US and NATO Reject the UN Treaty and Deploy New Nuclear Weapons in Europe
By Comitato No Nato No Guerra
Global Research, May 08, 2019

Url of this article:

The Following text is Section 12 of

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,

by the Italian Committee No War No NATO


Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO, Florence, April 7, 2019

In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this important document, which will also be available as an E-book.


1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO War to Demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11.  Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO


1. On 20 September 2017, the same day that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signature at the United Nations, NATO was soundly rejecting it. The Treaty, approved by a majority vote of 122 states of the General Assembly, commited the signatory states not to produce or possess nuclear weapons, not to use them or threaten to use them, not to transfer them or to receive them directly or indirectly, with the aim of their total elimination.

2. In the statement of 20 September 2017, the North Atlantic Council (made up of representatives of the 29 member states) argued that “the Treaty will not be effective. It will not increase international security or peace, but risks creating the opposite by creating divisions and differences.” It, therefore, clearly clarified that “we will not accept any argument contained in the Treaty”.

3. The North Atlantic Council thus foreclosed the national parliaments of the member countries, depriving them of sovereignty to decide for themselves whether or not to join the UN Treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons. It also announced that “we will call our partners and all countries willing to support the Treaty to seriously reflect on its implications” (read: “We will blackmail them so they do not sign it or ratify it”). The North Atlantic Council reiterated that “the fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace and discourage aggression” and that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”.

4. The North Atlantic Council, however, ensured “NATO’s strong commitment to the full implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”. In reality, it is actually violated by NATO. The United States, in violation of Article 1 which prohibits militarily nuclear states from transferring nuclear weapons to other countries, has deployed B61 nuclear bombs in five Alliance member countries: Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Turkey. These actions violate the NPT, which in Article 2 prohibits militarily non-nuclear states from receiving nuclear weapons, nor from having control over such weapons directly or indirectly.

5. A new U.S. nuclear bomb, the B61-12, will replace the B61, which is currently deployed in Italy and other European countries. The B61-12 has a nuclear warhead with four selectable power options. At the time of launch, the blast power is chosen depending on the target. Unlike the B61, which is dropped vertically on the target, the B61-12 is launched remotely and guided by a satellite system. It also has the ability to penetrate deep into the Earth, even through reinforced concrete, exploding at depths that can destroy the bunkers of command centers and other underground structures, so as to “decapitate” the enemy country in a nuclear first strike.

6. The Pentagon program foresees the construction of around 500 B61-12, with an estimated cost of around 10 billion dollars (so each bomb will cost twice as much as it would cost if it were built entirely in gold). The danger of this new weapon is highlighted even by General James Cartwright, former head of the US Strategic Command, responsible for nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons of less power and more precision increase the temptation to use them, even to use them first instead of in retaliation”.

7. Satellite photos show that renovations have been carried out to increase the “security” of the Aviano and Ghedi Torre bases in view of the installation of the B61-12. Similar renovations were carried out at the German air base in Buchel, in two other bases in Belgium and the Netherlands, and in the Turkish base of Incirlic. The B61-12 can be dropped from F-16 and Tornado fighters, but, to exploit the entire bomb capacity, we need U.S. aircraft equipped with special digital systems: F-35A fighters, also supplied by the Italian Air Force.

8. The fact that Polish pilots also took part in the NATO nuclear war exercise in Ghedi for the first time in 2014 indicated that the B61-12 will also be deployed in Poland and other Eastern European countries. Dual-capacity conventional and nuclear NATO fighters are already deployed in the Baltic republics near Russia.

9. At the same time, the U.S. and NATO are extending the “anti-missile shield” over Europe. In May 2016, at the Deveselu Air Base in Romania, the Aegis Ashore was inaugurated, the first terrestrial installation of the United States Aegis missile system on European territory. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the United States because with this installation, “the first of its kind with a land-based base”, they greatly enhanced the ability to “defend European allies against ballistic missiles from outside the Euro-Atlantic area”. He then announced the start of work to build another Aegis Ashore in Poland by 2018, similar to the one that came into operation in Romania. The two terrestrial installations are added to four warships equipped with Aegis radars and SM-3 missiles, which, from a location of the U.S. Navy in the Spanish base of Rota, cross into the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. The U.S. Navy already has about 30 ships of this type.

10. Both Aegis ships and land-based installations are equipped with Mark 41 Vertical Launchers from Lockheed Martin, i.e. vertical pipes from which interceptor missiles are launched. It is the so-called “shield” whose function is actually offensive. If the U.S. could build a reliable system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, they could keep Russia under the threat of a nuclear first strike, trusting the “shield” ability to neutralize the effects of retaliation. The vertical “shield” launchers, in addition to the interceptor missiles, can also launch other missiles. Lockheed Martin herself points out that this system is capable of launching “missiles for all missions”, including “those for long-range attack”, such as “Tomahawk cruise missiles”. These can be armed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead or a nuclear warhead.

11. One cannot, therefore, know which missiles are really in the vertical launchers of the bases in Romania and in Poland and in those on board the ships that cross the limits of Russian territorial waters. Unable to control, Moscow takes for granted that there are also nuclear attack missiles. The location of Mark 41 Vertical Launchers near the Russian territory, therefore, violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed by the USA and USSR in 1987.


Sections 13-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research

This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.