A Dutch Air Force F-35 fighter jet taxis to runway during NATO’s Steadfast Noon exercise. Source: Flickr, NATO, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
NATO’s annual nuclear weapons exercise Steadfast Noon ended just before the weekend. Of NATO’s 32 member states, 14 nations participated in the nuclear war exercise, including Norway.
Norway has previously participated in Steadfast Noon as an observer in 2023 and once with staff officers in 2024. This year, Norway participated with a “smaller number of F-35 fighter jets”, something that both Norwegian People’s Aid and a nuclear weapons researcher in the United States have been critical of.
Sverre Lodgaard is a senior researcher emeritus at NUPI. Lodgaard’s areas of expertise include geopolitics and the control and disarmament of nuclear weapons. He was director of NUPI in the period 1997–2007.
Lodgaard believes that the escalation of Norwegian participation in Steadfast Noon is a step in the wrong direction, and that it is more rational to build deterrence around modern conventional missiles rather than basing it on nuclear weapons.
Bombing Belarus Is Not A Meaningful Response
“If we look back at how it was in the 1980s during the Cold War, the United States could use its nuclear weapons against Eastern European countries and Soviet forces there, but certainly not against the Soviet Union itself, because that would lead to a retaliatory attack against the United States, which is the same as suicide, Lodgaard tells Nettavisen.”
“But now all these countries are in NATO, so where should the nuclear weapons be sent? I have seen that in some exercises they have ‘bombed’ Belarus, which is still allied with Russia. These are exercises that begin with the opposing party dropping a handful of nuclear weapons over NATO territory. But bombing Belarus is not a meaningful response,” says Lodgaard.
The NATO countries Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and the former East Germany (which was reunited with West Germany) were members of the Soviet Union’s defence alliance, the Warsaw Pact, during the Cold War.
Conventional Weapons Provide A More Credible Deterrent
“That is why conventional weapons have been used in other exercises, which provide a more credible deterrent. Many of these missiles are hypersonic, have high accuracy and great destructive power, and can therefore replace several of the roles that American nuclear weapons previously had,” says Lodgaard.
Can Be Replaced With Hypersonic Weapons
Russia has the hypersonic medium-range missile Oreshniki in its arsenal. The missile can deliver both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Russia fired an Oreshniki missile against Ukraine in November last year. The missile reached a speed of Mach 11, which corresponds to 13,600 kilometres per hour.
“Russia has been the first to use hypersonic weapons and Europe is following suit. It is becoming increasingly common,” says Lodgaard. “Escalating participation in the Steadfast Noon exercises makes little sense, because the use of nuclear weapons is something we would prefer to avoid. It is much more relevant and sensible to prepare for conventional deterrence,” he adds.
You say that the escalation of Norwegian participation in the Steadfast Noon exercise is automatic. What do you mean by that, Lodgaard?
“The situation in Europe is tense and the armament is accelerating. Norway participated with observers two years ago, staff officers last year and F-35 this year. As the Chief of Defence says, we have escorted aircraft with nuclear weapons before. We also did it during the Cold War, but now the map of Europe is different. Where will the weapons be dropped now? If we do not have a credible answer to that, participation becomes meaningless,” says Lodgaard.
Lodgaard refers to an interview Nettavisen did with Chief of Defence Eirik Kristoffersen, in which he confirmed that Norwegian F-35 aircraft had escort flights for aircraft that can carry nuclear weapons.
One Of The World’s Leading Experts Puts Norway In Its Place
Hans M. Kristensen is one of the world’s leading nuclear scientists and is the most cited source when it comes to estimates of the number of nuclear weapons in the world.
Nettavisen interviewed Kristensen in connection with Norwegian participation in the NATO exercise Steadfast Noon. Norway has previously participated in Steadfast Noon as an observer in 2023 and once with staff officers in 2024. This year, Norway is participating with a “smaller number of F-35 fighter jets.”
Norway’s participation in this year’s Steadfast Noon with F-35s is not a very different operation for Norway than any other air operation we participate in, Chief of Defence Eirik Kristoffersen told Nettavisen earlier this week.
Kristensen, who is director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, says that Norway is just one of the Nordic countries with increased commitment and participation in NATO’s nuclear weapons exercise.
“We see the same in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The Nordic countries seem very eager to increase their participation in nuclear operations. It is a clear change from how these countries acted previously,” he tells Nettavisen.
“During the Cold War, the Nordic countries were reluctant to participate in nuclear exercises, because it was very controversial and because they wanted to limit the degree of “nuclearisation” in the Nordic countries. It is therefore clear that the situation has now changed,” says the nuclear weapons researcher.
Kristensen says that the overall trend in Europe, NATO and Russia is that everyone is increasing their participation in and role related to nuclear operations.
“This is part of an increased ‘nuclear posture’ in Europe, which has increased significantly since 2014.”
He points out that this has no direct connection to the situation in Ukraine, “It is more about Russia and the fear that Russia may also be more aggressive towards NATO. This is the bigger picture,” he says.
Putting Norway In Its Place
Kristensen reacts to statements from Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark about their Steadfast Noon participation.
“Everyone emphasises in a way that this is a “natural” thing to do when you are a NATO member. But that is not true. Most NATO countries do not participate in nuclear weapons exercises. In fact, only 14 member states participate in Steadfast Noon, of which only two are nuclear powers—the United Kingdom and the United States.”
The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Belgium are other NATO nations that have participated in the Steadfast Noon exercise. These countries have already deployed American nuclear weapons.
Only 14 of a total of 32 NATO members participated in the exercise, which took place from October 13 to 24.
“This is neither natural nor something required to be a NATO member. It is therefore not surprising that some countries try to present it as normal—but of course it is not. It is part of a broader nuclear buildup in Europe,” says Kristensen.
Nettavisen asked Kristensen whether increased focus on nuclear weapons operations in Europe poses any danger.
“It depends on how you analyse these things. People who participate in these exercises and argue for increased ‘nuclear posture’ believe it is necessary because of Russia’s unacceptable behavior. They argue that by doing this, they are reminding Russia that NATO will defend itself, and hopefully this will make Russia refrain from doing anything stupid,” says Kristensen.
The term nuclear posture implies preparedness, visibility and role related to nuclear weapons, often through training, exercises, plans or rhetoric, to signal deterrence and preparedness.
“But one can also argue that it is a problem that all these countries are increasing their nuclear weapons deployment, because it means that the importance of nuclear operations and nuclear scenarios is increasing in Europe, and the question is whether this is the development we want,” he says.
Of Course It Involves Risks
Kristensen questions the necessity of the exercises.
Why is this necessary to convince Russia not to do anything against NATO? Russia is fully aware of NATO’s ‘nuclear posture’. They know that the US has nuclear weapons in Europe. They know that NATO’s capacity is sufficient, he says.
“It depends on what philosophy and theory one has about these issues. But of course it involves a risk that the scope of nuclear operations increases in Europe, because behind nuclear operations lie real exercises, realistic training, actual attack plans, new rhetoric and the like. There is no reason to assume that Russia will see this and think: “Oh no, now we have to calm down a bit.” That is unlikely,” says Kristensen.
He says Russia will normally respond to increased pressure by increasing its own pressure.
“The dilemma for NATO is therefore to find out how to respond to Russia’s behavior without increasing the nuclear risk in Europe. I’m not sure that the answer to this has been found yet,” he says. “It seems that everything is about doing things that symbolise strengthening deterrence—so every year a new step is taken, an addition to what was done the year before. Norwegian developments fully confirm this. Every step is part of the pattern.”
Source: