NATO Nuclear Bases: U.S. Should Seek Needs Reassessment and Increased Alliance Contributions
NSIAD-94-84
Published: Dec 23, 1993. Publicly Released: Dec 23, 1993.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO provided information on U.S. nuclear bombs stored at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nuclear strike bases, focusing on the: (1) nuclear strike base requirement; (2) U.S. costs associated with supporting the NATO nuclear mission; and (3) problems U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) have in implementing and monitoring allied compliance with bilateral agreements.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | Considering the reduced vulnerability of NATO strike bases, and the cost to the United States to support the alliance's nuclear capability, the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, should ask NATO to reassess, using updated information, the number of strike bases needed to provide a sufficient nuclear capability, including peacetime requirements. |
NATO has not reassessed the number of its strike bases.
|
| Department of State | Considering the reduced vulnerability of NATO strike bases, and the cost to the United States to support the alliance's nuclear capability, the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, should ask NATO to reassess, using updated information, the number of strike bases needed to provide a sufficient nuclear capability, including peacetime requirements. |
The Departments of Defense and State have already obtained NATO approval for a reduction in the number of storage sites.
|
| Department of Defense | Considering the reduced vulnerability of NATO strike bases, and the cost to the United States to support the alliance's nuclear capability, the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, should ask NATO to agree to consolidate nuclear weapons at fewer storage sites. |
As a result of this report, the House Armed Services Committee required DOD to review the situation regarding NATO strike bases and report on actions taken to consolidate weapons storage sites. In a March 1995 report to Congress, DOD stated that it would close additional storage sites, and that the remaining sites would be precisely the number recommended by GAO. These storage sites are scheduled to be closed by the end of FY 1996.
|
| Department of State | Considering the reduced vulnerability of NATO strike bases, and the cost to the United States to support the alliance's nuclear capability, the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, should ask NATO to agree to consolidate nuclear weapons at fewer storage sites. |
The Departments of Defense and State have already obtained NATO agreement to reduce the number of storage sites. Implementation will begin during the fiscal year 1996 budget year.
|
| Department of Defense | To ensure the efficient use of U.S. funds, the Secretary of Defense should defer starting any new NATO nuclear-mission-related construction projects until the reassessment is complete. |
DOD's decision to consolidate storage has removed the basis for this recommendation
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should direct the USAFE Commander-in-Chief to follow DOD and Air Force regulations for implementing and monitoring allied compliance with bilateral support agreements. |
Based on GAO's review of the role of nuclear weapons in Europe, job code 701074, GAO plans to issue another report making a similar recommendation.
|
| Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should direct the USAFE Commander-in-Chief to disclose any material weaknesses in the control and monitoring of bilateral agreements in the next annual statement of assurance required by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. |
During a follow-up review, GAO found that in many cases, USAFE officials still do not follow defined procedures for obtaining host nation support. GAO continues to consider these failures to be material weaknesses that should be reported under the Financial Integrity Act. DOD does not agree.
|
Full Report
Public Inquiries
Topics
Cost controlDefense agreementsDefense capabilitiesDefense contingency planningDefense operationsInternal controlsNATO military forcesNuclear weaponsInternational organizationsMilitary forces