European nuclear weapons will not enhance European security

On March 2nd, France announced plans to expand its nuclear arsenal and to give its “nuclear deterrent” a stronger European dimension. Paris is now in discussions with European partners, including the Netherlands, on their possible participation in nuclear exercises and the potential deployment of nuclear-capable fighter jets on allied territory. France justifies these steps by referring to the increased threat from Russia and developments in the United States, where support for NATO allies is increasingly being questioned.

The newly installed Dutch government has responded positively and in line with the coalition agreement, in which they stated that the Netherlands has a “constructive stance on strengthening a European nuclear deterrent”. However, expanding Europe’s reliance on nuclear weapons will not increase Europe’s security, it will rather have the opposite effect. Nuclear re-armament is clearly a step in the wrong direction – for moral, legal and strategic reasons.

Inhumane nature of nuclear weapons

Nuclear arms are weapons of mass destruction, distinctive from conventional arms because of long-lasting catastrophic impacts they can inflict on people and the environment. Even a “limited” nuclear confrontation would immediately cost the lives of millions of people. By their nature, nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilians and military personnel, which makes them fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of international humanitarian law. No emergency planning is possible for a nuclear attack. Given the scale of destruction as well as high levels of radiation caused by nuclear weapons, first aid is largely impossible, and emergency response scenarios become futile. Such weapons should never be used.

Expanded European nuclear cooperation undermines international legal obligations

The Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), ratified by all European countries, was negotiated to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons. Under Article VI of the Treaty, states parties are under a legally binding obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. The NPT has been regarded by its members, including European Union member states, as “the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.”

Against this background, renewed nuclear re-armament initiatives in Europe send the opposite message: that nuclear weapons remain legitimate tools of security policy, weakening decades of international efforts to prevent their proliferation. It is telling that Macron during his speech literally said that the next 50 years will be an era of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear expansion increases insecurity

The threat posed by nuclear weapons is currently higher than it has been in decades. Rising geopolitical tensions, the termination of key arms control treaties, and the near-total breakdown of nuclear diplomacy have created a volatile global environment. Expanding nuclear arsenals or developing new nuclear weapons, as outrageously suggested by some European states, will only accelerate these dynamics. Governments may claim that nuclear weapons provide protection, but the expansion of nuclear arsenals within Europe can be interpreted by other actors as a carte blanche for further nuclear armament.

New nuclear sharing arrangements in Europe risk legitimizing similar arrangements elsewhere, including Russia’s nuclear deployment to Belarus. It also weakens Europe’s credibility when trying to discourage other nations from developing nuclear weapons. Such dynamics would further weaken already fragile non-proliferation norms and could contribute to a renewed nuclear arms race that Europe would ultimately struggle to control. Nuclear weapon programs require enormous financial investments while providing no practical utility in addressing many of the security challenges facing Europe today.

Furthermore, nuclear weapons carry inherent risks beyond deliberate use. History has shown multiple near-misses, where misunderstandings, technical malfunctions or false alarms brought the world close to catastrophe. Today, the growing integration of artificial intelligence and automated systems into military decision-making increases these dangers, with serious concerns about accidental escalation that can have devastating consequences. President Macron indicated that France would no longer be disclosing details about its nuclear arsenal. While transparency is not a substitute for disarmament, it is a risk reduction and confidence building measure that can help reduce the chance of accidental nuclear launches.

Are there alternatives to nuclear re-armament?

We recognize that the debate about a European nuclear “deterrent” is taking place in a context of rising insecurity, triggered predominantly by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine with its repeated nuclear saber-rattling and developments in the U.S. It is true that European security architecture must adapt to today’s evolving threats, both in conventional and in the hybrid domain. However, relying more heavily on nuclear weapons cannot provide a sustainable response to these challenges.

Rather than multiplying nuclear risks – including to its own population – European governments should lead efforts to reduce them. This demands the re-establishment of nuclear diplomacy aimed at preventing further proliferation; reintroducing mutual inspections, transparency mechanisms and verification measures; and ensuring continuous communication channels between states to prevent misunderstandings and sudden escalation.

But European governments must go further than that and take meaningful steps to advance nuclear disarmament. Highlighting the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons, there has been a growing international push for the elimination of these weapons altogether. This effort is reflected in the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), embraced by over half of the world’s countries to date, including by European countries Austria, Ireland and Malta. Other European states should follow this example.

A momentum for nuclear disarmament

History shows that moments of heightened nuclear tension can also become turning points for reducing nuclear weapons. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union initiated a series of agreements aimed at limiting nuclear dangers. Today’s geopolitical tensions should similarly prompt renewed diplomatic efforts to reduce nuclear risks – not deepen them.

Europe’s security – and strategic autonomy – should therefore not mean increasing reliance on weapons of mass destruction. It should mean building a resilient, cohesive and sustainable security architecture that abolishes, rather than increases, the role of nuclear weapons. This is the approach the Dutch government should advance instead of endorsing European nuclear weapons.

Europe has long portrayed itself as a champion of international law and humanitarian norms. Given the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and the fact that any nuclear confrontation between major powers could well be fought on European soil, European governments have a particular responsibility to resist the normalization of nuclear threats. Instead of adding its voice to renewed nuclear saber-rattling, European states should work with partners around the world to advance nuclear disarmament to make the world a safer place for everyone.