The return of the (nuclear) missiles

By Fred Schmid

[This article posted on August 20, 2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.isw-muenchen.de/online-publikationen/texte-artikel/5283-die-rueckkehr-der-atom-raketen.]

The fear of nuclear war in Europe is on the rise again. In the 1980s, millions of people took to the streets against the stationing of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe.
Their protests contributed to the signing of the so-called INF Treaty by the Soviet Union and the USA on December 8, 1987.

In the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces), the two nuclear superpowers agreed to refrain from developing, possessing and deploying land-based nuclear missiles (then Pershing II and “Tomahawk” cruise missiles) with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The INF Treaty has so far been the only agreement that has led to real nuclear disarmament; a total of 2692 missiles have been scrapped.
The danger of nuclear war in Europe seemed largely averted.

The almost forty-year “nuclear peace” is now in jeopardy.
The then US President Donald Trump unilaterally terminated the INF Treaty on October 20, 2018; the USA withdrew from the treaty on February 1, 2019. Russia followed suit. This allowed medium-range missiles to be stationed in Europe again.

This is now set to happen in 2026. Rather casually, Chancellor Scholz and President Biden announced on the fringes of the NATO anniversary conference in Washington in July 2024 that medium-range missiles would be deployed on German soil again from 2026, namely Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of around 2,500 - i.e. deep into Russia. In addition, the installation of SM 6 anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 370 km and 3.5 times the speed of sound plus new hypersonic missiles has been approved.
The cruise missiles can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. Allegedly, they will only be equipped with conventional warheads, which is probably an appeasement maneuver. After all, no military will shoot a conventional missile 2500 km just to blow a hole in a bunker. In addition, no German authority can check the equipment, as the missiles are stationed on US military installations in Germany, where German sovereignty ends.

The first bomb falls on Germany

If proof were needed of the close links between the German MIC and the US military and war network, here it is: the new medium-range missiles will be stationed in Europe, this time in Germany alone. With the new missiles, the powder keg of Germany will be further charged with high explosives. They will be added to the German nuclear bombers with US nuclear bombs at Büchel Air Base, Ramstein Air Base, the largest US airbase abroad, the command center for US drone killers and combat missions, especially in the Middle East and Africa, various US headquarters, military training areas, etc. etc.
No other country in the world is as intensively and massively equipped with US soldiers and military facilities as Germany.
Whenever a war breaks out in Europe, Germany will be the focus of attention.
No doubt about it: the first bomb would fall on Germany!
Our country would become a nuclear battlefield. The USA, on the other hand, would not be reached by medium-range missiles.

The very large missile coalition of the traffic light government and the CDU/CSU opposition sees no problem with this. In fact, they are almost eager for the new weapons. The SPD presidium even praises them as peace doves especially for children (see below). SPD chairman Klingbeil had a declaration of approval rushed through the SPD executive committee during the summer break in order to nip the discussion in the bud. He himself is said to have an affinity with the MIK. For years, he was active on the boards of the armaments lobby organizations Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wehrtechnik and Förderkreis Deutsches Heer.

The SPD Executive Committee resolution states, among other things

"As the SPD, we take responsibility for ensuring that no child born in Germany today has to experience war again. The agreement between the SPD-led Federal Government and the
US administration to station longer-range US missiles in Germany from 2026 is an important building block in this regard”.

First strike option

Why are the planned medium-range missiles so dangerous? They would pose a deadly threat to Russia: due to the short warning time and targeting accuracy of these systems. Due to the longer flight time, intercontinental missiles have a warning time of around 30 minutes. The attacked party is in a position to launch its missiles from the silos and thus launch a counter-attack. This “balance of terror” has been reduced to the formula: “He who shoots first, dies second”.
Short warning times would make an accidental nuclear war more likely, but could also lead to a surprise nuclear attack.

With medium-range missiles, this warning time is reduced to a few minutes. Cruise missiles have a longer flight time, but as they operate at low altitude, they fly under the enemy's defense radar. Added to this is the high precision of modern missiles; they can hit their targets with almost pinpoint accuracy.
This can lead to new scenarios of “preventable nuclear war”, as the USA repeatedly aspired to after dropping the atomic bombs. Pre-emptive “surgical first strikes”, so-called decapitation strikes, are intended to destroy military command centers and destroy the enemy's nuclear missiles while they are still on the ground or in the silos. The few remaining missiles that can still be brought onto the flight path by the attacked party are then to be intercepted and rendered harmless by the missile defense systems.
Missile defense is not a defensive system, but part of a nuclear offensive strategy.

“Capability gap” or memory gap

The pretext for the USA's unilateral withdrawal from the treaty at the time (Russia merely followed suit): Russia had violated the treaty by installing new missile sites. Proof? None!
The evidence has not changed to this day. The Iskander missiles installed in Kaliningrad are frequently cited as “evidence”, including by “military experts” from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Claudia Major) and Bundeswehr professors (e.g. Carlo Masala). It is quite embarrassing when so-called and self-appointed “military experts” obviously cannot distinguish between short-range missiles up to 500 km - e.g. the Iskander installed in Kaliningrad - and medium-range missiles.

In addition, there were clear verification mechanisms in the INF Treaty for any violations, which were not used by the USA. The Natural Scientists' Initiative writes: “If there have been violations of the INF Treaty, the INF Treaty had clear regulations on this. The relevant commission of the two signatory states must be convened. This has not happened since 2017. Propagandistic accusations do not help and distract from the true motives of unchecked armament.” (natwiss.de, 22.10.18).

And the government-affiliated German Institute for International and Security Affairs pointed out back in March 2018: “In order to dispel the mutual accusations, mutual information and inspections would be necessary. This would require reactivating and modifying the INF inspection regime, which was terminated in 2001” (SWP-aktuell, March 15, 2018).

2001 is also the year in which the USA unilaterally terminated the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic-Missile: Treaty on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems) and subsequently began deploying ABM sites in Europe.
The USA refused to allow any on-site inspections.

A Russian treaty violation is simply claimed and a “capability gap” (Scholz) in Western missile armament is derived from this, which is once again to be used for “rearmament”. As a Young Socialist and opponent of rearmament in the 1980s, Scholz knew better what to make of such alleged weapons “gaps”.
It's a shame that he has a gap in his memory.

• 
  

• ---

• 
  

, 

 or