Russia's Warning to the U.S. Regarding the Accumulation of Nuclear Bombs in Europe and Turkey

There are many contentious issues between Russia and the United States, making their relationship reminiscent of the Cold War era. One of these issues is the ongoing competition between the two sides to enhance their nuclear capabilities, despite existing treaties for nuclear weapons control. The U.S. claims that Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, by increasing its capabilities through the production of various missiles. In response, Russia criticizes the U.S. for not only increasing the number of its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe but also enhancing their capabilities. Recently, on the eve of Vladimir Putin's meeting with Barack Obama at the 70th annual United Nations General Assembly, Russia accused the U.S. of modernizing and accumulating nuclear weapons in several European countries and at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. This accusation was first raised by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, in an interview with Germany's ZDF television network, stating that the U.S. has modernized its B-61 nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey, and that some NATO member countries have optimized their aircraft to carry these weapons. The Pentagon, in its operational procedures, neither confirmed nor denied the existence of nuclear weapons at the Incirlik base, a point emphasized by Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesperson, during a briefing. He noted that the project to extend the lifespan of U.S. nuclear weapons, approved in 2010, aims to modernize these weapons, including those stationed outside the U.S., with increased safety, reliability, and improved control systems. In this context, Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for Vladimir Putin, warned that Russia might deploy its Iskander ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad region on the Baltic Sea to establish strategic balance in response to U.S. and NATO actions. Kaliningrad is a part of Russia separated from the main territory, situated between Poland and Lithuania, and the latest Iskander missile, known as Iskander-M, has a range of 500 kilometers. These accusations arise at a time when Russia has increased its military presence in Syria and Turkey has agreed to the U.S. use of the Incirlik base to strike ISIS positions. The Incirlik Air Base houses 5,000 U.S. military personnel, and securing it, located 110 kilometers from the Syrian border, poses a serious security challenge for the U.S. Additionally, Turkey is engaged in military conflict with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), leading some Western experts to question the deployment and accumulation of U.S. nuclear bombs in this unstable region. Recently, the U.S. Department of Defense informed 900 families of military personnel stationed near this base that they could voluntarily leave Turkey at the government's expense. According to Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, the Pentagon has stationed nearly 50 nuclear weapons at the Incirlik base. However, he states, 'There is no official count on this, but satellite images and numerous statements from U.S. officials in their testimonies and budget requests support this.' Furthermore, recent satellite images show that construction work is underway at U.S. air bases in Incirlik and Aviano in Italy to enhance the physical protection of the nuclear weapons stationed at these bases. According to the aforementioned nuclear expert, a look at some of the Pentagon's budget items for 2014 indicates that the U.S. has spent over $80 million since 2000 to improve and strengthen the infrastructure necessary for storing nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. In this regard, ZDF television revealed on September 22 that the U.S. plans to deploy 20 upgraded B61-12 nuclear bombs at the Büchel Air Base in western Germany by the end of this year. The explosive power of these nuclear weapons is 80 times that of the atomic bomb used in Hiroshima. The deployment of these bombs is part of the U.S. program to modernize and upgrade its nuclear arsenal, and it is expected that by the end of this year, with the integration of these nuclear bombs into the German Air Force, the country's fighter-bombers will be capable of carrying them. Regarding the costs of these U.S. actions, the German newspaper Spiegel reported last year that the first wave of these new nuclear bombs will be operational in Europe before 2020 at a cost of approximately $10 billion. According to this report, the development of the Büchel air base to accommodate these bombs will cost $154 million, with the German government covering one-fifth of that amount. Germany is an important NATO member and apparently has no inclination towards nuclear weapons. In this context, Hans Christian, in an interview with ZDF, described the worst-case scenario for the use of these bombs, stating, 'In the event of war, the nuclear bombs stationed in Germany will be handed over to the Air Force by order of the U.S. President, and German pilots will bomb the designated targets... and this is an unusual scenario for a country like Germany, whose politicians have promised never to use nuclear weapons, either directly or indirectly.' These bombs, according to him, will guide themselves towards the intended target, and their accuracy will be significantly better than the previous bombs stationed in Germany. The B61-12 bombs are a new weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and previously, the U.S. did not have guided nuclear bombs. In response to these actions by the U.S. and Germany, Maria Zakharova told the same television network, 'It is concerning that a country [like Germany], which does not possess nuclear weapons, would use this weapon within the framework of NATO's common practice of sharing nuclear capabilities... This will change the balance of power in Europe, and Russia will undoubtedly respond to restore strategic balance.' Based on a review conducted by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published in the U.S., Washington plans to spend $350 billion on nuclear weapons over the next decade, including building new nuclear submarines, bombers, and new long-range tactical aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons, new factories for producing new nuclear weapons, and establishing simulation facilities. Concurrently, Russia is also modernizing its nuclear and non-nuclear strategic forces. Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army, stated last January that strengthening the nuclear strategic force is one of the main priorities of the Russian military in 2015. As reported by some Western media, two new Borei-class nuclear submarines capable of carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles have become fully operational after undergoing relevant tests. Additionally, the Russian military industry is busy developing a new type of stealth aircraft and producing the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, which is expected to be tested within the next 18 months. This missile will replace the Satan (SS-18) missile. Russia's warning to the U.S. on October 1 regarding the modernization of B61-12 nuclear bombs has fueled speculation about Russia's potential withdrawal from the INF Treaty. The INF Treaty, as previously mentioned, was an agreement signed in 1987 between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, ratified by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at the White House. Under this unique treaty, the U.S. and the Soviet Union destroyed their ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles, both nuclear and non-nuclear, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The signing of this treaty reduced the risk of nuclear conflict in Europe. This treaty was, in fact, the cornerstone of arms control agreements between the two countries in the 1980s. However, in recent years, adherence to this treaty has limited the options for both the U.S. and Russia. Some influential political groups in both countries are calling for the treaty's abrogation. Conversely, other political groups view the abrogation of the treaty as the beginning of an arms race in Europe and therefore propose a revision of the treaty. This treaty has posed cumbersome challenges for the U.S. in East Asia, compelling it to resort to air-based or sea-based missiles to potentially counter China's ground-based missiles and its increasing military capabilities. In this regard, Russia faces even more limitations compared to the U.S. in terms of missile defense and modernizing its nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the INF Treaty is a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia, and surrounding countries like China, India, and North Korea have no restrictions on developing intermediate-range missiles. Unlike the U.S., Russia is within the range of these missiles, and in addition to these potential threats, Russia must reduce its strategic weapons under the New START treaty signed between Moscow and Washington in 2010, limiting its nuclear warheads to 1,550. The U.S. and Russia, who do not consider adherence to the INF Treaty in line with their objectives and are simultaneously concerned about its abrogation, have turned to ways to circumvent it. It seems that Russia has violated the treaty by producing the ground-based cruise missile R-500 or Iskander-K and testing the intercontinental ballistic missile SS-20 Mod 2. Simultaneously, the U.S. has strengthened its sea-based missile capabilities and is developing the necessary technology for the Prompt Global Strike project, which allows for long-range strikes with conventional weapons with greater precision and speed. Although neither Russia nor the U.S. is willing to take the first step towards withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the implicit threat of withdrawal, especially from Russia, has increased. What is certain is that the credibility of this treaty has diminished over time, and the U.S. seeks to revise it or engage in discussions regarding it. Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated on March 23, 2015, that the U.S. is ready to continue its negotiations with Russia regarding compliance with the INF Treaty and that Washington is seeking a way to resolve issues related to this treaty. The abrogation of this treaty would provide more military options for both Russia and the U.S. and would undoubtedly further darken the tense relations between the two sides. The Mirage of a World Without Nuclear Weapons Barack Obama, in an April 2009 speech in Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, stated that the U.S., as a country that has used nuclear weapons, has a moral responsibility to lead in disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. In this speech, he promised that during his presidency, the U.S. would commit to establishing peace and security in a world free of nuclear weapons. A year later, on April 8, 2010, in the same city, Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START treaty, committing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in their arsenals to 1,550. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister, on Wednesday, October 8, 2015, at a UN General Assembly meeting commemorating the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, representing 120 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out the shortcomings of the step-by-step approach to a world free of nuclear weapons, stating, 'It is time for a new and comprehensive approach to achieve nuclear disarmament through the initiation of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear convention.' He had previously stated at the NPT Review Conference in New York on April 26, 2015, that Iran supports a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and urged NATO to halt its plans to modernize and increase nuclear weapons or to enable significant reductions in nuclear weapons. The NPT Review Conference, held from April 26 to May 22, 2015, concluded without consensus among participants on its final document, and discussions on establishing a Middle East free of nuclear weapons went nowhere. Egypt's proposal for a 'Middle East free of nuclear weapons,' primarily targeting Israel's nuclear stockpiles and emphasizing the establishment of a conference on this issue by March 2016, faced opposition from the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. The U.S. criticized Egypt and the Arab League for 'unrealistic and impractical demands.' Russia and member states of the Non-Aligned Movement also condemned the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for obstructing and failing to cooperate, and finally, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, thanked the leaders of the three aforementioned countries for rejecting Egypt's proposal, while South Africa likened the NPT to apartheid, which benefits a minority government.