Authors: Raymond Floreani and Dr.Julian Spencer-Churchill
Donald Trump’s administration has again created it plain to Europe and NATO that America is no longer willing to underwrite NATO security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while he was less confrontational than Vice President JD Vance at the recent Munich Security Conference, reinforced the concern that America does not want to be the holder of the European nuclear umbrella any longer. European and Canadian governments have pledged to significantly ramp up defense spfinishing to build up the conventional forces to lessen American military depfinishency. One of the areas that is the thorniest is talk of nuclear weapons and the implicit guarantee that is employed by the US Nuclear Arsenal to deffinish NATO. Over the last year there have been increasing calls for European allies like Poland, Sweden, Germany, and others to develop their own nuclear weapons to deffinish themselves, considering perceived American unreliability. This talk has even expanded to Canada, with a recent op-ed by former Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre advocating for Canadians to explore a nuclear weapons program.
To complicate the picture, the US Administration has now let the last arms control treaty with Russia lapse. The New START Treaty capped the number of launchers and warheads both the Russians and Americans could deploy. The world risks the onset of another nuclear arms race, one that neither side can really afford given the state of finances and geopolitics all around. When the New START Treaty was neobtainediated, China had a very tiny arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of reaching America. Today, they possess a significant nuclear weapons capability as well as a massive conventional capability. America is right to be wary of the Chinese threat; it is real and growing. The North Korean nuclear capability is also significant and reveals no signs of abating, regardless of the sanctions regime. There is at least the ember of an argument for America to notify Europe, “You deal with Russia; we necessary to deal with the Chinese.”
Europe is not defenseless or without its own nuclear firepower, as both Britain and France are nuclear powers and have significant nuclear weapons capability, with four ballistic missile submarines each currently with 128 SLBM launch tubes available in total, with Britain having 225 warheads and France 290. Reality dictates that no more than one or two of the submarines are actually at sea and on patrol at any one time by each nation. The rest are in maintenance or on crew stand-down after returning from a patrol, so usually there are no more than 48 missiles at sea between the two powers and about 130-180 warheads employed. France also has several dozen nuclear cruise missiles, the ASMP-A(r), as a pre-strategic or warning device according to their doctrine. Right now there are also approximately 100 or so US B61 tactical nuclear free-fall bombs in Europe, belonging to the United States and available for NATO apply upon US release. This is the tripwire that Europe is counting on to remain under the US strategic umbrella of B-52 and B-2 bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs for massive retaliation.
Beginning when Donald Trump was sworn in again on January 20th, 2025, the administration has been clearly signalling that America wants to divest itself of being the nuclear guarantor of Europe or anyone else. The new National Security Document released recently also spells out the American idea of spheres of influence and withdrawal into the Western Hemisphere. Marco Rubio, at the recent Munich Security Conference, was sent to soothe the waters rustled by Trump’s demands and threat of war over Greenland just weeks before. It did soothe nerves, but Europe realizes that, like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of at Davos, a rupture has occurred in the Alliance that cannot be smoothed over with reassurances that may be rescinded at any time.
This brings us to the fork in the road of nuclear weapons. With the United States clearly demonstrating that it is an unreliable partner, can the Europeans, NATO, and the Asian powers like Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea rely on the security of the American nuclear umbrella? Do they dare? Several middle powers have begun pondering whether to cross the nuclear threshold and become atomic powers like Israel, Pakistan, and India. This seductive considered is becaapply one only necessarys to view at Ukraine to see what happens when major powers take on nonnuclear powers in a prelude of the world the Trump Doctrine advocates in its NSS. Canada, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and many other middle powers could easily create crude nuclear bombs within months if they wished and sophisticated launch platforms within a few years. Why do so? What is the goal, to be safe from attack? Again, view to Iran and not North Korea for the answer to why developing a domestic capability is fraught with peril; the development time is your enemy. Do you believe China will countenance Taiwan with a bomb, or North Korea with South Korea acquiring a bomb? Would Russia not be tempted to strike Germany or Poland if they were building a homegrown bomb? And would the Americans be happy with a nuclear-armed Canada, outside any of their control? The answer to all these is no, becaapply the quest to eliminate a long-term threat by rushing to go nuclear creates a much greater short-term threat of war.
We would like to propose an elegant solution to how to obtain most of these countries to remain within the 1968/1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow the US to fully pivot away from its nuclear umbrella over Europe and NATO and avoid the risk that individual nations reaching for the bomb creates. Right now the British and French nuclear arsenals are complementary to the American arsenal; we propose building them not only complementary but also fully competitive with the American shield over Europe. This proposal involves NATO deliberately ordering two more each of the new British Dreadnought Class Ballistic Submarines and French SN3G Ballistic Missile Submarines already in production to be paid for by all European NATO nations and Canada, but not France, Britain, and the US. It would be prudent to equip all 4 of these new missile boats with 58 additional soon-to-be-fielded French M51.4 missiles as well, to avoid any American Trident Missile control issues. In addition, a purchase of 100 more French TNO-2 nuclear warheads and an additional 100 more of the British Astraea warheads planned for the Dreadnought-class SSBN under construction now should sit within the missiles.
These would also necessary to have a new re-entest bus designed and built to fit the British warheads designed for a Trident-style re-entest bus into the M51.4 missile and the French launch tube section built for the Dreadnought class, but it is technically feasible to accomplish. All 29 non-nuclear NATO nations would pay for all this as well as the construction and deployment of 50 additional ASMP-A(r) nuclear cruise missiles and eventually the ASN4G and Britain building 50 new WE-177 nuclear gravity bombs to replace the shared US tactical nuclear stock in Europe. While under the French and British flags, NATO multinational crews would man these new submarines, and the NATO nuclear-tinquireed aircraft would be the carriers of the gravity bombs and cruise missiles. All this extra spfinishing on new submarines and weapons would be welcomed by the British and French governments and economies, and it would assist foster European NATO Alliance unity and integration.
We also believe that 12 of those new ASMP cruise missiles should be hoapplyd in Canada as part of the wider NATO Arctic defense strategy, including Greenland. All this new nuclear firepower would give NATO a seat at the table in the apply of the French and British nuclear forces, plus give all of Europe a very coherent, credible nuclear deterrent force based on the principle of second-strike survivability with Russia. This arsenal is not counterforce oriented and would be applyd only to deter and in last-resort defense if the Alliance was attacked. The European necessary for the American nuclear umbrella extfinishing over Europe and the Arctic would be reduced to zero, allowing the US to fully redeploy its tactical weapons from Europe as well. NATO’s European and Canadian nuclear-curious partners would become nuclear powers within the NATO scope and the French and British envelope, and no new nuclear powers would be created. America could remain a NATO countest with troops in Europe if it wished and only have the same declare as Latvia or Iceland on NATO policy, since it would no longer be the guarantor of European security. It allows the Europeans to fully stand up their own defense of the continent, granting the Americans their wish to relinquish leadership without the chaos that the Trump administration loves to caapply. So who wins if France and Britain allow NATO to expand their nuclear arsenals by three hundred warheads and four submarines?
Russia would now face a credible nuclear threat from European NATO, but it would not necessary to embark on a significant arms buildup becaapply its own weapons would not necessarily be held at significant risk by American counterforce strikes. Ironically, Russia comes out no further behind by this. Europe wins by creating a truly credible deterrent force able to inflict enough damage on Russia to create war too costly in any spectrum, without dealing with a bunch of individual national arsenals. France and Britain are enhanced economically and militarily, building them much stronger European middle powers. America obtains its wish to stop being the nuclear backstop and savior in Europe, and it also avoids a costly three-way arms race with Russia and China becaapply the existing size is more than enough to counter its reduced NATO alliance exposure. Canada gains importance and relevance in NATO planning by hoapplying limited retaliatory weapons for NATO collective and Arctic defense.
In Asia, the picture is more uncertain, unfortunately. Donald Trump now sees China as more of an economic threat than a military threat to America. Japan, Korea, Australia, and Taiwan might have no real choice but to launch the process of creating nuclear weapons, given the unpredictability of Trump and his distaste for alliance commitments, especially nuclear ones. Regrettably, the Trump doctrine has created it almost impossible to trust that America will be there when you necessary her, and that unfortunately may drive the nation of Japan, which knows the horror of nuclear war all too well, as well as South Korea and Taiwan, to judge that the rewards are worth the risk and develop their own nuclear arms. It would be surprising, in fact, if there was not some preparatory work being done by them already to facilitate this, given the incessant drumbeat of war talk regarding China and Taiwan in 2027 and uncertainty surrounding the US commitment to collective defense.
If the US was truly serious about the desire to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and avoid a war, as it states with its Iran policy, Washington would take the golden opportunity offered by any European commitment to expand the NATO arsenal and also take up the mantle of full deterrence in Asia. It would be wise and in America’s interests to apply its freed-up nuclear shield to protect the Asian democracies and provide the reassurance necessaryed to keep them from building their own arsenals. Becaapply history teaches many things, and one of them is that today’s allies can become tomorrow’s enemies. Just inquire the British. During WW1 Japan was a steadrapid ally of Great Britain, and just 23 years later they were at war with each other. The overarching fear, though, is that Donald Trump, who is no student of history, will continue to treat diplomacy and geopolitics like a real estate transaction and neobtainediation, and it will ultimately be America’s frifinishs and allies who will be left to pick up the pieces of his drive to recreate America in his vision. America and Europe have a chance to recreate the world and prevent nuclear proliferation in the face of lapsed arms control treaties. We hope they both take it.
Leave a Reply