How many of you know that there are US Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

Question

Belgium, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Germany, these countries have nuclear weapons on their soil but no say over whether the US can or can't launch them.
I learned it from http://www.email.greenpeace.org/enuhbn_snhcsxyx.html

Why are americans letting Bush do this?

Answer 1

All superpowers on earth have them.

Its not really about OUR freedom, its about our governments freedom, and its at odds with the world. These people are not trying to kill Americans, they're trying to get our ATTENTION! Our government and our policies really intrude on other countries liberties and progress, but we don't hear about that. Of course they shouldn't have crashed planes into us and killed thousands of innocents, but these people have no voice, they feel like violence is the only way someones going to listen. Our president has turned their plea into a war cry by telling us they want to take democracy away. These people want to be left alone to their own ways, its American intrusion that pushes them. They want us out of their country COMPLETELY. We have fiscal investments over there, so we stay. This pushes them against our troops. The more we kill, the more injustice they feel and the more empowered they feel to fight back. They are fighting for THEIR country. THEIR freedoms. But alas, we have made quite a mess, and are now obligated to fix what we broke. We'll be over there till the end of time. I support our troops, they are brave and willing to sacrifice for ME. I cannot fathom a proper "thank you" for this, but I believe continuing my quest for happiness is enough for them. Thats all they want for us, and thats the reality that keeps them going. But for all of this, I think they have been put in a position of danger that is unneccessary. It is too late to cry "Bring them home". The damage has been done, and they must stay to see it out to the end. Arabs want our hands out of their pockets and their country. We want to stay and protect our investments from their newly installed leaders. Our troops are sent to do this. Saudis own one third of our economy. If that gets shaky, then we will buckle at the knees and will suffer and struggle to recover.

Answer 2

It is not just Bush. American nuclear weapons have been in Europe since the 1950s (which is probably long before you were born). Why are you just now finding this out? Where were you during all of the European anti-nuclear protests over the years?

Answer 3

Dear we live in space age now and in the near future every one in the world will have them to get ready for world war 3 ...

Answer 4

americans have always had nuclear weapons. they have always forced their will onto other countries.

Answer 5

Yes I am very aware of this since when I worked for the US Army I drew a map with their exact locations.

Of course that information is old and no longer valid, and I won't tell you anything else, but we have known for a long time that American Nuclear Tipped Missiles have been in Europe. In fact this is the whole idea behind NATO, where an attack by the Soviets against any European country would result in an attack by all of NATO forces. America is letting George Bush hold nuclear stockpiles in Europe they have been there since before President Kennedy was in office. These stockpiles have been growing until Ronald Regan started REAL disarmament talks. The president’s after that just inherited the condition. Those nuclear stockpiles were the under President Clinton, under President George Bush senior, under President Regan, under President Carter, under President Ford, under President Nixon (who would have used them if things got to bad in Vietnam), and before that under president Johnson.

The ruler of the Soviet Union in 1962 was Nikita Khrushchev. He was furious that NATO had missiles, practically at his throat, stationed in Europe. To counter this he set up missile bases in Cuba. The US discovered this with their regular flybys of U-2 spy planes over Cuba. President Kennedy made a stand and told Khrushchev to NOT put nuclear missiles in Cuba, but Khrushchev ignored him and sent those missiles to Cuba. The US Navy formed a blockade and they boarded some ships that were being sent to Cuba. These ships were carrying support equipment for the nuclear missiles and were turned back, Khrushchev threatened to attack the US if they continued to board Soviet ships and let their nuclear missiles to continue on to Cuba.

President Kennedy stood his ground and kept up the blockade. The World was within minutes of WW3, with nuclear weapons. Both nations were at the highest level of alert. American bombers were running racetrack flight paths just outside of Russian airspace, missile silos were alerted and opened, and submarines carrying nuclear weapons were stationed just offshore the Soviet Union. The Soviets had similar preparations and were ready to launch a full-scale attack if their ships, carrying nuclear missiles, were boarded. Another words both sides weren’t just ready to push the button, their fingers were just a fraction of an inch from already pushing them.

Then Khrushchev blinked; he ordered his ships carrying the missiles to return to Russia. Both sides stepped down their defenses and the crisis was over. As a result of his failure Khrushchev was soon disposed and removed from power. He was lucky to have survived, since before his time the Soviets liked to assassinate their former rulers. President Kennedy was considered a hero for defending our nation and remained one when he was assassinated one year later. (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Kennedy%27s_assassination)

Since the end of the Cold War very little has changed. Some nuclear tipped missiles were destroyed on both sides and some silos were decommissioned, but our submarine forces are still on patrol, our remaining silos are still manned, and as you read this B52-Bombers with nuclear warheads are in the sky. The only difference is that they are not aimed at Russia anymore, but if the launch codes are sent then those missiles and bombers can be retargeted, and committed in a matter of minutes. This threat of total destruction from the United States has prevented the outbreak of a nuclear war ever since the 1962 when President Kennedy made it clear that he was willing to commit the US. And yes, we have alternate target plans for China and North Korea, as well as submarines cruising near by those countries. Some of our aircraft carriers and other surface ships have nuclear capability, but the US refuses to say any more about that.

Russia’s submarines are in pretty sad shape, but some of their bombers still work and some of their missile silos are still manned, with ICBMs that can land a nuke in your lap. China has its own bombers, and ICBMs that can reach the US and other countries, but the threat of the US counterstrike has kept those missiles unused. North Korea is trying to build a missile large enough to reach the US with their nuclear weapons, but they probably need another 5 years. Meanwhile nations like India and Pakistan are holding their nuclear stockpile ready for use. Israel has had nuclear weapons for over 20 years and Iran is well on its way to making its own nuclear weapons. When Iran does develop the nuke they will “sell” them to Hezbollah (Iran founded the terrorist organization in 1982), who probably already has plans drawn up to use them against the US and Israel. If that happens WW3 may once again be just a fingertip away.

The nuclear weapons that the US have in Europe are not needed as much as they were during the Cold War, but the US doesn’t really know what to do with them. They are staged in well thought out positions and ready to use. They can also be retargeted against other nations like our enemies the French. Which makes them sound useless and like we should remove them, but there are reasons why the US is not removing those nuclear missiles and their launchers.

In the event of a nuclear war in the Middle East these missiles can be shipped south fairly easily so they are kept in position. With the changing world politics the US may find that it needs those missiles somewhere else overseas, and fast. If they are staged in Europe then they might get to the point where they can be used quicker.

Then there is the trouble with what to do with these missiles. If they are taken apart or otherwise deactivated then what are we going to do with the warheads? The entire assembly is dangerously radioactive, and no European nation would accept responsibility for disposing of that waste. We would also have to trust those nations a great deal too not go around behind our backs and put those warheads back into service. Otherwise we have to transport those warheads back to the US and find a place to store them. We have enough of those problems and no one wants to import any more. Greenpeace will mention the threat of our nuclear stockpile in Europe, but the ignore the benefit of it and the high cost and extreme danger that removing them entails. These missiles were made by the US, manned by the US, supported by the US, and meant to serve the US. The US isn’t going to give up that advantage for any price.

Your "sudden" revelation is over 25 years old.

Answer 6

God I hate bleeding hearts!
Greenpeace, ACLU, PETA, NAACP, CINDY SHEEHAN, and on and on and ........................

Answer 7

lol...blame it on Bush!!! lol HAHA !!!