# Europe's nuclear gamble to save NATO > As the U.S. pulls back, Europe must take control of its own atomic deterrent, or risk nuclear proliferation across the continent. - Title: Europe's nuclear gamble to save NATO · Foreign Affairs - Summary: As the U.S. pulls back, Europe must take control of its own atomic deterrent, or risk nuclear proliferation across the continent. European NATO members must… - Keywords: nato, nuclear deterrence, france, united kingdom, united states, europe, russia, nuclear proliferation, defense policy, transatlantic security, world, politics - Source: Foreign Affairs — https://foreignaffairs.com/europe/nuclear-deal-could-save-nato - Author: Ivo H. Daalder - Published: 2026-10-16T08:00:00+00:00 - Read time: 3 min - Topics: nato, nuclear deterrence, france, united kingdom, united states, europe, russia, nuclear proliferation, defense policy, transatlantic security, world, politics ## Europe doubts America's promise At a meeting of European foreign ministry officials this year, not a single hand went up when asked who believed the United States would defend them if attacked. ## The original nuclear bargain In the nineteen sixties, Europe agreed to forgo developing nuclear weapons in exchange for a greater say in U.S. nuclear strategy through the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. ## The Sputnik crisis When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in nineteen fifty-seven, Europeans feared the U.S. would no longer risk nuclear war to defend Europe against Soviet invasion. ## The Healey theorem Denis Healey, Britain's defense secretary in the nineteen sixties, argued that deterring an attack needs only five percent credibility of U.S. retaliation, but reassuring allies requires ninety-five percent. > It takes only a five percent credibility of American retaliation to deter an attack, but it takes a 95 percent credibility to reassure the allies. ## France breaks ranks France rejected the nuclear bargain under President Charles de Gaulle, developing its own weapons and withdrawing from NATO's military command structure in nineteen sixty-six. ## Trump changes the terms The Trump administration has rejected NATO's core principle that members' security is indivisible, making U.S. commitments conditional on defense spending and political loyalty. ## Pentagon's conditions In August, the Pentagon sent NATO's thirty-one allies a questionnaire demanding loyalty to Trump's foreign policy, U.S. defense equipment purchases, and opposition to European procurement initiatives. ## Russia's nuclear threats Russia has issued veiled nuclear threats against Europe repeatedly since twenty twenty-two, most recently in September after NATO conducted air exercises above northeastern Poland near Kaliningrad. ## Option one: NATO three point zero Washington proposes the U.S. continues providing nuclear deterrence while Europe handles conventional defense. But this ignores that Europeans no longer trust U.S. commitments are unconditional. ## Option two: European nuclear weapons Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in March twenty twenty-five that Poland would be safer with its own nuclear arsenal. Sweden and Germany are also considering independent deterrents. > we would be safer if we had our own nuclear arsenal, that is beyond doubt. ## Why proliferation fails European nuclearization would violate the Nonproliferation Treaty, take years to develop, and could trigger a nuclear arms race that makes Europe less secure, not more. ## Option three: French umbrella French President Emmanuel Macron proposed in March twenty twenty-six a forward deterrence initiative including nuclear training exercises and temporary aircraft deployment. Ten European countries have joined. ## France's limits France maintains four nos: no joint decisions on nuclear use, no joint planning, no shared vital interests, and no nuclear guarantee in the strict sense. Bilateral talks also weaken collective NATO effort. ## The new bargain needed NATO must modernize nuclear forces, expand consultation structures to include France, and extend nuclear sharing to more members. France must join the Nuclear Planning Group. ## Hardware upgrades required The U.S. should replace the B-sixty-one gravity bomb with a stand-off missile. Europe should develop a long-range missile with a warhead jointly built by France and the United Kingdom. ## France joins nuclear planning France joining the Nuclear Planning Group would not place its arsenal under NATO control but would give allies insight into French thinking and expand European influence over NATO nuclear strategy. ## The doctrinal challenge Nuclear powers must retain final authority over weapon use, but France would need to explain how its one-warning-shot doctrine reassures allies. European participation would confront Moscow with shared decision-making. ## The cost of change Washington must accept it cannot dictate NATO nuclear policy. Paris must integrate more deeply into NATO. London must develop a second nuclear system with France. All must commit to the bargain. ## Why this matters now U.S. retrenchment is real and no reassurance will restore credibility to its nuclear guarantee. A new bargain where Europe carries more burden and has more say is the only way to ensure transatlantic security. > The security of Europe and the United States is, in fact, indivisible. ## Key takeaway European NATO members must forge a new nuclear bargain with France and Britain at the core, since the U.S. nuclear guarantee has become unreliable under Trump.