The Western defence alliance NATO plans to expand nuclear deterrence in Europe in light of the ongoing threats from Russia under President Vladimir Putin, according to information obtained by dpa.

This includes considerations whether to deploy additional US nuclear weapons in Europe.

According to experts, the United States might have already transferred B61-12 bombs to the British air base at Lakenheath.

Should the security situation deteriorate further, NATO countries located closer to Russia, including Poland, Finland and Lithuania, could also be considered as additional basing locations.

The plans primarily involve so-called non-strategic nuclear weapons. Such bombs are intended for use against enemy troops, airfields, ports, command centres and other military infrastructure.

Compared with strategic nuclear weapons, they often have a lower explosive yield and are usually delivered by fighter jets, shorter-range missiles and cruise missiles.

Following the large-scale nuclear disarmament that took place after the end of the Cold War, roughly 100 B61-12 bombs remained in storage at six air force bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, according to estimates by nuclear experts.

NATO aims to be able to respond to a nuclear attack

In an interview with dpa, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte did not rule out that more US nuclear weapons could be stationed in Europe in future.

However, he declined to comment on the details of the ongoing reviews and consultations for reasons of confidentiality.

Rutte said in the interview conducted in mid-July that NATO was continuously assessing what capabilities were required and what the alliance’s nuclear deterrence mix should look like.

NATO will make adjustments wherever needed, he said.

“In the end we have to be sure that no one can attack us with nuclear weapons without us being able to respond.”

In April, Rutte had hinted that efforts might go beyond the replacement and modernization of existing systems, when speaking at the NATO Nuclear Policy Symposium in Istanbul.

He said at the time that crucial decisions would have to be taken on how NATO’s nuclear posture should be further adapted to the deteriorating security environment.

At its most recent meeting in June, NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group issued a written statement for the first time in almost two decades. In it, members “agreed to continue enhancing NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission by modernising NATO’s nuclear capabilities, strengthening its nuclear planning capacity, and adapting to achieve its security interests.”

Experts: US to strengthen European nuclear deterrence

US nuclear weapons expert Robert Peters told dpa that he was optimistic Washington would strengthen nuclear deterrence in Europe within the next 24 months “to decrease the likelihood of open conflict with Russia.”

According to Peters, it would make sense to deploy an additional 100 to 150 non-strategic US nuclear weapons in Europe, possibly including in Poland and Finland.

This would require the construction of new storage facilities, which is not an obstacle in the expert’s view as this could be done within a few months.

“We clearly lack a sufficient number of weapons,” said Peters, who works for the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, which is closely aligned with Trump’s Republican Party.

Russia likely has a more than a 10-to-one advantage in non-strategic nuclear weapons, he said.

Jim Stokes, a former US government official and former NATO director for nuclear policy, also believes that establishing new types of nuclear capabilities make sense.

However, this does not mean that NATO needs to match the number of Russian warheads, he said. New capabilities could signal that the US remains firmly committed to its extended nuclear deterrence and to the nuclear security guarantee for its allies.

Stokes referred to the broader range of nuclear systems that the US stationed in Europe during the Cold War in addition to B61 bombs for combat aircraft.

He cited the 1979 decision by NATO allies to modernize nuclear systems and deploy new capabilities. These included Pershing II intermediate-range ballistic missiles and BGM-109G Gryphon ground-launched cruise missiles.

However, the defence expert said he does not consider it militarily necessary to move US nuclear bombs closer to Russia as such operations could also be carried out from Western Europe.

Broader participation by other allies could, however, be beneficial, including through combat aircraft certified for nuclear missions, air-to-air refuelling, reconnaissance, escort support, exercises or command and control capabilities, he said.

This could bring advantages without the countries themselves having to store US nuclear weapons, according to Stokes.

“We want President Putin to wake up every morning, have a cup of coffee and say: ‘Today is not the day for an attack’,” Stokes told dpa.

This has worked since NATO was founded 77 years ago, he said, noting that no nation state has ever attacked the alliance.

Paris pushes for a European nuclear deterrent

Efforts led by France to establish a European nuclear deterrent are seen by both Rutte and experts as a complement to the US nuclear deterrent and not as a potential replacement.

Rutte told dpa that the US nuclear deterrent remains the ultimate guarantee of allies’ freedom and security, while the French initiative adds an extra layer.

Stokes also described France’s capabilities as a good supplement. France could, however, not replace US capabilities in terms of warheads, delivery systems and platforms, he said, while similar considerations apply to British nuclear capabilities.

According to NATO sources, it is unclear whether – and if so, how – any decisions regarding the expansion of NATO’s deterrent would be communicated.

One option would be to leave Russia in the dark about specific steps, which would also be in line with previous practice.

While NATO and Washington confirm that US nuclear weapons are stationed in Europe, their exact number and the full list of locations are kept under wraps.