Expanding Nuclear Bootprint

From END Info 32 | Download

Tom Unterrainer, Editorial Comments

The potential return of US nuclear bombs to the UK was announced without fanfare and – more importantly – without any discussion, debate, deliberation or the opportunity for dissent within Britain’s democratic institutions.

There was no official announcement from the British government. No ministerial statement to Parliament. No press conference with representatives from the US Department of Defense. There wasn’t even a distinct press or information release from United States government.

When the government was asked about this development by the Green MP, Caroline Lucas, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence James Heappey gave the following non-reply:

“The is unable to comment on US spending decisions and capabilities, which are a matter for the . It remains longstanding and policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location.”

News of this development emerged only after Hans Kristensen, from the Federation of American Scientists, noticed the addition of the UK to the list of nuclear storage sites to be upgraded under NATO’s $384 million infrastructure investment programme. In the 2022 US Department of Defense budget, storage sites in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey were listed. In the 2023 budget, the UK appears on the list.

Let’s untangle this a little. Nuclear developments have almost always operated under a veil of secrecy. For instance, Britain’s atomic programme was done in secret, with not even the then-Cabinet of Her Majesty’s Government being notified. More recently, the current government announced in its Integrated Review that it would “no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers”.

Secrecy – or, at the very least a lack of transparency – extends to the arrangements under which the United States stations nuclear bombs elsewhere in Europe. The US and NATO have never been 100% clear on the numbers of nuclear bombs stationed under nuclear sharing arrangements.

When asked about the possibility of further US nuclear weapons coming to Europe under NATO auspices, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said – in December 2021 – “we have no plans of stationing any nuclear weapons in any other countries than we already have these nuclear weapons as part of our deterrence and that … have been there for many years.”

Stoltenberg’s comments have been interpreted as meaning that although Lakenheath’s nuclear storage facilities are to be updated, NATO has ruled out the stationing of US nukes for the time being. I do not think this makes very much sense. I would interpret Stoltenberg’s comments another way. Throughout, he is speaking as the head of NATO. When he says “we” and “our”, he is talking about the nuclear-armed alliance. In this context it is worth noting that the UK’s nuclear weapons are counted as part of NATO’s ‘nuclear capabilities’ and have been for “many years”. This response from Stoltenberg is typical of the prevalent opacity when it comes to nuclear questions.

RAF Lakenheath was the place where the US Air Force stored nuclear gravity bombs. By the early 2000s, 110 B61 bombs were stored there and US F-15E aircraft were stationed there for the purpose of dropping these bombs on command of the President of the United States.

These bombs were removed – without fanfare – in the later 2000’s and it was only in 2008 that their total removal was confirmed. For the first time since 1954, the United States did not store nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.

It had already been announced that Lakenheath was to become the first location in Europe for the new US Air Force nuclear-capable F35 fighter-bombers. These arrived in December last year. 24 of them are stationed at the base and the US Air Force is scheduled to commence training for the use of the new generation of guided nuclear bombs, the B61-12’s in the coming year. These bombs will go into production very shortly. According to Hans Kristensen, these bombs look set for shipping to Europe in 2023 where they will replace the B61-3 and 4’s already stationed.

So, it looks almost certain that the US intends to station nuclear bombs in the UK again. This is a major development and one that should be taken very seriously indeed. We are not alone in taking this development seriously: our friends in the European and wider peace, anti-war and anti-nuclear movements are alert to what is happening and they stand with us in our opposition.

Even without the massively increased nuclear tensions that have been developing over the past few years, and which have become even more acute over the past months, our opposition would be sharp.

We know that even in the most stable of times, increasing the US’s nuclear bootprint would create instability. We are not living through particularly stable times.

We know that regardless of other circumstances, a nuclear storage site and an airbase for nuclear capable bombers becomes a target for a nuclear strike. We need to make everyone aware of this risk and link it to all of the other very good reasons for opposing nuclear weapons.

We know that every new nuclear development brings with it new risks, new dangers and new threats in local, regional, national and international contexts.