
22 American nuclear bombs are stored in The Netherlands - dutchbrit
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/22_american_nuclear_bombs_are.php
======
digitalengineer
Silly bombs. Not like the Russians invade our Dutch (European) air space every
other month or so... Oh, wait they do! Russian nuclear bombers (TU-95) _do in
fact invade our airspace on a regular basis_. I can hear the F-16 Quick
Reaction Force scramble every now and then.

[http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_...](http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_16_s_onderscheppen_russische_bommenwerpers)

~~~
t0mas88
[conspiraciy mode] They made a deal with the Russians to fly-by once every 6
weeks to make sure we can justify spending 7.6 billion euros on the JSF
program ;-) [/conspiraciy mode]

~~~
arethuza
Looks to me more like simple macho posturing by Putin:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa)

~~~
digitalengineer
Good find! From the article: "In another move with cold war overtones, Russia
took the BBC's Russian-language FM broadcasts off the air. The Moscow
distributor of the broadcasts said the programmes were "foreign propaganda."

Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe
has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.

~~~
arethuza
I can remember the Cold War rhetoric quite clearly - we were told that the
Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap and drag us all
of to Gulags.

Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West,
which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country.

My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised
that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a _bad_ idea when you are facing
an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the
Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for
helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather
than threats.

I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.

~~~
cema

      we were told that the Soviet tank armies were
      poised to pour through the Fulda Gap
    

Yes they were. I remember the official rhetoric from the days of my military
service (private in the Soviet Army) and the military studies in college
(which I later abandoned during Perestroika). In private, many of the officers
had different thoughts, but some (I would say, the more stupid ones) were very
happy with the official line.

And the rhetoric was supported by the facts on the ground. The quality of
training was poor, but the quality and especially quantity of military
equipment was enormous.

~~~
arethuza
Deterrence worked during the Cold War - I'm not arguing that each side didn't
present a real threat to the other.

What I do take issue with is the crazy degree to which vast arsenals were
constructed on both sides to a level that was much much more than that
required to politically deter an attack.

The problem I have isn't that deterrence with nuclear weapons doesn't work -
clearly it does. Rather that we have no good mechanism for limiting the size
of arsenals.

Here is a question - are there any records of the Soviets having military
leaders who advocated actually invading Western Europe (rather than just
planning for it)? [NB I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying
to score points.]

~~~
cema
Records are an interesting matter. I think I have read about some documents,
however the semi-closed nature of the Soviet government, as well as the
current Russian government, leaves large portions of it unavailable to the
general public. And what is available is often difficult to place in the
context, because the context is insufficient. I will see if I can find
anything, it is indeed interesting.

------
VLM
I'm confused, probably intentionally, about who owns what where (merely the
basic task of journalism)

What I do know is there's a report of some bombs at Volkel field. And the US
Air Force 52nd fighter wing has a MUNSS unit based on that field. So if the
MUNSS isn't hovering over bombs like a hen hatching its eggs, what exactly are
they doing?

It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the lease. For example
my swinging bachelor pad lease specifically contained a "no dogs" clause so in
a similar way, what if any written rules they have about B61s and the like. If
the lease permits it, it doesn't seem to be much of a story. If the lease
specifically bans them, then the question is will the landlord kick them out
and/or keep the security deposit?

~~~
runarb
I am not familiar with the law in The Netherlands, but possession of a nuclear
weapon is probably something one would need to clear with the government,
regarding the terms on ones lease.

The bombs are a part of the "Nuclear sharing" initiative, where they are under
the direct control of the US:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing)

------
dm2
There are also hundreds of nuclear missiles and thousands of nuclear warheads
stored in the oceans all around the world.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-
launched_ballistic_mi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-
launched_ballistic_missile)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile)

This part is VERY interesting
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile#Conventional_Tr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile#Conventional_Trident)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States#United_States_strategic_nuclear_weapons_arsenal)

Wow, in 1967 the US had 31,000 nuclear warheads.

------
thinkling
I'm not sure this is of great interest to HN overall, but as perspective to
those who weren't in Europe in the 1980s:

This is interesting to the Dutch in particular, because the political decision
to accept or reject (American) cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on Dutch
territory was highly, highly controversial in the mid-1980s. There was a
substantial division in the population on the topic, and it was the subject of
some of the largest public protests seen in the country.

We learned in the past few years that nuclear weapons were allowed to be
stored anyway, and now we learn that the prime minister of the era knew that
all this civic debate was in fact moot, as he had been aware for 20 years that
there were already nuclear weapons in place. That's interesting to me and I
think it leaves room for reflection and debate about the functioning of a
democracy.

------
config_yml
I think this is part of NATO weapons sharing. Italy and Germany (and possibly
other NATO states) store them as well.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Yup.

“As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are
still hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.
Canada hosted weapons until 1984, and Greece until 2001. The United Kingdom
also received U.S. tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and
Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its
own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany. In peace time, the nuclear
weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. soldiers; the
codes required for detonating them are under American control.”

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing)

Also, let’s not forget the US has 2,150 active warheads in total; the vast
majority of those are located on American soil.

------
dirktheman
Oh please. It's common knowledge these things have been stored here, as well
as other parts of the world. They're cold war relics, stored near the borders
of the former cold war countries.

I mean, they had a complete air base (Soesterberg) here in the Netherlands,
which was actually part of US territory. Complete with border crossings! They
left the base in 2008, it makes for a pretty good museum about aviation
history now.

------
bobsy
On the topic of nukes. What is the point of them...

Conventional warfare.. you cannot send in nukes before your troops to soften
up the enemy. Assuming you lose an invasion you cannot send them in after you
pull your troops out.

You cannot use them for precision strikes.

You cannot use them over your own country should it get invaded.

Apparently they are a deterrent from getting nuked yourself. Are they though?
Nukes blow up civilians. Civilians do not press the big red button. Crack pot
lunatics do from some deep underground bunker. Would you really launch a
counter-strike killing potentially millions of civilians. I wouldn't. You
don't answer genocide with genocide.

The only use I can see is a small tactical nuke which could be used to blow up
an enemy fleet at sea. Even then, launching the nuke in way that it wouldn't
get intercepted I guess would be difficult. The implications for such a use
would also be pretty profound.

In the UK the Government want to / will renew trident. The UK nuke system. I
don't really understand why. The cost is in the billions. The weapon is
unsafe, as well as expensive to protect and maintain.

I don't know what the current state of the UN is right now is but it seems to
me a better solution would be to give the UN 50 nukes or whatever. The UN then
becomes the deterrent. Pass a resolution. 'Those who use Nuclear weapons will
be counter-nuked.' Other nations can then give them up.

The only danger with nukes is that only one country has them. They can then
threaten others 'Do as I say or be obliterated.' Realistically though so many
countries know how to make nukes I can't imagine it would take too long to
rearm in this scenario.

~~~
arethuza
Here is a good article by Charlie Stross (HN cstross) on how silly the UK's
"indepedent" deterrent is:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-
the-u...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-
nuclear-disarmam.html)

Another reason why other might people might want to worry a bit about UK nukes
is that our Trident submarines are unique in that they don't have PALs - they
do not require any authorization through the chain of command to launch
weapons - they can do it all by themselves if they wanted to. Of course, being
the RNs finest they are probably pretty decent chaps...

[NB Charlie does say the UK Tridents have US PALs - I need to check that, my
understanding is they don't due to fear of a decapitation strike and the
famous Letters of Last Resort].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort)

~~~
runarb
At list one need to be two (or three?) to launch a Trident from a submarine.
The RAF used to use a simple bicycle lock:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm)

That _" The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the
arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs
to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the
Bomb."_ isn't something one likes to hear when its about nuclear weapons...

~~~
arethuza
My favourite story about the wonderfully shoestring UK nuclear weapons program
(even better than the chicken heated nuclear bomb or the H-bomb that wasn't)
is the fact that for quite a while the communication channel between the PM
and the V-bomber fleet relied upon the AA (yes, the Automobile Association)
radio network:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-
eve...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-event-of-a-
russian-nuclear-attack-call-the-aa-710672.html)

------
Mvandenbergh
Not really a surprise, given the role of nuclear deterrence in NATO strategy.

~~~
arethuza
I wonder if the people of the Netherlands feel so threatened that they need
this level of deterrence?

I'm not that far from the Netherlands and I must admit that I fail to see why
these weapons being there makes us any safer.

~~~
lucb1e
I'm in NL; not worried at all.

~~~
dsl
Would you be worried if you were facing World War II Germany? The whole point
of a deterrence is to provide you with piece of mind.

~~~
arethuza
I can actually remember what it was like during the Cold War and I can assure
you that one thing that deterrence does _not_ do is provide peace of mind for
anyone.

------
Samuel_Michon
I don’t think the title is accurate. Former prime minister Ruud Lubbers told
National Geographic that nuclear bombs were stored at Volkel Air Base in the
past. However, he said that only parts of those bombs are still present at the
site. Also, they’re decades old, so fairly outdated. Because of their limited
purpose, Lubbers said the remaining parts should be done away with.

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2F2013%2F06%2F10%2Foppositie-
wil-kernwapens-weg-uit-nederland%2F&act=url)

------
plantain
_The Telegraaf says former prime minister Ruud Lubbers has confirmed the bombs
are being kept at the base in a National Geographic documentary._

Inside a National Geographic documentary doesn't seem like a particularly
secure storage place. I would have thought, y'know, a vault or something.

------
pr0filer__
I would have been startled if they didn't keep any. Also Dutch/NL here.

------
Ihmahr
Other, dutch artikel: [http://nos.nl/artikel/516243-lubbers-22-atoombommen-
volkel.h...](http://nos.nl/artikel/516243-lubbers-22-atoombommen-volkel.html)

~~~
lena
From the article: _A spokesperson of the Royal Dutch Airforce says they are
surprised about the words of Lubbers[1]. 'We never disclose any information on
this. As former prime minister, he knows that'. According to the spokesperson
whether or not there are nuclear weapons is a state secret._

[1] Lubbers was prime minister from 1982-1994, confirmed that there are in
fact nuclear bombs in Volkel, and said that he never thought that "those silly
things" were still there.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
> [Lubbers] confirmed that there are in fact nuclear bombs in Volkel

No, he said they _were_ there, and that there are still _parts_ of those old
bombs there.

------
runarb
> Experts told the Telegraaf the bombs are B61 nuclear weapons and up to four

> times as powerful as the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World
> War II.

Som expert. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons and Nagasaki was 21 kilotons.
The B61 on the other hand is up to 340 kilotons, or up to 21 times as powerful
as the Hiroshima bomb.

Why can't journalist newer understand that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs
was relatively small compared to the thermonuclear weapons we have today.

~~~
542458
Four times the blast radius of the weapon used on Nagasaki.

------
_k
They have nuclear bombs in Belgium as well. It has been in the news, they are
probably in Kleine Brogel.

------
1morepassword
This is pretty much a public secret, including the location (there aren't that
many potential secure locations in NL).

I vaguely remember protesting against this back in the eighties.

------
switch33
Less liability if the blow up prematurely on site. lol?

~~~
jabbernotty
Who exactly would be less liable?

The Netherlands is a country with a very high concentration of people. I would
think that one of the desert-like places in the USA would be a better storage
space (assuming the intent is indeed just to store them).

~~~
TsiCClawOfLight
Well, to be honest, I don't think the US government cares about foreign people
- or any kind of people, for that matter.

