Their presence is militarily irrelevent in a sole European context, they are weapons that would never be used other than if the US is directly under large scale threat or any attack. Hstory shows clearly that the US will not risk itself (quite right), unless it itself is under direct threat or attack. NATO article 5 is just a piece of paper, that can be interpreted as the US sees fit in any prevailing conditions, basically in terms of the risk to itself against likely return on the engagement. People need understand that European security needs a European dimension and ownership. Even recently it is shown that even sending paper printable by the US in any amounts they want, can not have the political will behind it to send to europe via the IMF, when someone in Europe is in trouble. The truth is that Europe is of strategic importance to the US, however, there is a limit to what the US is prepared to pay for that importance. If even recent things like IMF loans prove difficult and the reasons behind late intervention in WW2 are considered. It can be seen that Europe will be very much on its own with US 'support' unless the US homestead looks to be catching fire. The cold war safety interlocks, of which these weapons are a part, certainly help in lowering the chances of an immediate large scale Russian US nuclear conflict, after all that is what they were designed for. However, in that very design and thinking, Europe has been left open to smaller conflicts that can become escalatory and gain momentum over time, the creep towards another large scale war in europe through a piecewise escalation is indeed very possible with the current security architecture. So in reality getting rid of these weapons is only factored against Russian US security, they have nothing to do with European security, other that directly through US security. If the US isn't threatened then the weapons are off limits. They are not needed for sole European security

Yes this guy comes across somebody with tunnel vision by repeating the same points again and again. But the he is he is spot on when he says that Obama does not want nuclear free world; Obama wants to dominate the nuclear strategy. The U.S silence of nuclear Israel, the U.S aggressive attempt to deny nuclear weapons to nations it considers not friendly to the U.S, the U.S strategy to push star wars and missile shields right to the borders of Russia strongly support this professor’s central claim that what U.S wants is not nuclear free world but a world dominated by the United States. Now, NATO is doing the U.S bidding by pushing the star wars to the borders of Russia even as the U.S negotiated dubious reset deal with Russia.