https://sputnikglobe.com/20250324/three-big-reasons-why-europe-would-have-trouble-building-its-own-nukes-1121679726.html
Three Big Reasons Why Europe Would Have Trouble Building Its Own Nukes
Three Big Reasons Why Europe Would Have Trouble Building Its Own Nukes
Sputnik International
UK business media has reported that “discussions” are taking place in European capitals about the creation of an independent deterrent. But while it’s easy to talk about, actually doing so could prove a massive and perhaps even insurmountable challenge. Veteran defense analyst and ex-Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valterrson explains why.
2025-03-24T16:31+0000
2025-03-24T16:31+0000
2025-03-24T16:31+0000
military
europe
france
united kingdom (uk)
britain
nuclear
nuclear warhead
nuclear weapons
nuclear deterrence
nuclear deterrent
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e9/03/18/1121680195_0:160:3072:1888_1920x0_80_0_0_c8b83e259983c3317727fd6c6c59cdab.jpg
There are “three main problems,” with the idea, the observer notes:Command & Control: “A European Treaty Organization (ETO) would be a cooperation without a clear leader, not a single state. It’s very hard for an organization to have nuclear capability. Who shall decide when to use it and who to defend? It’s easy to say that you will defend everyone, but it’s very unlikely in reality,” Valterrson said.Even today, despite French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent tough talk about extending the French European deterrent to cover European allies, “few believe” that nuclear-armed European powers like France or Britain “would risk their own survival to defend countries in Eastern Europe.”Production Challenges: “It’s not enough to have some capability to produce nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. You have to have enough of them.” For Europe to reach even modern-day British or French warhead numbers (225-290), it would likely take until 2040, Valtersson estimates.Astronomical Expense: “Nuclear weapons are very expensive and a large part of the defense budgets of France and the UK goes to this renewal of nuclear weapons,” with a major portion (12-22%, respectively) of Britain and France’s military budgets spent on them.The cost of a European deterrent “would also be very high, taking resources from conventional rearmament.” And if Europe wants a truly strong deterrent including nuclear triad capability, even more spending would be needed. The US, for instance, is allocating $247 billion to the modernization of its triad as part of its broader nuclear modernization program.A Pointless Endeavor?Besides these issues, there’s also the matter of the tensions that could be created by European nuclear proliferation. “Some kind of sanctions might be possible,” and in the event of a military conflict with other major powers, “nuclear research and production facilities would be prime targets,” Valterrson warned.Whatever deterrent Europe manages to build, it would still be outmatched by the 5,000+ Russian nuclear weapons, which “have the capacity to turn Europe into a wasteland,” staring back at them. “The question arises, is a limited European nuclear umbrella worth its price?” the observer summed up.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250307/nuclear-arsenals-overview-who-holds-the-key-to-deterrence-in-europe-1121624033.html
france
united kingdom (uk)
britain
2025
News
en_EN
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e9/03/18/1121680195_171:0:2902:2048_1920x0_80_0_0_468cf371069d02d6c04234fee8b20878.jpg
is a european independent nuclear deterrent realistic, will europe really be able to build a nuclear deterrent of its own
is a european independent nuclear deterrent realistic, will europe really be able to build a nuclear deterrent of its own
UK business media has reported that “discussions” are taking place in European capitals about creating an independent deterrent. But while it’s easy to talk about, actually doing so could prove a massive and perhaps even insurmountable challenge. Veteran defense analyst and ex-Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valterrson explains why.
There are “three main problems,” with the idea, the observer notes:
Command & Control: “A European Treaty Organization (ETO) would be a cooperation without a clear leader, not a single state. It’s very hard for an organization to have nuclear capability. Who shall decide when to use it and who to defend? It’s easy to say that you will defend everyone, but it’s very unlikely in reality,” Valterrson said.
Production Challenges: “It’s not enough to have some capability to produce nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. You have to have enough of them.” For Europe to reach even modern-day British or French warhead numbers (225-290), it would likely take until 2040, Valtersson estimates.
Astronomical Expense: “Nuclear weapons are very expensive and a large part of the defense budgets of France and the UK goes to this renewal of nuclear weapons,” with a major portion (12-22%, respectively) of Britain and France’s military budgets spent on them.
The cost of a European deterrent “would also be very high, taking resources from conventional rearmament.” And if Europe wants a truly strong deterrent including nuclear triad capability, even more spending would be needed. The US, for instance, is allocating $247 billion to the modernization of its triad as part of its broader nuclear modernization program.
Besides these issues, there’s also the matter of the tensions that could be created by European nuclear proliferation. “Some kind of sanctions might be possible,” and in the event of a military conflict with other major powers, “nuclear research and production facilities would be prime targets,” Valterrson warned.
Whatever deterrent Europe manages to build, it would still be outmatched by the 5,000+ Russian nuclear weapons, which “have the capacity to turn Europe into a wasteland,” staring back at them. “The question arises, is a limited European nuclear umbrella worth its price?” the observer summed up.
