Expanding U.S. Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons: Enhancing or Undermining U.S.-NATO Relations? James McKeon www.armscontrolcenter.org

Defense Science Board 2016 Report www.armscontrolcenter.org

U.S. Nonstrategic Weapons Five European countries, six NATO bases Chart courtesy of Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists www.armscontrolcenter.org

Should We Expand? “Russia reportedly has a 10-to-1 advantage over us and our NATO allies in tactical nuclear warheads. Moreover, nuclear strategy can no longer be solely bilateral, since China is rapidly expanding its arsenal, as is North Korea. Given these provocations and threats, we must at a minimum study new nuclear capabilities, while we fully fund current modernization plans.” - Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), Speech at the American Enterprise Institute www.armscontrolcenter.org

Argumentation Russian aggression in Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe; The Russian military’s ongoing nuclear modernization efforts; and Moscow’s so-called “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, whereby the Russian military would detonate low-yield nonstrategic nuclear weapons in conflict to force NATO to back down. www.armscontrolcenter.org

The Literature Rand Corporation: “Unlikely and unpalatable” that U.S. and NATO would resort to nuclear- use in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltics. Center for American Progress: “A strike on Russian territory was judged, on balance, to be unacceptably escalatory, irrespective of the yield of the weapon or its method of delivery.” www.armscontrolcenter.org

Should We Expand? Two critical questions must be asked: Will new nonstrategic nuclear weapons enhance or undermine deterrence? Will they enhance or undermine the U.S.-NATO relationship? www.armscontrolcenter.org

www.armscontrolcenter.org