Europe's Nuclear Dilemma: Protection or Proliferation?
In a chilling future scenario, military analysts project Russian soldiers crossing into Finland and Poland by September 2030. Vladimir Putin would announce another 'special military operation' against NATO, building on his invasion of Ukraine less than a decade earlier. The critical difference this time? America might not come to Europe's defence.
This concerning vision reflects growing anxieties among European leaders who fear the United States could distance itself from the continent during Donald Trump's potential second term. The uncertainty has reignited serious discussions about nuclear proliferation across nations that currently possess atomic weapons and those that don't.
Expert Warnings: The High Cost of Nuclear Spread
During a recent briefing at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) addressing how to prevent 'an era of nuclear anarchy,' experts weighed the grave implications for global security. Eric Brewer from the Nuclear Threat Initiative's Nuclear Materials Security Programme emphasised that even one or two additional nuclear states would matter enormously.
'We are not predicting a cascade of proliferation, but even one or two additional nuclear-armed states would pose serious challenges for the US and its allies,' Brewer cautioned. He pointed to North Korea as a prime example, noting that managing escalation risks has consumed vast diplomatic resources.
Similarly, the Iran situation demonstrates that even approaching nuclear capability without possessing an actual weapon creates significant instability. Top nuclear experts argue against deploying more warheads across Europe, suggesting instead that NATO should strengthen existing deterrence and improve political unity.
Europe's Current Nuclear Landscape
The United Kingdom and France currently maintain approximately 515 nuclear warheads between them. This represents only a fraction of Russia's estimated arsenal of 4,309 warheads.
Under NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements, the United States stores around 100 of its warheads across five European nations: Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The exact number remains classified information.
Jane Darby Menton, a fellow in the Nuclear Policy Programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, observed that nuclear weapons have regained prominence in political and public discussions unlike anything seen in recent years. 'My parents are suddenly a lot more interested in what I work on than they were a few years ago,' she noted, highlighting shifting public awareness.
However, Menton explained that while people might initially favour developing 'a survivable arsenal,' the appeal diminishes once they understand the substantial timelines, trade-offs, and costs involved.
The Significant Barriers to Nuclear Acquisition
Developing nuclear weapons presents a lengthy, complicated, and highly visible process that no nation can conceal. Multiple significant barriers deter countries from even considering this path:
- Withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
- Destabilisation of existing alliances
- Immediate diplomatic backlash
- Risk of crippling economic sanctions
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, established in 1970, now includes 191 participating nations. Its three pillars focus on non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of atomic energy. Most member states have no nuclear arsenal and agree to International Atomic Energy Agency reviews to ensure nuclear materials aren't weaponised or exported.
Among the eight known nuclear powers, disarmament occurs primarily through treaties. The United States and Russia have previously reduced their inventories through the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
The political, economic, and strategic costs of pursuing nuclear weapons remain prohibitively high for most nations, even those debating proliferation at preliminary stages. As European leaders confront an increasingly uncertain security landscape, the nuclear question presents no easy answers, with every potential solution carrying substantial consequences for global stability.
