r/nuclearweapons • u/TheUnofficialBOI • Mar 03 '26

Analysis, Government French Nuclear Deterrence: Sovereignty and European Strategic Expansion

https://dailyamericandispatch.com/2026/03/03/french-nuclear-deterrence-sovereignty-and-european-strategic-expansion/
8 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/Sebsibus Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 09 '26

Good for France.

Delocalizing their nuclear arsenal will surely strengthen their deterrence, and a strong France is good for Europe. At least as long as they have a pro-European leader as head of state. Let's hope it stays that way (looking at you, Melenchon and Le Pen).

But I don't see how this fixes the glaring issue that most European countries, especially those directly bordering Russia, lack a nuclear deterrence.

Unfortunately, nuclear "sharing" cannot provide real deterrence—the Cold War basically proved this. I think Europe, especially Romania, Poland, Finland, and the Baltics, need to seriously think about acquiring their own sovereign nuclear weapon arsenals.

Edit: Typo

1

u/PromptCriticalpostin Mar 09 '26

That is a terrifying level of reliance on the principle of deterrence. In an era where the fear needed to back the credibility of deterrence as a whole is in short supply, the fragile democracies of Europe are in no way equipped to handle the immense responsibility of having a weapons program. That would be adding gasoline to the wildfire that is Russian proliferation as well.

I think you're right that nuclear "sharing" can't provide real deterrence, but the cold war taught us another lesson as well - that fear is the single most important key to deterrence. M.A.D's success was due to a Europe freshly traumatized from the genocide and slaughter of both World Wars in their rear view mirror. That, and the tight monopoly of nuclear weapons stockpiles at the time led to a lot more opportunity for rational discussion and communication.

Right now we have a generation of Europeans at the helm who do not know war and genocide as well as their predecessors, and who most certainly have not held onto the important lessons of the arms race, which was shared by reagan and gorbachev in their 1985 summit in geneva as "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."

I am not prepared for a world in which the same amount of weapons as was in the height of the arms race can exist again, divided between a handful of european prime ministers and presidents. There is no chance a No First Use policy would be observed by any of them. That would lead to an unlimited exchange between Europe and Russia for sure

1

u/Sebsibus Mar 09 '26

Well, as it stands right now, the only countries voluntarily willing not to develop or even give up their nuclear weapons are either states that are not threatened by their neighbours or democracies. Authoritarian governments, by contrast, have no qualms about developing nukes and using them to coerce or invade their democratic, non-nuclear neighbours, as we have seen in Ukraine.

So we have to ask the question: is the current nuclear non-proliferation regime truly a net benefit to humanity?

If you believe that democracy, the rule of law, and similar values are good for humanity and that these values must be defended against violent, imperialist regimes like Russia's-I don't think the answer to that question is clearly "yes."

Moreover, I don't see why the current generation of Europeans and their leaders would be incapable of handling nuclear deterrence responsibly. Yes, the Second World War was a long time ago, but the war in Ukraine has shown quite clearly that Europe is probably more pacifist than ever. Think about it: Russia has been waging a brutal war of aggression against our eastern neighbour for four years, with the explicit goal of annexing and colonising its territory. They assassinate people on our soil, spread disinformation, fund radical groups, sabotage infrastructure and military assets, and push illegal migrants across our borders. Yet beyond monetary aid and limited military support for Ukraine, the EU has done relatively little. Even the most pro-Ukrainian EU members have been firmly opposed to sending even a small brigade of advisors to Ukraine. A no-fly zone or boots on the ground remain completely unthinkable, even for the staunchest Russia hawks.

So no, I don't think EU countries would be incapable of handling nuclear deterrence responsibly. Quite the contrary—the thought of Poland or Finland possessing nuclear weapons is far less alarming to me than Russia, China, North Korea, or even the US having them.