Abstract
NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept called upon the Alliance to carry out three core tasks: collective defense, crisis management, and cooperative security. Since the beginning of the Alliance each of those tasks has been emphasized at different times. Following the 9/11 attacks NATO joined the United States in becoming an expeditionary alliance, focusing on crisis management and collective security through robust partnership programs and out of area conventional military operations around the globe. Deterrence policy, and nuclear matters in particular, were de-emphasized. Indeed, some argued that there was no longer any requirement for NATO to have a nuclear strategy, nor US warheads stationed in Europe. With the end of its mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014, the member states were already facing the challenge of determining whether the next version of NATO would continue to play the same expeditionary role. Some of the new member states in Central Europe, however, were hoping to return to an emphasis on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: collective security and territorial defense. Russia’s aggression in early 2014 against Ukraine made that a much more immediate concern for the Alliance as a whole, and gave greater import to the NATO summit later that year.
This chapter considers NATO nuclear policy in light of recent events and decisions from the September Wales Summit. It reviews the significant diminishment of the nuclear mission since the end of the Cold War, and addresses possible changes or updates to that mission given Russia’s sudden change from strategic partner to potential adversary. It emphasizes the importance of deterrence, which includes nuclear weapons, missile defenses, and conventional forces, to the underlying mission of the Alliance, which is the security of the member states, their populations, and their strategic interests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
NATO home page at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm
- 2.
Ibid.
- 3.
Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington: Department of Defense, April 2010), at http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf
- 4.
NATO Home Page.
- 5.
Ibid.
- 6.
Ibid.
- 7.
Parts of this section appeared in NDC Research Paper, “The Wales Summit and NATO’s Deterrence Capabilities: An Assessment,” by Jeffrey A. Larsen, November 2014.
- 8.
See, for example, “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?” Uwe Klußmann, Spiegel Online International, 26 Nov 2009, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html. For the counterargument, see Michael Rühle, “NATO Enlargement and Russia: Die-Hard Myths and Real Dilemmas,” NDC Research Report, NATO Defense College, 15 May 2014, available at http://www.ndc.nato.int/research/series.php?icode=3; “NATO Enlargement and Russia: Myths and Realities,” NATO Review online at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm; and Mark Kramer, “The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Moscow,” The Washington Quarterly, April 2009, at http://dialogueeurope.org/uploads/File/resources/TWQ%20article%20on%20Germany%20and%20NATO.pdf
According to the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997: “NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, [emphasis added] the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.” See Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm
- 9.
For a summary of Russian nuclear policy today, see Nikolai Sokov,“Why Russia Calls a Limited Nuclear Strike ‘De-Escalation,’” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 13 March 2014, at http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation
- 10.
See Larsen and Kartchner [1].
- 11.
Not rocking the boat, or letting sleeping dogs lie, are two commonly heard aphorisms in debates regarding NATO nuclear policy. These are not new perspectives. For an explanation of the use of such terminology, see Jeffrey A. Larsen, The Future of US Non-Strategic Nuclear Forces and Implications for NATO: Drifting Toward the Foreseeable Future, final report of the 2005 Manfred Wörner Fellowship Program, 31 October 2006, at http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/05-06/larsen.pdf
- 12.
Woolf, NSNW, p. 24. Also see Simon Lunn, Chapter 1, “NATO Nuclear Policy—Reflections on Lisbon and Looking Ahead,” forthcoming in The NTI Study on Nuclear Weapons and NATO, draft 6 May 2011; and Paul Shulte, “Is NATO’s Nuclear Deterrence Policy a Relic of the Cold War?” Policy Outlook, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 17 November 2010.
- 13.
For representative arguments about the European social situation and NATO nuclear policy, see Jeffrey A. Larsen, “Future Options for NATO Nuclear Policy,” Issue Brief, The Atlantic Council, August 2011, available at http://www.acus.org/publication/future-options-nato-nuclear-policy; Lunn, “NATO Nuclear Policy;” and Bruno Tertrais, “Extended Deterrence: Alive and Changing,” The Interpreter, Lowy Institute for International Policy online, 2 February 2011, available at www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/02/02/Extended-Deterrence-Alive-and-Changing
- 14.
“NATO’s Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment,” NATO Issue Brief, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, June 2004.
- 15.
Professor David Yost has recently reviewed these distinctive views and outlined the key questions under debate. Yost [3], pp. 1401–1438.
- 16.
Woolf, NSNW, p. 25.
- 17.
Woolf, NSNW, p. 26.
- 18.
Ibid.
References
Larsen J, Kartchner K (eds) (2014) On limited nuclear war in the 21st century. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto
Larsen JA (2012) Chapter 15: The role of non-strategic nuclear weapons: an American perspective. In: Stuart D, McCausland J (eds) Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle
Yost DS (2011) The U.S. debate on NATO nuclear deterrence. Int Aff 87(6):1401–1438
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this paper
Cite this paper
Larsen, J.A. (2015). NATO Nuclear Policy, the Ukraine Crisis, and the Wales Summit. In: Apikyan, S., Diamond, D. (eds) Nuclear Threats and Security Challenges. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series B: Physics and Biophysics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9894-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9894-5_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9893-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9894-5
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)