Europe – For decades, Europe has relied on the United States for protection. The assumption was simple: Washington would always step in if needed. But as American politics shift, that certainty is fading. European leaders now face unsettling questions. What if the US pulls back from NATO? What if Washington hesitates when confronted with a nuclear threat? And if that happens, does Europe have the means to deter aggression on its own?
These questions are no longer abstract. Russia has shown a willingness to use military force to achieve its goals, and it holds the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, China is expanding its own capabilities, and the US is increasingly focused on the Pacific. If a crisis escalates in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe, can we be sure that NATO’s nuclear umbrella will hold? Or will Europe find itself unprotected, forced to make impossible choices?
The Need for European Nuclear Strength
The reality is that nuclear deterrence has been at the core of European security since the Cold War. Today, only two European nations—France and the UK—possess nuclear weapons. And while they have credible arsenals, they are built on an outdated assumption: that the US will always be there as the ultimate backstop. But if Washington steps back, even slightly, the calculus changes.
Russia, with its vast stockpile of tactical and strategic nuclear warheads, may see an opportunity. A limited nuclear strike—perhaps on a Ukrainian military facility or even on NATO forces deployed as “peacekeepers”—could test the West’s resolve. Would Europe respond? Could it? The UK’s deterrent, for example, relies heavily on Trident missiles that are maintained with US assistance. If the US withdraws cooperation, Britain’s ability to use them could be compromised.
France, by contrast, maintains a fully independent nuclear arsenal. But it alone cannot shoulder the responsibility of deterring a nuclear-armed adversary. A broader European approach is needed—one that does not depend on American decision-making.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Missing Piece
One major gap in Europe’s deterrence is the lack of tactical nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, NATO maintained a variety of smaller-yield nuclear weapons for controlled escalation, should the need arise. Today, those are largely gone. The US still deploys B61 bombs in Europe, but they are American-owned and would require Washington’s approval for use.
Developing a European-controlled stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons would send a clear message: Europe is capable of responding proportionally to any nuclear provocation. Such weapons would not need to match Russia’s arsenal in quantity, but they would provide a credible response option short of full-scale nuclear war. This would strengthen deterrence, reducing the likelihood of nuclear escalation in the first place.
Moving Toward European Nuclear Sovereignty
If Europe wants true security, it must take steps toward nuclear self-sufficiency. This means investing in weapons development, strengthening the UK’s and France’s arsenals, and exploring joint European nuclear projects. A Franco-British nuclear initiative, backed by financial contributions from other EU and NATO members, could provide a collective deterrent.
At the very least, Europe should prepare contingency plans. If the US scales back support, how quickly could Europe replace American-made components in its nuclear forces? How long would it take to develop alternative missile systems? These are not questions that can wait until a crisis unfolds.
For too long, European security has rested on American guarantees. That approach is no longer enough. If deterrence is to remain credible, Europe must be ready to act—independently if necessary. Because in a world where nuclear threats are real, empty promises are the most dangerous weapon of all.