By John Q. Hosedrinker 
European nations are exploring enhanced nuclear deterrence capabilities amidst growing security concerns and questions about US commitment to NATO. Preliminary discussions have occurred between Sweden, the UK, and France regarding nuclear cooperation, with London and Paris already agreeing to coordinate aspects of their nuclear posture. This shift stems from perceived threats from Russia and potential US policy changes, leading to interest from countries like Poland and Germany in nuclear protection mechanisms involving France or the UK. While France has ruled out integrating its arsenal into NATO, it remains open to exploring how its capabilities could bolster European defense, potentially through joint drills and the future hosting of nuclear-capable aircraft.
Read the original article here
Europe is increasingly contemplating the development of its own nuclear deterrent, a shift driven by a growing erosion of trust in the United States’ security guarantees. This reevaluation stems from a palpable sense of unreliability that has emerged, making the prospect of being “better safe than sorry” an increasingly attractive consideration for European nations.
The idea of Europe cultivating greater independence, even to the point of eventually declining the presence of U.S. military bases, is a sentiment gaining traction. This desire for self-reliance is not directed at undermining alliances but rather at ensuring a stable future, irrespective of shifts in U.S. foreign policy.
The perceived weakening of the United States, particularly in the context of its current political landscape, fuels this European introspection. Doubts are being raised about the stability and predictability of U.S. leadership, leading many to question its long-term commitment to collective security.
The internal questioning within the U.S. itself regarding its political direction further amplifies European concerns. The thought that critical thinkers still support a particular leadership, despite perceived damaging effects on national and international standing, highlights the deep divisions and uncertainties that Europe is attempting to navigate.
This uncertainty leads to discussions about the practicalities and costs of developing an independent nuclear capability. While the financial implications are a significant consideration, the perceived cost of continued reliance on an unpredictable ally is also being weighed. The question of how much this would truly cost, compared to existing defense budgets, is a crucial aspect of the debate.
The potential for proliferation also looms, with concerns raised about how nations with pro-Russia leanings might seek their own nuclear weapons under a similar pretext. This raises the specter of a more unstable global security environment, where regional powers might pursue such capabilities, potentially creating new dangers.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that the European Union, known for its sometimes slow decision-making processes, might struggle to achieve such a complex undertaking. Doubts about the EU’s capacity to effectively implement such a security framework are openly expressed, coupled with a desire for individual nations to take charge of their own defense.
The notion of subsidizing foreign security with taxpayer money is increasingly being questioned, with a preference for reinvesting those funds domestically. This reflects a growing sentiment that the focus should shift towards national interests and self-sufficiency rather than global security operations that may no longer align with perceived needs.
The possibility of a future where the U.S. returns to a more traditional alliance model is acknowledged, but the lingering question is whether such commitments can be relied upon beyond short electoral cycles. The demonstrated political instability in the U.S. makes long-term assurances seem precarious.
The idea of European elites wielding nuclear power is met with apprehension by some, with concerns about their historical involvement in various global conflicts and migration policies. This raises questions about who would control such a potent arsenal and what their motivations might be.
The strong opposition from the U.S. to Europe developing its own nuclear capabilities is interpreted by some as a clear indication that it is a desirable move for Europe and something Russia would also strongly oppose. This dynamic suggests a strategic calculation at play, where mutual opposition can signal strategic advantage.
The principle of nuclear non-proliferation is seen by many as having eroded significantly. The idea that nuclear umbrellas were intended for non-nuclear states, but are now perceived as tools of manipulation by nuclear powers, fuels the argument for independent deterrents.
This perceived “extortion racket” of nuclear deterrence has led to the conclusion that authoritarian states like Russia and China will only respect a Europe that possesses its own nuclear might. The argument is made that fearmongering about costs and liabilities is secondary to the strategic imperative of being able to deter aggression from such powers.
The disregard for treaties by authoritarian states is highlighted as a reason why democratic nations should not feel bound by them, especially when those treaties are not universally upheld. This suggests a pragmatic shift towards self-preservation, even if it means challenging existing international norms.
The immediate practicalities of building nuclear weapons are acknowledged as being expensive and difficult, with questions about whether European nations possess the necessary expertise and financial resources. The reluctance of existing nuclear powers to welcome new members into their exclusive club is also a significant hurdle.
The complex and often drawn-out bureaucratic processes within the EU are anticipated to hinder any rapid progress towards developing a nuclear shield, with concerns that internal divisions and national interests, like those of Hungary, could derail the initiative.
The concept of subsidizing foreign security is reframed by some as funding an international security apparatus that benefits the subsidizing nation’s own economic stability. This suggests a broader perspective on the interconnectedness of global security and economic well-being.
The cyclical nature of U.S. politics, with the possibility of a return to leadership that is perceived as destabilizing, makes long-term reliance on American security commitments increasingly untenable. The fear is that any agreement made today could be rendered meaningless by the next election.
The erosion of trust in the U.S. is a profound issue, with concerns that even a return to a more traditional administration might not be enough to rebuild the shattered confidence. The repeated demonstration of political instability has created a deep-seated skepticism.
The inability of U.S. institutions to act as robust checks and balances is seen as a fundamental flaw that undermines the reliability of American commitments. This perceived weakness leads to Europe treating the U.S. as it might any other unstable democracy.
The idea of putting the “genie back in the bottle” is questioned, suggesting that the experience of electing a particular leader has fundamentally altered the perception of the U.S. as a reliable partner. America is now viewed by some as another potentially dangerous great power that Europe must manage.
The fractured nature of the U.S. political system, media, and societal divisions is seen as requiring massive, long-term change to restore trust. The question of why Europeans should gamble on deeper integration when that integration could be used for blackmail is a central point of contention.
The ship has sailed on reliance on the U.S., with the expectation that America will increasingly focus on its own hemisphere and geopolitical priorities like China. Europe, it seems, is now expected to chart its own course and find its own security solutions.
The short-term utility of a four-year commitment from the U.S. is questioned, especially given the possibility of even more detrimental leadership in the future. This sentiment reflects a profound disappointment and a desire for more permanent security arrangements.
The collective belief in the resilience of American institutions has been challenged, revealing a vulnerability to autocratic rule that was previously underestimated. This realization necessitates a reassessment of global security dynamics and Europe’s place within them.
The idea that trust and partnerships will magically return is met with skepticism, as the damage inflicted is seen as too significant and long-lasting. The threat of war has transformed relationships, and the path back to the previous level of trust is considered virtually impossible.
While some Americans express faith in their nation’s ability to rebound and regain trust, others acknowledge the profound damage done and the long road ahead to demonstrate genuine change and address the root causes of instability.
The existing nuclear capabilities of France and the UK are seen as a potential interim solution, but concerns remain about their long-term commitment and the possibility of them adopting isolationist policies. The race to establish a deterrent is thus framed by a sense of urgency.
The capacity for countries like the Netherlands to produce enriched uranium, and the mothballed status of German facilities, hints at a latent capability within Europe to develop nuclear materials. This suggests that the technical building blocks for a nuclear program are not entirely absent.
The global network of U.S. military bases, while projecting power, is also seen by some as a burden that other nations could potentially take on. The shift in U.S. economic structure, from manufacturing to services, is cited as a reason why maintaining such a global presence might be less critical for American economic interests.
The question of “having” to station bases globally is viewed by some as a symptom of an imperialistic mindset, where strategic placement is prioritized for power projection rather than purely defensive necessity. The reciprocal benefit of such global presence is debated.