By Caitlin Johnstone, Substack, 6/18/24
So I guess we should probably talk about the way NATO powers are rapidly escalating toward hot war with Russia at the same time the US is expanding its draft policies to make it easier to force more Americans go and fight in a giant war.
In an article titled “NATO: 500,000 Troops on High Readiness for War With Russia,” Antiwar’s Kyle Anzalone highlights NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comments on Friday stating the alliance actually has a far greater number of troops it could deploy than the 300,000 it had previously set as its goal.
“Allies are offering forces to NATO’s command at a scale not seen in decades,” Stoltenberg said on Friday. “ Today we have 500,000 troops at high readiness across all domains, significantly more than the goal that was set at the 2022 Madrid Summit.”
Anzalone writes the following:
“The alliance hit its goal as its members significantly ratcheted up support for Kiev in recent weeks. The US and several other nations also recently gave a green light for Ukraine to use their weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
“The Netherlands and Denmark plan to supply Kiev with F-16s in the coming months, and say the advanced aircraft could be used to bomb Russia. Stoltenberg added that he welcomes the policy shift, and said it should not be considered an escalation by Russia.”
This comes shortly after we learned that NATO is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush troops to the frontline of a future hot war with Russia in eastern Europe.
It also comes as we learn from Stoltenberg that NATO is considering increasing the number of nuclear weapons it has on standby, meaning ready to use in a nuclear war. White House spokesman John Kirby bizarrely told the press that this aggressive move should not be seen as a provocation towards Russia, because NATO is a “defensive alliance”.
“How can this not be perceived as provocation or an escalation of tension in Europe?” Kirby was asked regarding Stoltenberg’s recent comments.
“Who would perceive it as a provocation or an escalation?” Kirby responded.
“Russia,” the reporter answered.
“Oh, Russia, Russia, the same country that invaded Ukraine which posed absolutely no threat to them,” Kirby replied indignantly, saying, “NATO is a defensive alliance and NATO countries are some of the most sophisticated in the world when it comes to military capabilities. And it would be irresponsible and imprudent if we weren’t constantly talking to our NATO allies about how to make sure we can meet our commitments to one another across a range of military capabilities, and that’s as far as I’ll go.”
One of the dumbest things the empire asks us to believe these days is that surrounding its official enemies with existentially threatening war machinery should always be seen as a defensive measure. The last time a credible military threat was placed near the US border, Washington responded so aggressively the world almost ended. Yet nations like Russia and China are expected to let the US and its allies amass military threats right near their borders without even regarding this as a provocation.
This and other frightening nuclear escalations with Russia are happening at the same time US lawmakers are working to expand draft registration to women and to automate registration for men, both of which would help broaden the pool of warm bodies the US would have available to throw into a hot war with a major military power.
Edward Hasbrouck writes the following for Antiwar:
“The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved a version of the NDAA that would expand Selective Service registration to include young women as well as young men. This version of the NDAA will now go to the floor as the starting point for consideration and approval by the full Senate.
“Also on June 14th the full House of Representatives approved a different version of the NDAA that would make Selective Service registration automatic while keeping it for men only.”
As Reason’s CJ Ciaramella explains in an article about this move to automate draft registration, the official reason for this push is to make the system run more efficiently, but “The other, unspoken effect would be removing young men’s choice to engage in civil disobedience.” If the US war machine starts a new horrific conflict that the Zoomers don’t believe in, ideally you want to make it as hard as possible for them to resist being fed to the cannons.
The draft is one of those things that gets more disgusting the more you think about it, especially in a nation whose government is as belligerent and psychopathic as the USA’s. These freaks can engage in any amount of brinkmanship they like with nations they have no business fighting — all without any of their actions ever being put to a vote from the general public — and then if it goes hot they get to turn to a bunch of kids in their teens and early twenties and say “This isn’t our problem, it’s your problem. Go fight and kill and die for your country.” They can start a war with their own recklessness and then chill out and sip martinis while your kids go get killed in it.
This is evil, this is ugly, and it needs to stop.
***
Why is NATO expanding its nuclear force?
By Stephen Bryen, Asia Times, 6/18/24
Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of NATO, says that the alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”
He explained: “NATO’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons. But as long as nuclear weapons exist we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons and NATO does not is a more dangerous world.”
The Russians say that Stoltenberg’s nuclear weapons declaration was “bully tactics.“
Stoltenberg could not act on NATO’s nuclear deterrent without deep coordination with the United States. Thus the NATO expansion of nuclear weapons has to be a Biden administration policy and program.
Nuclear sharing in NATO
NATO’s nuclear deterrence is based on nuclear sharing arrangements. As described officially,
NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, as well as on the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. A number of NATO countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear weapons in a conflict, and personnel are trained accordingly.
The United States maintains absolute control and custody of their nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, while Allies provide military support for the DCA mission with conventional forces and capabilities.
While NATO’s nuclear weapons are American, the UK and France have nuclear weapons too.
US nuclear weapons stored in Europe are nuclear gravity bombs that can be launched either by NATO aircraft or by the US operating independently of NATO.
Technically, nuclear gravity bombs fall into the category of tactical nuclear weapons. The US, UK and France also deploy strategic nuclear weapons in and around Europe. The UK has around 225 nuclear warheads (more than half in storage) for its Trident nuclear submarine program. The British nuclear capability requires US coordination.
France is the only NATO country with a fully independent nuclear arsenal. It consists of ballistic missile submarines and a small number of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. The French have floated the idea of replacing the US nuclear deterrent with a French one and there have been discussions with Germany about the idea.
To some degree, Stoltenberg’s announcement on upgrading NATO’s nuclear alliance could be interpreted as offsetting French pressure to diverge from the US-led deterrent in Europe.
There has long been suspicion in Europe that the US would not launch nuclear weapons to defend European territory because of the risk of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. To an unknown extent, the presence of tactical nuclear weapons (under US control) is intended to enable the US to use the tactical part of its nuclear arsenal – reducing the risk of a strategic nuclear exchange with Russia.
Yet it is certainly the case that Stoltenberg’s emphasis on NATO as a nuclear alliance was primarily intended to offset fears that Russia could turn to nuclear weapons to settle the Ukraine conflict. Compared with the US, Russia has a vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. And many of its tactical missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads. In fact, the Ukrainians have been warning Europe that this is exactly what Russia could do.
The Russians have been conducting nuclear exercises and claim to have put nuclear weapons in Belarus, although none have been spotted there as of now. Likewise the US has been flying its strategic bombers close to Russia’s borders, as a US warning.
Ukraine has also attacked two sensitive radar sites that are important parts of Russia’s early warning system. It is not clear why these targets were selected whether by Ukraine or by NATO, which supplies the weapons and intelligence for these attacks.
NATO relies on nuclear gravity bombs for deterrence. These weapons would be delivered against Russian targets by NATO aircraft. About 150 bombs are stored at six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. These are part of NATO’s nuclear sharing agreement.
In addition, the US announced in January that it was upgrading parts of the RAF Airbase at Lakenheath, Suffolk, in the UK. There a special squadron, the 48th Security Force, of F-35s will be capable of carrying B-61 gravity bombs. The US is building special hydraulic loading ramps, upgrading storage facilities and installing a nuclear “shield” to protect personnel at the base.
These F-35s will be operated solely by US pilots and are outside of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement – meaning that their mission could be linked to NATO’s security and deterrence but could be used outside of any general NATO agreement.
US B-61 gravity bombs are close to completing a modernization program (Mod 12). The B-61 is a “dial-a-yield” weapon, meaning that the bomb yield can be adjusted to fit specific targets. The US also will retain some Mod 11 B-61 bombs.
The Mod 11 B-61 is regarded as a bunker buster bomb and is not “dial a yield.” It has a special 400 kiloton warhead. About 30 of these bombs were manufactured. It is not clear if they are deployed in Europe.
The Mod 12 B-61 can select yields (in kilotons) from .3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kt. For comparison purposes, the Hiroshima bomb was between 11 and 16 kt.
The modernization of the B-61 requires the modernization of the delivery systems, including changes in the aircraft’s electronics. There is very little information on how quickly the upgrades and changes can be made. New F-35s can carry B-61 bombs if they are equipped to do so. It isn’t known how many of the F-35’s delivered to Europe are nuclear capable.
Many unanswered questions
It is important to point out that neither the US nor NATO has any treaty obligation, or any other responsibility, to protect Ukraine from a nuclear attack. Thus NATO deterrence, at least insofar as it is understood, does not apply to Ukraine in any formal manner. But that does not mean that Stoltenberg, and by proxy the United States, is not shifting the alliance to extending a nuclear umbrella over Ukraine.
One reason to assess there may be a change in strategy underway is the NATO-US decision to unleash long-range weapons in Ukraine on Russian territory.
In the proxy wars prior to Ukraine, the US and Russia have been careful to avoid directly attacking each other. That is why Truman was against US forces crossing the Yalu River in Korea; why neither China nor Russia was attacked in the Vietnam war; why in the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy refused any nuclear attack on Cuba and the Soviet Union.
But there were moments when tensions grew to approach the nuclear threshold. That was especially the case in 1973 when Russia began threatening intervention with nuclear weapons in the Yom Kippur war, and when the US declared a DEFCON-3 alert.
In the context of superpower rivalries, and proxy and other conflicts (the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a proxy conflict but a direct confrontation between the US and USSR), NATO-approved attacks on Russian territory appear to cross a dangerous red line.
When combined with the no-negotiations, no-talks, no-peace posture of the US and most of Europe regarding Ukraine, the danger of an expanding conflict – even one involving nuclear weapons – is increasing. Upgrading nuclear arsenals in that context adds fuel to the fire.