Henri Vanhanen wrote that he wanted to correct the interpretations of an article by Helsingin Sanomat that dealt with nuclear weapons and said he remained uncertain about what the article ultimately claimed regarding Finland's security. According to him, Finland did not join the NATO nuclear deterrent with little discussion or unnoticed, but rather joined an alliance whose deterrence and defense had been based on nuclear weapons for decades. He described the strategic nuclear forces of the United States as a key basis for NATO's nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered that the bombing of Nagasaki was not an example of the current type of nuclear deterrent because Japan did not have a nuclear weapon nor the ability to respond to a U.S. strike. In his view, Nagasaki demonstrated the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and the human risks of their use, whereas the current deterrent was based on the assumption that an attacker had to consider the possibility of retaliation and uncontrolled escalation. Vanhanen assessed that Trump had increased uncertainty regarding the United States' commitment to the conventional defense of Europe and believed Europe would have to bear more responsibility for it. However, he distinguished this from the claim that the U.S. nuclear deterrent had weakened. According to him, the U.S. ability to use nuclear weapons had not diminished, NATO was not dismantling its nuclear plans or arrangements, systems were being modernized, and F-35 aircraft were being introduced into NATO's nuclear missions. Vanhanen stated that the NATO Nuclear Planning Group had confirmed in June that strategic nuclear forces, particularly U.S. forces, remained the ultimate guarantee of the allies' security and had decided to continue strengthening and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered it a central uncertainty whether Moscow would believe that the U.S. president would be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend an ally in an extreme situation. He reminded that the question of the U.S. willingness to endanger its own cities for the sake of Europe had been a concern throughout the history of the extended nuclear deterrent and there had been no complete certainty during the Cold War or at the present time. According to him, Finland's option was not a nuclear deterrent or a nuclear-free security environment, as Russia would have its nuclear weapons in any case. Vanhanen wrote that the crucial issue for the deterrent was that the Russian leadership could not be certain that the United States would defend Finland. https://t.co/3C8aAkuMwj #ydinaseet #Nato #Suomi (translated)
