pearltrees html popular pearltrees search

l'OTAN et la question nucléaire en Europe

< OTAN pour eux < Foreign policy - Politique étrangère - Diplomacy - Diplomatie <

Global Security Newswire - NATO to Call For Retention of Nuclear Deterrent http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/nato-to-call-for-retention-of-nuclear-deterrent/ NATO's new strategic concept, to be issued at this week's summit in Portugal, is set to support fielding a ground-based antimissile system in Europe but also call keeping the alliance's nuclear weapons in place for the time being, the Washington Post reported (see GSN , Nov. 8). The military alliance has not issued a new mission statement in more than 10 years. This document would support U.S. President Obama's call for a "world without nuclear weapons" while emphasizing that NATO would maintain its strategic capability while others also have nuclear arms. LinkedIn Leaders from the 28 NATO nations are set to convene in Portugal tomorrow and Friday to discuss their ideas for preparing the organization to respond to modern-day security challenges.

persee.fr - Politique étrangère, Année 1991, Volume 56, Numéro

The news about the withdrawal from Lakenheath comes at an inconvenient time for those who advocate continuing deployment of U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. By following on the heels of the withdrawal from Ramstein Air Base in 2004-2005 and Greece in 2001, the Lakenheath withdrawal raises the obvious question at the remaining nuclear sites: If they can withdraw, why can’t we? What is at stake is not whether NATO should be protected with nuclear weapons, but why it is still necessary to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Japan and South Korea are also covered by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but without tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Asia. The benefits from withdrawing the remaining non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe far outweigh the costs, risks and political objectives of keeping them there. The only question is: who will make the first move? http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/us-nuclear-weapons-withdrawn-from-the-united-kingdom.php U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawn From the United Kingdom » FAS Str

Contrairement à une idée reçue, la France et le Royaume-Uni ne sont pas les seules puissances nucléaires en Europe. En effet, depuis 1954, dans le cadre de l’OTAN, les États-Unis stationnent des forces nucléaires dans plusieurs pays du continent. Reliques de la Guerre froide, ces forces devaient originellement faire face à la supériorité des troupes conventionnelles du pacte de Varsovie. De plus de 7 000 armes nucléaires tactiques, réparties dans une dizaine d’États européens au milieu des années 1970, l’arsenal n’a cessé de diminuer, à la suite de l’éclatement de l’URSS, pour parvenir au chiffre de 350 armes en 2007. Depuis le début de la décennie, la question de l’utilité de ces armements, et donc indirectement d’un possible retrait, est de plus en plus souvent évoquée. Les armes nucléaires de l’OTAN - fin de partie ou http://www.grip.org/fr/siteweb/dev.asp?N=simple&O=708

Où l'on découvrira que les État-Unis ont dénucléarisé certains sites européens sans que cela n'émeuve grand monde. Et où l'on apprendra quelles sont les différentes options nucléaires pour les pays européens. by alcide Mar 31

http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_nato_summit_openings_for_a_new_nuclear_posture The meeting will formally kick off what's expected to be a two-year review of the alliance's Strategic Concept (SC). Integral to this strategic discussion will be the question of what role nuclear weapons should play. Current doctrine calls them essential to security and the alliance itself. The NATO Summit: Openings for a New Nuclear Postur

2009-04-02 les paradoxes de la volonté de dénucléariser by alcide Apr 3

While acknowledging that differences remain over the purposes of deployment of missile defense assets in Europe, we discussed new possibilities for mutual international cooperation in the field of missile defense, taking into account joint assessments of missile challenges and threats, aimed at enhancing the security of our countries, and that of our allies and partners. The relationship between offensive and defensive arms will be discussed by the two governments. We also discussed nuclear arms control and reduction. As leaders of the two largest nuclear weapons states, we agreed to work together to fulfill our obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and demonstrate leadership in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/April/20090401125216xjsnommis0.8078381.html&distid=ucs Joint Statement by President Obama and President Medvedev

Devrions-nous éspérer que cela ne soit pas un premier avril ? by alcide Apr 8

http://www.fpif.org/articles/obama_and_medvedev_on_nukes Foreign Policy In Focus | Obama and Medvedev on Nukes - Mozilla The positive Obama-Medvedev agenda for a new U.S.-Russian relationship was marked by several caveats and possible pitfalls where the parties agreed to disagree. Most significant was their acknowledgement that "differences remain over the purposes of missile defense assets in Europe." It would be tragic if cooperation once again failed because of the hegemonic U.S. drive to dominate and control the earth from space. In a sense, we have now come full circle to the time of the Reagan-Gorbachev 1986 summit in Reykjavik, when negotiations for the total abolition of nuclear weapons collapsed because Reagan wouldn't give up U.S. plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative to dominate space. Clinton similarly rejected opportunities to take up Putin's proposal to cut our nuclear arsenals to 1,000 warheads.