Does Europe need more nuclear weapons to protect against another Russian invasion?

It is September 2030. Russian soldiers cross the borders of Finland and Poland. Vladimir Putin announces a ‘special military operation’ on Nato – less than a decade after invading Ukraine.

America is not coming, after distancing itself from Europe during Donald Trump’s second term in the White House.

Looking into the future, this is the concern of some European leaders who feel they can no longer depend on the US to extend nuclear deterrence to the continent amid a potential Russian threat.

As a result, debates about proliferation are resurfacing in countries which already host nuclear weapons and those which do not.

Metro attended a briefing about how to prevent ‘an era of nuclear anarchy’ at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which weighed in on what this debate means for global security – not just Europe.

Eric Brewer, from the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Nuclear Materials Security Programme, warned that even one or two new nuclear states would matter ‘enormously’.

He explained: ‘We are not predicting a cascade of proliferation, but even one or two additional nuclear-armed states would pose serious challenges for the US and its allies.

‘Just look at North Korea – managing the risks of escalation, alongside the pressure it puts on South Korea’s own debates, has consumed vast diplomatic and bureaucratic bandwidth.

‘The Iran case likewise shows that even threshold status – never mind an actual weapon – creates enormous instability.’

Arguing against more warheads in Europe, top nuclear experts said that the focus should be on strengthening Nato’s existing deterrence and improving political unity.

How many nuclear warheads are there in Europe?

Currently, the UK and France hold around 515 nuclear warheads between them – a fraction of Russia’s arsenal, which is believed to number 4,309.

Additionally, the US stores a number of its own warheads in Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of Nato’s nuclear sharing arrangements.

While the exact number of weapons is classified, estimates suggest that around 100 warheads are stored across these five countries.

Racing to acquire nuclear weapons is a lengthy and complicated process – and also highly visible. There is no hiding.

Significant barriers have been put in place to stop more nations from even considering it.

To put it in simple terms, it would involve the withdrawal from the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a multilateral agreement aiming to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; destabilising existing alliances, immediate diplomatic backlash and also risking crippling economic sanctions.

These political, economic, and strategic costs remain very high – in fact, too high for most countries debating proliferation even at the lowest level.

Jane Darby Menton, a fellow in the Nuclear Policy Programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explained that proliferation seems to be back on the table when considering future Russian advances.

She said: ‘Nuclear weapons have become salient yet again in political and public discourses in a way they have not been in years.

‘My personal anecdotal version of this is that my parents are suddenly a lot more interested in what I work on than they were a few years ago.

‘There is this abstract notions of “would it not be great to have a survivable arsenal.”

‘But once people understand the timelines, trade-offs, and costs, the idea looks a lot less attractive.’

Another also entirely unappealing option would be for countries to allow US nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territories.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.