The EconomistNovember 30th 2019 Europe 472 ed at in September. It would also restart a
fraught debate over the presence of b61s
elsewhere in Europe.
Opposition to nuclear-sharing has been
simmering in Germany, in particular. Al-
though Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancel-
lor, has defended the practice, her coalition
partners over the past decade have repeat-
edly asked for the bombs to be withdrawn.
Keeping them is tricky for technical rea-
sons, too. Europe’s current dual-capable
aircraft (dca)—those wired up to carry
nukes as well as ordinary bombs—are ap-
proaching the ends of their lives. Belgium,
Italy and the Netherlands are all buying
America’s f-35 as a replacement, but Ger-
many ruled this out in January.
That was partly in deference to France,
which wants to build its own next-genera-
tion warplane with Germany. The Luft-
waffe could instead buy the f-18, an older
American dca. Or it could retrofit the Euro-
pean-built Typhoon to accommodate b61s.
But as well as being expensive and time-
consuming, that would expose European
technology to American eyes. And neither
plane is especially stealthy.
Nor is Incirlik the only cause for securi-
ty concerns. In 2008 an American air-force
review concluded that most European
bases hosting weapons did not meet its
standards. Support buildings, fencing,
lighting and security systems were all
deemed in need of repair. Two years later,
peace activists entered a base in Belgium
and roamed near its b61 vaults for an hour.
Timebombs
If the bombs are politically troublesome
and vulnerable, why keep them in Europe
at all? Some natoplanners fear that if Rus-
sia attacked an ally like Estonia and then
conducted a limited nuclear strike to stave
off a Western counter-attack, it would not
make sense for the alliance to respond with
“strategic” weapons—those on longer-
range missiles and aircraft that have much
higher, city-destroying yields. Smaller
bombs like the b61s are thought to allow a
proportional response.
It is not entirely clear that the enemy
would appreciate the distinction, however.
And the military case for b61s is dubious for
other reasons. The planes—if not de-
stroyed on the ground—would struggle to
get through Russian air defences. So Amer-
ica would probably use stealth bombers
dispatched from across the Atlantic or sub-
marine-launched missiles armed with a
new low-yield warhead built under the
Trump administration. nato acknowl-
edges that its “supreme guarantee” is pro-
vided by American, British and French stra-
tegic forces in this way, rather than by the
Europe-based b61s.
In truth, the purpose of the nuclear-
sharing scheme is more political than prac-
tical. The aim is to create a tangible andsymboliclinkbetweenAmericaand Eu-
rope.AllieswhoenjoyAmericannuclear
protectionmustsharethemoralburdenof
nuclearuse—andthecostofpotentialre-
taliation.Atthesametime,Europeansgeta
larger(ifstillmodest)sayinhowAmerican
nukesmightbeused.Thatisthoughttoas-
suagetheirfearofabandonment.
Thatreassurancecomesata price.Pres-
identBarackObamatoyedwiththeideaof
bringingthebombshome,butultimately
deferredthedecision.Instead,heautho-
riseda $10bnprogrammetoextendtheir
livesandincreasetheiraccuracy.Thetotal
costofAmericantacticalnuclearweapons
willrunto$25bnbetween 2017 and2046,
about$1bna year.AndifTurkey’srelation-
ship with allies continues to crumble,
Europeans may feel less soothed than
alarmed by the several megatonnes of
weaponrysittingatIncirlik. 7L
isa smith’spath from Dundalk, a town
in Ireland halfway between Belfast and
Dublin, to the murderous caliphate of Is-
lamic State (is) and back, has taken a few
turns. A former soldier, Ms Smith con-
verted to Islam and travelled to Syria in 2015
to live under isrule. Detained by Kurdish
fighters who helped bring down the caliph-
ate, she escaped when Turkey launched an
offensive against the Kurds in October,
only to be captured by Turkish proxies.
Now Ms Smith and the two-year-olddaughter she had with a British extremist
are poised to come home. “If all goes well,”
says a Turkish official, the two will be on a
plane to Ireland “in a matter of days”.
Many others are expected to follow.
Since the start of the invasion, Turkey has
fast-tracked the deportations of foreign is
fighters and sympathisers captured in Syr-
ia or locked up in Turkey. President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan recently warned he would
send all of them packing. “These gates will
open and these ismembers will continue
to be sent,” he said on November 12th, ad-
dressing European countries. “Then you
can take care of your own problem.”
Over the course of its offensive, Turkey
has captured 287 people linked to is, most
of them women and children, adding to the
1,500 or so foreign fighters already held in
Turkish prisons and deportation centres.
Hundreds of other militants are said to
have escaped during the fighting. Most of
Syria’s north-east remains in Kurdish
hands, along with the area’s prisons and
camps, home to tens of thousands of mili-
tants and their families. Outside powers
would like to keep things that way; both
America and Russia say the Turkish assault
has already offered isa chance to regroup
and plot attacks in Syria and elsewhere.
Turkey itself remains vulnerable to isre-
surgence. The head of Iraq’s military intel-
ligence branch recently said that some of
the group’s main financiers had found ref-
uge in southern Turkey after bribing their
way through Kurdish-held territory.
The deportations are not new. Turkey
has already expatriated some 7,600 sus-
pected fighters over the past several years,
officials in Ankara say. But Mr Erdogan’s
decision to speed up the process, as well as
the Turkish invasion, have focused minds
on the fate of the thousands of foreigners,
ranging from hardened extremists to tod-
dlers, who are packed into prisons and
camps across the whole region.
Many European countries would prefer
them to stay there. Some have stripped doz-
ens of their nationals of citizenship. Gov-
ernments fear the political backlash that
allowing returns would provoke, not to
mention the devastating electoral conse-
quences of any attacks by those returning,
says a recent report by the International
Crisis Group (icg). Collecting evidence and
prosecuting them also poses a headache.
Strict requirements for obtaining a convic-
tion mean that those returning to some
European countries may walk free, the icg
says. Already, dozens of women and men
have come back from Syria without serving
time in detention.
Deporting Ms Smith should be easy,
though dnatests may be needed to con-
firm her daughter’s identity. Prosecuting
her will be much harder. The next front in
the war against Europe’s jihadists will be
back home, and in court. 7ANKARA
Turkey deports Islamic State fightersTu r ke yFrom caliphate to
courtroom
Coming home