, an ABM capability for Israel might be enough to appease them for the short term...

a reply to: crazyewok

Are these systems actually deployed, in-service systems?

I've seen outbound single ICBM flights out of Vandenberg AFB ten, fifteen years back...from as far as Arizona. At night they have a freaky white with a blue tint exhaust as it headed for the south pacific...to be shot down..

a reply to: buster2010

I suppose you fancy yourself some sort of expert

If we're at the point that those weapons are loaded and flying on host nation aircraft, I think an NPT violation is the least of our problems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You have anything on U.K., Russian, Chinese ABM systems?

Googling it seems to "dry up" after cold war examples...looks like a well filtered topic...