The nuclear deterrent must be at the centre of Europe’s security policy. For nearly 80 years that deterrent has been in the hands of the US through its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Britain and France have also had nuclear arsenals. But they do not come close to countering the stockpile of Russian weapons. Their purpose is to give heft to the political power of the two former European colonial powers.
That is changing. It must change. Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw have made it necessary. The most recent is the most worrying. The US president went to war without consulting his NATO allies and without a clear goal or exit strategy. He inevitably ran into difficulties and called upon his NATO allies to extricate him from what looks like an unwinnable conflict. Not wanting to be dragged into a “forever war” in the powder keg Middle East, the NATO allies refused. Trump responded by heaping insult on insult and issuing his clearest threat yet to withdraw from the “most successful military alliance in world history.”
Of course, a Trumpian withdrawal from NATO would not be a simple matter of signing an Executive Order. Marco Rubio saw to that shortly before he was appointed Trump’s Secretary of State. While still in the Senate he co-sponsored a bill which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for US withdrawal from the NATO Treaty.
Trump has a one-seat majority in the Senate. But even if it were larger, it is unlikely that he could twist enough Senate arms to secure a two-thirds majority. Fourteen Republican senators — including his sycophantic ally Lindsey Graham — have said they would vote to stay in the alliance. So that route appears blocked.
But the president could still severely damage the alliance. As commander-in-chief he has operational control over all military units so he could simply order the 70,000 US troops in Europe to come home. It would be a stupid move and put him on a collision course with his party in the Senate, but it is just the sort of thing Trump would do.
Such a move would immediately put a big question mark over whether America’s nuclear umbrella would stay in place. Which is why the European members of the alliance are discussing how they could replace the American deterrent.
For a start, they cannot replace it without a major shift in strategic thinking. In 1962 Donald Brennan at the Hudson Institute formulated the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction; better known by its acronym — MAD. The MAD theory simply stated that if both sides (the US and the Soviet Union) had enough nuclear warheads to blow up the world several times over than neither side would attack the other. The decades of strategic arms limitation talks from 1967 into the 21st century kept MAD in mind as they always maintained a balance between the two strategic arsenals.
The converse of MAD is that if one side gains a strategic advantage then it creates the possibility of the other side launching a nuclear war. American withdrawal would give Russia a distinct strategic advantage.
So, for a start the two remaining nuclear powers in NATO – Britain and France – would need an alternative strategic nuclear plan. Instead of MAD they would need a Minimum Nuclear Deterrent or MIND strategy.
MAD has a corollary strategy knows as flexible response which involves the 70,000 US conventional forces in Europe plus other NATO armies, holding off a Russian conventional attack until American, British and French conventional forces can be rushed to the frontline. If they start to falter than first tactical and then intermediate range nuclear weapons are employed. The strategic nuclear forces are launched only as a last resort and only on a second-strike basis – in response to a nuclear attack from Moscow.
For a European nuclear deterrent to be taken seriously by the Russians then they must be convinced that the Europeans will use their nuclear weapons at a much earlier stage in any conflict. In fact, if the Europeans want to deter Moscow, they need to make it clear that if Russia attacked with conventional weapons, Europe would respond with a first-strike nuclear attack.
Europe, of course, means Britain and France. All the other European countries are prevented from developing nuclear weapons by their signatures on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, one of the first requirements for a European deterrent is increased Anglo-French nuclear cooperation. This started in 2010 when David Cameron and Nikolas Sarkozy agreed to jointly collaborate on nuclear stockpiles and to a joint nuclear testing facility at Valduc, France and a joint development centre at Britain’s atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston.
In July 2025 this cooperation was reaffirmed in the Northwood Declaration and went on to create an Anglo-French Nuclear Steering Group to coordinate policies, capabilities and operations. Both sides made it clear to the media that the new framework was meant to create a “European backstop” in case of US withdrawal.
The UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review also recommended greater British participation in NATO’s nuclear deterrence. To that end, the Government decided to bolster its nuclear deterrent by re-establishing an air-based nuclear strike force. It abandoned the delivery of nuclear bombs by aircraft in 1998 to concentrate entirely on Trident.
European NATO is still a long way from being able to replace America. And if Trump were to suddenly withdraw, Putin could be tempted to take advantage of a gaping window of vulnerability. The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) reckons that Europe needs to spend a trillion dollars to replace the US commitment to NATO and that it would take up to five years.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What's he got?
What remains of the locations where Hue and Cry was filmed
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Carl Pierce
Roland
Chris Cory
Robert Knight
Alex Macfie
23 Comments
The problem with returning to an air-launched nuclear strike force is exactly what caused the UK to give it up as a strategic weapon back in the 1950s. Back then, the recognition that the UK V-bomber fleet could not penetrate Soviet air defences to drop free-fall nuclear bombs, led to the development of Blue Steel, a stand-off weapon with a 200-mile range and when that was realised to be inadequate, Macmillan’s government opted for the American Skybolt missile that had a 1000-mile range. It was President Kennedy’s decision to cancel Skybolt after a series of failures that led to him offering the UK government the SLBM Polaris in its place and so to our present dependence on Trident.
Back in the 1950s we still had bombers that were capable of carrying missiles with a large thermo-nuclear warhead capable of obliterating a city like Moscow; that role is now met by Trident. What are now euphemistically-called tactical nuclear weapons is the most that could be carried by aircraft like Typhoon or F-35A and it is difficult to see what role they would have beyond a Russian land attack on a NATO member. The Ukrainians have shown us that they can effectively defend territory against the Russians with much lower-cost conventional weapons.
What a depressing piece. Why would the Russians or indeed the Chinese bother with a conventional attack secure in the knowledge that this would invoke a first strike nuclear response. No! They will get their retaliation in first and just launch their nuclear arsenal first.
That’s why the pursuit of nuclear disarmament is so important and it’s why the UK and its European allies must try to achieve an agreement with those regarded as our enemies. Threats of a first strike nuclear response are utterly mad.
Thank you for an interesting, researched article.
How big a danger to Europe is a Russia which has still not conquered smsaller, weaker Ukraine?
Might a nuclear attack on Europe harm Russia?
As the Russians have failed to defeat Ukraine in over 4 years of war I don’t see that we would need to go nuclear immediately should they attack a NATO country. Surely the combined NATO armies could defend for a while, at least.
Thank you for an intersting, researched article.
Might it be relevant to bear in mind that, since 20011?
Russia has attacked 2 countries and maintained a military presence in two other countries.
America has engaged in 3 full scale wars on other countries and bombed at least 10 countries
China has not openly attacked any other country.
@Steve: Since 2001, Russia has engaged in a full scale invasion of Ukraine, and in what amount to wars in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Mali, Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic. They have forces in Belarus. And it is clear that it is Russia that is behind direct sabotage/arson/etc. attacks on several European countries, including the UK (notably the Salisbury poisonings). There’s ample evidence that at a non-military level, Russia has attacked and tried to undermine democracy in several Western countries by spreading malicious fake news at election time – most obviously recently in Moldova, but also notably in the US in the 2016 elections, which almost certainly helped Trump get elected (although it’s impossible to know if it was decisive). Russia has also deliberately directed large numbers of migrants to borders with countries including Finland and Latvia, again as an apparently deliberate attempt to destabilize/cause problems for those countries.
You might want to rethink your figures for how many countries Russia has attacked.
Back to Tom’s article, yes that seems a good summary of the challenges facing us. It does seem that it’s to some extent now up to the UK and France to step up and provide a nuclear umbrella for Western Europe against Russia.
Simon, I think what some are referring to is that Russia has been stuck in a bloody border dispute east of the Dnieper River for four years. It poses no threat to our territorial borders, and its weaponry has proven to be no match for its Western counterparts. As for all the other de facto conflicts you’ve mentioned, most folks couldn’t find them on a world map, let alone care about the internal conflicts in those regions. The biggest threat to Western Europe isn’t Russian; it’s the slow Balkanization that’s self-inflicted.
” {Russian} weaponry has proven to be no match for its Western counterparts…..”
True
Russian GDP is about the same as Italy. The population is about a third of the EU and UK combined. So we should be able to manage quite well without US backing. We’d be better off without the US if they elect any more Presidents of similar ilk to Trump.
If the UK is to have a truly independent nuclear deterrent it would be good not to rely on US Trident missiles and F35s to deliver gravity bombs.
@Jenny: I think the point about a strategy of going straight to nuclear retaliation isn’t about whether our troops can hold the line for a while in the event of a Russian attack: It’s more that, if Putin believed we would go straight to nuclear retaliation, he would be unlikely to order an attack in the first place.
@Peter: I don’t think GDP and population tells the whole story. Russia doesn’t need as much money to wage war because they can pay their soldiers and engineers less. Or use enforced conscription of North Koreans, or dupe people from other countries into fighting, in a way that would not be acceptable in Western democracies. Putin doesn’t have to go through a democratic Parliament full of opposition parties scrutinizing that everything he does is ethical, nor is he restricted by laws that limit under what circumstances and in what manner his Government can use force, or by a free population, able to protest if the Government mistreats them. Of course it’s good that Western European countries generally do have those freedoms and democratic checks, but they do mean waging war becomes much more expensive and difficult for us. Look as one example how difficult it’s apparently been even for us to do something obvious and simple – like impound sanctions-busting ships that sail through British waters carrying Russian Oil. Could you imagine Russia failing to do that because of Putin being worried about legal issues if the situation were reversed!
We are told that if Putin is not stopped he will invade Europe. So, what does Europe have, which Putin is so desperate to acquire, that he would invade? It looks to me that Putin’s needs *were* being met, when he wanted to sell Europe, Russian Nat Gas, and Europe was very willing to buy, Russian Nat Gas.
It seems to me as if “whoever” destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines wanted to create agro between Russia and Europe. Am I missing something?
So there is a potential doubt about US support for UK nuclear weapons. We have been here before. The UK was part of the Manhattan Project, with the US and Canada. Then the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) removed the UK from post-war US nuclear weapons programmes.
In 1952 in Operation Hurricane the UK demonstrated a fission weapon. In 1957 in Operation Grapple the UK demonstrated a thermonuclear weapon. The 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) returned the UK to the US nuclear orbit. The Polaris Sales agreement was signed in 1963.
The UK had to demonstrate that we were able to go it alone and that we had something to bring to the table. At present we are quite dispensable, and indeed sometimes require explicit US help with some of our problems. As indeed Ben Wallace did testifying to Congress about the W93 programme.
Hurricane and Grapple were rather simple and brutal demonstrations. But they were done by a poor post-war nation facing many scientific unknowns. Others have done even cheaper and simpler things. Possibly a clever think tank such as the IISS could take a look as options for affordability, rather than replicating the current US technology.
“What does Europe have, that Putin is so desperate to acquire”
I think that there is good evidence that Putin would like to acquire Ukraine. If successful then the Baltic States and Moldova are likely targets. Partly because they were formerly part of the Russian Empire and the USSR and partly because the Baltic States would be useful in the defence of St Petersburg.
If you mean Western Europe there would be an advantage in controlling Norway and or Denmark as that would give access to the Baltic Sea. Iceland and or Greenland would give access to the North Atlantic from Murmansk and Archangel. But if you mean The Uk, France, Germany etc then there is nothing really to be gained.
So the question, once again, is what are we prepared to defend.
From The UK’s perspective the question is what do we ask for in return.
Most readers of this website would probably say to rejoin the EU.
But looking at the polls between 40 & 50% of the public would vote for pro Brexit Parties. That is the Conservatives, Reform etc. it follows that whether or not rejoining the EU would be in the UK’s best interests it would cause so much trouble as to be unwise, in my opinion.
So I would suggest improved access to the EU by other means such as mutual recognition of standards and mutual access to markets to trade other than by joining the Single Market and Customs Union. Perhaps some form of freedom of movement for young people although even that risks another 5 to 10 years of disruption which followed the Brexit referendum.
“I think that there is good evidence that Putin would like to acquire Ukraine. “
Maybe, but which Ukraine? We are led to believe that all of Ukrainians are somehow, one homogenous bunch, but they are clearly not. If our starting point is roughly Kiev, and we look West, the Ukrainians are very Europe leaning. However, if we look east of Kiev, the Ukrainians are Russian thinking, Russian speaking, and *feel* Russian. This caused Washington a problem in 2010 when those East Ukrainians, “foolishly” and “wrongly” voted for Viktor Yanukovych. Washington sent Victoria Nuland in 2014 no doubt with a lot of $dollars, and shortly thereafter Viktor Yanakovich fled to Russia for his life.
However 2014 was only the beginning of the problem. East Ukrainians had to be taught a lesson for their ludicrous Russian mindset. The torching of a Union building in Odessa (with people still inside), was a start of the 2014 punishment, which the Azov battalion of Kiev perpetrated on the east Donbass region for 8 years.
Here is the next question. Did Putin have a bad breakfast one 2022 morning and decide to invade Ukraine because he just felt like it? Or did he watch 8 years of Russian speaking east Ukrainians being punished and persecuted, and decided to enter East Ukraine to protect them?
My uneducated guess is that East Ukraine would bed in very easily with Russia. Kiev and West Ukraine, maybe not so much.
Tom ‘ Did Putin have a bad breakfast one 2022 morning and decide to invade Ukraine because he just felt like it?’
No. The Anglo-Ukraine Naval Agreement included a clause where Nato would build a naval base in the Sea of Azov, which is surrounded by Russia, Russian speaking Donbas and Russian occupied Crimea. Putin proposed to stop NATO’s ever-eastward advance. Mariupol, the probable site of the base saw the major battle on the first day of the war.
Tom Bailey, you ask did Putin have a bad breakfast one 2022 morning and decide to invade Ukraine because he just felt like it? My answer is as follows:
On 21 June 2021, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed a naval cooperation agreement. Did Putin take the Anglo-Ukraine Naval Treaty seriously? It said: ‘The United Kingdom will also construct a new naval base on the Black Sea as the primary fleet base for the Ukrainian Navy and a base on the Sea of Azov.[5] The agreement also provided for the sale of missiles to Ukraine, and for training and support for these.’ (See Wikipedia ‘Black Sea Incident’)
Three weeks later Putin, on July 2021, in a manic speech, argued for the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians
I believe this was his excuse for invading Ukraine.
John Waller
In the link you provide, Putin’s final word says “And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide” I totally agree. Putin declared that his reason for invading Ukraine early in 2022, was because he wanted to “de-nazify” Ukraine. This reason fits with my point that the Russian speaking Donbass was being persecuted by Kiev’s Azov Nazis. As part of the peace deal, why not let Ukrainian citizens of the Donbass decide their future?
Tom Bailey, you earlier ask ‘it seems to me as if “whoever” destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines wanted to create agro between Russia and Europe. Am I missing something?’ No, you are right.
The Wall Street Journal had a great article confirmed your suspicion. It was a Ukrainian Red Flag operation:
‘The Journal spoke to four senior Ukrainian defense and security officials who either participated in or had direct knowledge of the plot. All of them said the pipelines were a legitimate target in Ukraine’s war of defense against Russia.’
Write to Bojan Pancevski at [email protected]
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c
The information in my comment above comes from AI Overview and so be checked by anyone who cares to do so.
Might it also be worth considering the socio-economic and financial consequences of America’s aggression using foreign policy which might well be rooted in a deep policy of World domination?
On the assumptions that nuclear deterrence works and that we can no longer rely on the USA then we should work to merge ours with France and to forge a pan-european capability. The idea of using any nuclear force without a first strike by an enemy should be abhorrent. The commitment must be that Europe will build its convential forces so that will never be necessary as soon as possible. Until then we will have to rely on America.
@Simon Robinson ” if Putin believed we would go straight to nuclear retaliation, he would be unlikely to order an attack in the first place.”
That “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Do you remember the nuclear deterrent episode of “Yes Minister”?
Riot in Hungary protesting over the election..Button?
Russians send police to help their Hungarian friends restore order…Button?
Russians send infantry and light tanks to back up the police…Button?
etc.
John Waller 5th Apr ’26 – 5:37pm:
On 21 June 2021, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed a naval cooperation agreement.
[…]
I believe this was [Putin’s] excuse for invading Ukraine.
That may have been a precipitative factor, but Putin had already annexed Crimea in 2014 (after which several European countries continued to supply Russia with military equipment indicating ambivalence). Russia has long been opposed to NATO’s eastwards expansion having once been assured it would not extend beyond the former East Germany. In 1990, Russia agreed to Ukraine becoming independent as a “permanently neutral state”…
‘Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine’ [16th. July 1990]:
https://archive.is/KsABF
Subsequently, Ukraine sought NATO membership…
‘Relations with Ukraine’:
https://archive.is/plyiF