By Cliff Montgomery – Feb. 26th, 2017
Some U.S. analysts in and out of government have “called for the deployment of greater numbers and types of nuclear weapons in Europe, in response to Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine and its apparent increased reliance on nuclear weapons,” according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
We at the Spark would like to note that when the officials of any powerful nation start to grandstand about another government’s ‘brutal aggressions’, those complaining officials almost never care about the people they claim are being brutalized.
In almost every case, the real issue comes down to a fight over natural resources like oil, coal or methane gas.
We believe the lust for those lucrative natural resources is the actual cause of just about every recent flare-up between the U.S. and Russian governments. Yesterday, Newsweek published an article titled, Why Putin’s Russia Is Beating The U.S. In The Race To Control The Arctic, which pointed out that:
“U.S. and European oil companies have long fantasized about tapping the Arctic’s abundant reserves – the U.S. Geological Survey estimates they make up to 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its natural gas. Now, as rising temperatures cause more ice to melt, which is clearing Arctic seas, the trillion-dollar race to own the region’s riches is on.”
Remember that filthy fight for lucre as you read about things like Putin’s “aggression against Ukraine” – a country which just happens to possess impressive stores of coal, iron and methane gas.
Below, the Spark quotes nearly all of the CRS report’s official introduction:
“In late January 2015, Representatives Mike Rogers and Mike Turner, both members of the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to then-Secretary of State John Kerry and then- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, seeking information about the agreements that would be needed and costs that might be incurred if the United States sought to deploy dual-capable aircraft and nuclear bombs at bases on the territories of NATO members in eastern Europe.
“Neither NATO, as an organization, nor any of the nations who are members of NATO have called on the United States to pursue such deployments.
“However, Representatives Rogers and Turner noted that Russian actions in 2014—including aggression against Ukraine, non-compliance with the 1987 INF Treaty, and threats to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea—have threatened European security and warrant a more potent U.S. response.
“Some analysts outside government have also called for the deployment of greater numbers or and types of nuclear weapons in Europe in response to Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine and its apparent increased reliance on nuclear weapons.
“Others, however, have argued that more nuclear weapon would do little to enhance NATO’s security and that NATO would be better served by enhancing its conventional capabilities.
“This interest in possible new deployments of U.S. non-strategic, or shorter-range, nuclear weapons differs sharply from previous years, when Members of Congress, while concerned about Russia’s larger stockpile of such weapons, seemed more interested in limiting these weapons through arms control than expanding U.S. deployments.
“During the Senate debate on the new U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2010, many Members noted that this treaty did not impose any limits on non-strategic nuclear weapons.
“Many also noted that Russia possessed a far greater number of these systems than did the United States.
“Some expressed particular concerns about the threat that Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons might pose to U.S. allies in Europe, [while] others argued that these weapons might be vulnerable to theft or sale to nations or groups seeking their own nuclear weapons.
“In response to these concerns, the Senate, in its Resolution of Ratification on New START, stated that the United States should seek to initiate within one year, ‘negotiations with the Russian Federation on an agreement to address the disparity between the non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation and of the United States and to secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.’
“In addition, in the FY2013 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310, Section 1037), Congress again indicated that ‘the United States should pursue negotiations with the Russian Federation aimed at the reduction of Russian deployed and non-deployed non-strategic nuclear forces.”
“Although the United States did raise the issue of negotiations on non-strategic nuclear weapons with Russia within the year after New START entered into force, the two nations have not moved forward with efforts to negotiate limits on these weapons.
“Russia has expressed little interest in such a negotiation, and has stated that it will not even begin the process until the United States removes its non-strategic nuclear weapons from bases in Europe.
“According to U.S. officials, the United States and NATO have been trying to identify and evaluate possible transparency measures and limits that might apply to these weapons. While some Members in the 114th Congress may continue to press the Administration to seek solutions to the potential risks presented by non-strategic nuclear weapons, others may join Representatives Rogers and Turner in calling on the United States to explore possible new deployments at bases in additional NATO nations.”
