Page:The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership - An Assessment.pdf/30

 First, the existence of an integrated command structure, which gives the parties to the Treaty the authority to operate collectively in military terms with greater efficiency and promptness than would otherwise be the case, whether acting in the framework of Article 5 or not. This can be extended to include non-NATO members, as has been the case in Bosnia, Kosovo (with inter alia, Russian troops operating as part of NATO’s KFOR in 1999-2000) or Afghanistan (ISAF)). But this naturally does not readily apply to Article 5 contingencies, particularly those implying extremely short timelines such as NATO’s new VJTF (Very High Readiness Joint Task Force). By the same token, NATO’s key Defence Policy and Planning Committee (DPPC) is off limits to non-members.

Second, a NATO-specific infrastructure, including integrated air surveillance and air defence (notably NATO AWACS) and logistical networks. When France left the integrated command structure in 1966, it continued despite some caveats to be a full partner in the NATO air surveillance system and in the military pipeline organisation. These are highly integrated assets which imply an Article 5 commitment. They are essential to collective defence, whether as a part of deterrence or for the conduct of operations.

Third, despite their lack of prominence in post-Cold War NATO discourse, nuclear weapons remain an underpinning of NATO’s deterrence, with their ability to counter escalatory moves by a Russia which has in recent years placed increasing importance on its nuclear arsenal (see Chapter II). NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a strong reminder on this score at the February 2016 Munich Security Conference.

This nuclear role includes the nuclear forces of Britain and France, which are considered to be “contributing to the overall strengthening of the Alliance” (Ottawa Declaration of NAC in ministerial session, 19 June 1974). Nuclear weapons also contribute to overall deterrence by ensuring strategic coupling between the United States and Europe: American air-delivered non-strategic nuclear weapons are stationed in five European countries, under so-called “double key” arrangements. These weapons (B61 bombs) are currently the object of a life-extension programme ensuring their long-term effectiveness. This programme (B61-12 LEP) is expected to come to a conclusion by 2021 at an overall cost of some $958 million to the American taxpayer.

US forces thus operate alongside European forces in Europe at all levels of the escalatory ladder. 30