Europe Rethinks Nuclear Deterrence Amidst Shifting Alliances and US Reliability Concerns

As geopolitical tensions rise and trust in the United States’ security commitments wanes, European nations are increasingly discussing the possibility of developing independent nuclear capabilities. This debate, fueled by the unpredictable nature of US foreign policy and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, centers on whether Europe can and should establish its own nuclear deterrent to safeguard its security interests.

Sweden and Norway’s Positions on Nuclear Weapons

Recent statements from Sweden’s Defense Minister Pål Jonson indicate that Sweden does not rule out the possibility of hosting nuclear weapons on its soil during wartime. Nettavisen reports this shift in policy. In contrast, Norway maintains a firm policy against the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory in peacetime. Still, Sverre Diesen, former chief of defense and current chief researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), suggests that this distinction is largely symbolic.

Diesen argues that the focus should be on cruise missiles, which do not require physical deployment on Swedish or Norwegian soil to be effective. He characterizes the debate as “more political symbolism than military realities.”

The Question of US Reliability

A key driver of this renewed discussion is the perceived unreliability of the United States under the Trump administration. Diesen contends that Europe must consider independent nuclear capabilities “because we cannot trust the Americans unconditionally as long as the Trump administration is in power.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the potential for the US to prioritize its own interests over those of its European allies.

Towards a Joint European Nuclear Force?

Diesen proposes the creation of a joint European nuclear force, encompassing a full range of weapons and delivery systems, as the most credible solution. He acknowledges that this would present significant economic and political challenges. Currently, only Britain and France possess nuclear weapons within Europe, with estimated arsenals of 220 and 290 warheads respectively. Research from St Andrews University highlights this existing nuclear capacity.

However, Diesen emphasizes the need for Europe to develop tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems, which it currently lacks. This would inevitably lead to a “proliferation effect” of nuclear weapons, a situation that has been avoided while the US maintained this capacity.

The Credibility of Deterrence and the Question of Leadership

A central challenge lies in determining who would make the ultimate decision to respond to a nuclear attack with joint European forces, and whether those leaders would be willing to risk their own countries in the defense of others. The question arises: would French President Emmanuel Macron or British Prime Minister Keir Starmer be willing to risk Paris or London to defend Oslo?

The US currently provides a “nuclear umbrella” over Europe, deterring potential attacks by other nuclear powers. The US possesses an estimated 5,000 nuclear warheads, while Russia holds approximately 5,500. Diesen questions the credibility of this umbrella, particularly given the Trump administration’s stated desire for a closer geopolitical partnership with Russia.

Defense Agreements and Nuclear Policy

Both Norway and Sweden have Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs) with the United States. The Norwegian DCA explicitly prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on Norwegian territory in peacetime. Notably, the Swedish DCA does not mention nuclear weapons at all.

Strategic vs. Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are broadly categorized as strategic or tactical. Strategic weapons are long-range and designed to target an adversary’s nuclear arsenal, command centers, and major cities. Tactical weapons have a shorter range and lower explosive yield, intended for use on the battlefield.