The European security landscape is defined by a complex, multi-layered nuclear deterrent posture designed to preserve peace and deter aggression. This posture is composed of two distinct but complementary elements: the sovereign, independent nuclear arsenals of the United Kingdom and France, and the extended deterrence framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which includes the forward-deployment of United States tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of five allied nations. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of these components, detailing the capabilities, doctrines, command structures, and geopolitical alignments of the relevant European states.

The United Kingdom maintains a singular, sea-based deterrent through its policy of Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASD). Its four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, armed with U.S.-sourced Trident II D5 missiles, provide a secure second-strike capability. In a significant policy shift reflecting a deteriorating security environment, the UK has reversed a decades-long disarmament trend by announcing an increase to its nuclear warhead stockpile cap. While operationally sovereign, the UK’s deterrent is technologically intertwined with the United States and doctrinally committed to the defense of NATO.

France, in contrast, adheres to a doctrine of staunch strategic autonomy for its Force de dissuasion. Its nuclear dyad, comprising sea-based M51 ballistic missiles and air-launched ASMPA cruise missiles, operates entirely outside of NATO’s integrated military command. Governed by a principle of “strict sufficiency,” France’s arsenal is designed to protect its vital interests, which it has increasingly stated possess a “European dimension.” This has opened a strategic dialogue with European partners who are reassessing their security architecture amid questions about the long-term reliability of the U.S. security guarantee.

The most tangible expression of this guarantee is NATO’s nuclear sharing program. An estimated 100 U.S. B61 tactical gravity bombs are hosted at six air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. While host nations provide dual-capable aircraft and participate in consultations through the Nuclear Planning Group, the United States retains absolute custody and control of the weapons. This arrangement serves not only as a military deterrent but also as a critical tool for alliance cohesion and non-proliferation. The strategic environment has been further complicated by Russia’s forward-deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus, a direct counter to NATO’s posture, and the return of U.S. nuclear weapons to the United Kingdom, re-establishing a layered deterrent posture in Northern Europe.

Geopolitically, all European nuclear-armed and host nations are firmly aligned with the United States within the NATO framework, with their collective posture oriented against the primary threat posed by the Russian Federation. The relationship with China is more complex, characterized by a dichotomy of economic interdependence and systemic rivalry, but it does not supersede the primary transatlantic security alignment. The central dynamic shaping the future of European security is the burgeoning debate over “strategic autonomy,” driven by concerns over the durability of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. This has prompted an unprecedented discussion about a more independent European deterrent, a development that signals the end of the post-Cold War security order and will define the continent’s strategic trajectory for decades to come.

Part I: Sovereign European Nuclear Arsenals

Two European nations, the United Kingdom and France, possess independent, sovereign nuclear arsenals. As recognized nuclear-weapon states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), their forces represent distinct centers of nuclear decision-making on the continent.¹ While both contribute to the overall deterrence posture of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), they operate under unique national doctrines and command and control structures that reflect different strategic traditions and philosophies.

The United Kingdom’s Continuous At-Sea Deterrent (CASD)

The United Kingdom’s nuclear strategy is defined by the principle of “minimal credible deterrence,” a posture designed to be the smallest and most cost-effective force capable of deterring a major attack by inflicting a level of damage that any potential aggressor would deem unacceptable.³ This doctrine is executed through a singular, sea-based delivery system governed by a policy of “Continuous At-Sea Deterrence” (CASD), an operational imperative known as Operation Relentless.³ This posture ensures that at least one of the Royal Navy’s nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) is on patrol, submerged and undetected, at all times. This provides a highly survivable, guaranteed second-strike capability, meaning the UK can retaliate even after absorbing a surprise first strike. The UK is the only one of the five officially recognized nuclear-weapon states to have consolidated its deterrent into a single system, having retired its air-delivered tactical nuclear weapons in 1998.³

A unique feature of the UK’s doctrine is that its nuclear forces are explicitly assigned to the defense of NATO, a commitment dating back to 1962.³ While the ultimate decision to launch remains a sovereign act of the British Prime Minister, this doctrinal integration underscores the UK’s deep commitment to the transatlantic alliance. In line with this, the UK does not adhere to a ‘no-first use’ policy. Instead, it maintains a posture of deliberate ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances under which it would employ its nuclear arsenal, stating only that it would be in “extreme circumstances of self defence, including the defence of NATO allies”.⁴

The physical manifestation of this deterrent is centered on a fleet of four Vanguard-class SSBNs, which are based at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Scotland.¹ These submarines are armed with the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a weapon system manufactured in the United States and procured through the deep technological and strategic partnership between the two nations.⁴ While each submarine is capable of carrying up to sixteen missiles, as a disarmament measure, the number of operational missiles per patrol has been reduced to eight.⁴ The Trident II D5 missile has an intercontinental range of approximately 12,000 km, allowing it to hold targets at risk from vast, remote patrol areas in the Atlantic Ocean.⁵

The nuclear warheads atop these missiles are designed and manufactured indigenously by the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment.⁵ As of early 2025, the UK’s total military stockpile is estimated at approximately 225 warheads, with an operational ceiling of 120 available for deployment on the SSBN fleet.¹ Each deployed Trident missile can be equipped with up to eight Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), enabling a single missile to strike multiple targets. However, in practice, the number of warheads loaded per submarine has been reduced from a maximum of 48 to 40 as part of past disarmament commitments.⁴

The United Kingdom is in the midst of a comprehensive, multi-decade modernization of its nuclear deterrent to ensure its viability well into the mid-21st century. The cornerstone of this effort is the Dreadnought program, which will see the four Vanguard-class submarines replaced by a new class of four Dreadnought-class SSBNs, scheduled to begin entering service in the early 2030s.³ Concurrently, the UK is participating in the U.S.-led service-life extension program for the Trident II D5 missile and is actively developing a new, replacement nuclear warhead to maintain the credibility of the system against evolving adversary defenses.³

This modernization program is occurring alongside a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. The 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy marked a formal end to the UK’s post-Cold War trajectory of gradual disarmament. Citing a worsening global security environment, the review announced that the UK would no longer pursue a previously stated goal of reducing its stockpile to 180 warheads. Instead, it raised the ceiling on its total warhead stockpile to no more than 260.³ Simultaneously, the government declared it would no longer provide public figures on its operational stockpile of warheads or deployed missiles, reversing a long-standing transparency policy.³ This decision predated Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine but clearly reflected a strategic reassessment of the threat posed by a resurgent Russia and the proliferation of advanced military technologies. In this sense, the UK’s policy reversal can be seen as a strategic bellwether for Europe. It signaled that a major European power, one with deep intelligence and security ties to the United States, had concluded that the era of post-Cold War optimism was over and that a more robust and opaque nuclear posture was necessary. This shift helped legitimize and likely foreshadowed the broader turn toward hard-power security policies and increased defense spending seen across the continent in subsequent years.

The structure of the UK’s deterrent reveals a strategic paradox of interdependent sovereignty. Legally and operationally, the deterrent is entirely sovereign; the British Prime Minister alone holds the authority to authorize a launch, a power symbolized by the “letters of last resort” carried on board each SSBN. This sovereign capability is a cornerstone of the UK’s status as a major global actor.⁵ However, the deterrent’s technological foundation is deeply dependent on the United States. The Trident II D5 missiles are procured from and maintained with the support of the U.S. Navy under the terms of the Polaris Sales Agreement.⁵ This deep integration means that while the UK provides NATO with a valuable separate center of decision-making that complicates an adversary’s strategic calculations, the long-term viability of its nuclear force is inextricably linked to the health of the US-UK “Special Relationship” and the broader transatlantic alliance. A severe political rupture with Washington could, over time, jeopardize the very sustainability of the UK’s independent deterrent, a reality that stands in stark contrast to the French model of complete strategic autonomy.

France’s Force de Dissuasion

France’s nuclear doctrine is rooted in the Gaullist tradition of absolute national independence and strategic autonomy.⁹ The country’s nuclear arsenal, known as the Force de dissuasion (Deterrent Force), was developed in the 1960s to ensure France could defend itself and deter a major-power aggressor without relying on the security guarantees of other nations, particularly the United States.⁹

The primary purpose of the force is to deter a state-level attack on France’s “vital interests” (intérêts vitaux). This term is deliberately left undefined in public doctrine to create uncertainty in the mind of a potential adversary and thereby enhance the deterrent effect by complicating their risk calculations.¹⁰

The French posture is governed by the principle of “strict sufficiency” (stricte suffisance), which dictates that the arsenal should be maintained at the lowest possible level necessary to inflict damage so catastrophic as to be unacceptable to any aggressor, thereby deterring an attack in the first place.¹² In sharp contrast to the United Kingdom, France’s nuclear forces are not integrated into NATO’s military command structure. France does not participate in the Alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group, a decision that preserves the absolute and unilateral authority of the French President to order the use of nuclear weapons.¹⁰

France currently maintains a nuclear dyad, having dismantled its land-based missile silos at the Plateau d’Albion in 1996.¹² The two remaining components are:

1. The Sea-Based Component (Force Océanique Stratégique – FOST): This is the backbone of the French deterrent, providing a permanent, survivable, and secure second-strike capability. It consists of a fleet of four Triomphant-class SSBNs, which ensures that at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with a second often able to deploy on short notice.¹² These submarines are armed with the domestically developed M51 SLBM. The M51 is a modern, solid-fueled missile with a range reported to be over 9,000 km and is capable of carrying up to six MIRVed warheads.¹⁴ This sea-based leg accounts for the vast majority of France’s nuclear firepower, with approximately 83 percent of its warheads assigned to the FOST.¹⁵
2. The Air-Based Component (Forces Aériennes Stratégiques – FAS): This component provides the French President with greater strategic flexibility, including the ability to conduct a single, limited strike known as the ultime avertissement (final warning). This doctrinal concept envisions a carefully calibrated nuclear strike intended to demonstrate resolve and signal the unacceptable cost of continued aggression, thereby restoring deterrence before a full-scale strategic exchange. The delivery platforms are the Dassault Rafale multirole fighter aircraft. The French Air and Space Force operates nuclear-capable Rafale BF3/4 aircraft from land bases, while the French Navy operates a squadron of carrier-based Rafale MF3/4 aircraft from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.¹ These aircraft are armed with the ASMPA (
   Air-Sol Moyenne Portée-Amélioré) medium-range, ramjet-powered supersonic cruise missile. The ASMPA has a range of approximately 600 km and is armed with a 300-kiloton thermonuclear warhead.¹⁵

France possesses the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. Its stockpile has remained remarkably stable for several decades, currently estimated at approximately 290 operational warheads, with no weapons held in reserve.¹ This reflects the doctrine of strict sufficiency, which does not require a large arsenal for counterforce targeting but rather a survivable force sufficient for a counter-value (city-targeting) retaliatory strike.

Like the UK, France is engaged in a comprehensive modernization of its deterrent. The M51 SLBM is being progressively upgraded, with the M51.3 variant expected to be operational by 2025.¹³ A new class of third-generation SSBNs (SNLE 3G) is under development to begin replacing the Triomphant-class in the 2030s.¹² The air-based component is also being enhanced, with a program underway to develop a next-generation hypersonic air-launched missile, the ASN4G, to replace the ASMPA.

While fiercely protective of its strategic independence, France has in recent years begun to cautiously evolve its declaratory policy. Successive French presidents have stated that France’s vital interests have a “European dimension”.¹⁰ This concept was given more substance in 2020 when President Emmanuel Macron formally invited European partners to engage in a “strategic dialogue” on the role of the French deterrent in their collective security.¹¹ This dialogue is not an offer to share command and control, which remains a sovereign prerogative of the French President. Rather, it is an effort to build a common strategic culture and understanding of the deterrent’s contribution to European stability. This has led to symbolic but significant gestures of cooperation, such as the participation of an Italian air-to-air refueling tanker in a French FAS nuclear exercise.¹¹

This evolution in French policy can be understood as a cautious pivot from a purely national sanctuary to a potential European umbrella. Historically, the Force de dissuasion was conceived solely to guarantee the inviolability of French territory.⁹ However, the contemporary security environment, marked by a newly aggressive Russia and growing doubts about the long-term reliability of the U.S. security guarantee for Europe, has created a potential strategic vacuum.¹⁷ As the European Union’s only sovereign nuclear power, France is uniquely positioned to address this void.⁹ President Macron’s rhetoric is a calculated and incremental response to this new reality, signaling a willingness to extend the deterrent’s protective logic beyond France’s borders. This is a profound strategic development, but one that faces significant hurdles. France’s categorical refusal to share nuclear decision-making means that any French guarantee would be unilateral. This raises questions of credibility for potential beneficiary states, who may be hesitant to rely on a guarantee over which they have no influence. Nonetheless, this strategic dialogue represents the first, tentative step in a long and complex process of building the political trust that would be necessary for a credible, French-led European deterrent to emerge.

Part II: NATO’s Extended Deterrence and Nuclear Sharing

A cornerstone of the transatlantic alliance’s collective defense is the framework for U.S. nuclear weapons hosted on European soil. This posture, a direct legacy of the Cold War, is the most tangible expression of the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” over Europe. It is designed not only as a military deterrent but also as a critical political instrument for maintaining alliance cohesion and preventing nuclear proliferation among member states.

Framework and Strategic Rationale

Nuclear sharing is a unique arrangement within NATO whereby non-nuclear member states participate directly in the Alliance’s nuclear mission.¹⁹ This participation involves two key commitments from the host nations: allowing the United States to store nuclear weapons on their territory and maintaining fleets of national aircraft, known as dual-capable aircraft (DCA), that are certified to deliver these weapons in the event of a conflict.¹⁹ The underlying logic of this program is threefold and has remained consistent for decades.²¹

First and foremost is deterrence. The forward-deployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the continent is intended to deter aggression, principally from the Russian Federation. It signals to any potential adversary that a major conflict in Europe could cross the nuclear threshold, thereby ensuring the direct and immediate involvement of the United States’ strategic forces. This coupling of European security with American nuclear might is meant to raise the perceived costs of aggression to an unacceptably high level.

Second is alliance cohesion. By sharing the risks, responsibilities, and political burdens of nuclear deterrence, the program binds the alliance together. It provides the non-nuclear host nations with a direct role and a “seat at the table” in the formulation of NATO’s nuclear policy, primarily through their participation in the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG).¹⁹ This sense of shared ownership reinforces the principle of collective defense and demonstrates transatlantic unity and resolve.

Third is non-proliferation. Historically, the nuclear sharing program was a critical tool to dissuade key allies, notably West Germany, from pursuing their own indigenous nuclear weapons programs during the Cold War.²² By providing a credible security guarantee and a role within the NATO nuclear framework, the U.S. obviated the need for these states to develop their own arsenals. This function remains relevant today, as the presence of the U.S. nuclear umbrella is seen as a key factor in preventing further nuclear proliferation in Europe.¹⁹

The legality of these arrangements under the NPT has been a subject of debate since the treaty’s inception. Articles I and II of the NPT prohibit the transfer of nuclear weapons from nuclear-weapon states to non-nuclear-weapon states.²⁵ NATO and the United States argue that the sharing program is fully compliant with the treaty based on a specific legal interpretation: in peacetime, the U.S. maintains absolute and exclusive custody and control of the weapons. No “transfer” of weapons or control over them occurs. The scenario in which a transfer might take place—a decision to go to war—is considered a circumstance under which the treaty’s peacetime constraints would no longer be controlling.¹⁶ While this interpretation was understood and accepted by the Soviet Union during the NPT negotiations, it remains a point of contention for many non-aligned states and disarmament advocates who view the practice as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty.

Host Nations and Forward-Deployed Assets

The sole type of U.S. nuclear weapon currently deployed in Europe under the sharing arrangement is the B61 tactical gravity bomb.¹ These weapons are undergoing a comprehensive Life Extension Program to modernize them into the B61-12 variant. This new version is a significant upgrade; it incorporates a new tail kit that provides GPS guidance, dramatically increasing its accuracy and allowing it to be used against a wider range of targets. It also features a variable-yield capability, allowing its explosive power to be dialed down for more limited, tactical strikes or up for greater effect, making it a more flexible and, in the view of some strategists, a more “usable” weapon.²⁸

An estimated 100 of these U.S.-owned B61 bombs are stored in highly secure underground WS3 vaults at six air bases across five NATO host nations.¹ The table below provides a consolidated overview of these deployments.

Host Nation	Air Base	Estimated U.S. B61 Warheads	Host Nation Dual-Capable Aircraft (Current/Planned)
Belgium	Kleine Brogel	10–15	F-16 Fighting Falcon (being replaced by F-35A)
Germany	Büchel	10–15	PA-200 Tornado (being replaced by F-35A)
Italy	Aviano & Ghedi	30–45 (total)	PA-200 Tornado (at Ghedi, being replaced by F-35A)
Netherlands	Volkel	10–15	F-16 Fighting Falcon (replaced by F-35A)
Turkey	Incirlik	20–30	F-16 Fighting Falcon (Note: Turkey removed from F-35 program)
Data compiled from sources 1, and.25

The modernization of the host nations’ DCA fleets is a critical component of maintaining the credibility of the sharing program. Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are all in the process of procuring the nuclear-capable F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter to replace their aging F-16 and Tornado aircraft.²⁷ This transition to a 5th-generation platform significantly enhances the survivability of the delivery mission against modern air defense systems. Turkey’s participation has been complicated by its removal from the F-35 program in 2019 following its purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, leaving its future role in the nuclear mission reliant on its existing F-16 fleet.²⁷

Command, Control, and Consultation

The command and control structure for NATO’s shared nuclear weapons is designed to ensure absolute political control and safety. Despite the weapons being hosted on allied territory and designated for delivery by allied aircraft, the United States maintains absolute and unilateral custody and control over them at all times during peacetime.⁶ The security of the weapons on the ground is handled by U.S. Air Force personnel. Crucially, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes, which are sophisticated cryptographic locks required to arm the weapons, remain exclusively in American hands.²⁸ Without these codes, the bombs are inert.

The term “dual-key” is often used to describe the arrangement, but this can be misleading. It does not refer to a physical system where two parties must turn a key simultaneously. Instead, it represents the dual political authority required for any use of the weapons. Any decision to employ a shared nuclear weapon would require explicit authorization from the President of the United States. This presidential authorization would only be given following a collective political decision reached through intense consultation among the allies within NATO’s highest nuclear policy body, the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG).¹⁹ In a conflict scenario, following such a dual political decision, U.S. personnel would release the armed weapon to the host nation’s certified DCA crew for the delivery mission.

The NPG is the primary consultative body for all matters concerning NATO’s nuclear policy and posture. All NATO allies are members with the notable exception of France, which has chosen to remain outside this structure to preserve its strategic independence.⁶ The NPG provides the formal forum where non-nuclear allies, particularly the host nations, can participate in shaping the Alliance’s nuclear strategy, doctrine, and operational planning. It is the institutional heart of the political dimension of nuclear sharing.¹⁹

The persistence and modernization of the nuclear sharing program, despite ongoing debates about the military utility of air-delivered gravity bombs against an adversary with sophisticated air defenses like Russia, points to its deeper strategic value.³¹ While some strategists question whether a non-stealthy aircraft could successfully penetrate Russian airspace to deliver a B61 bomb, the program’s political and symbolic importance to the Alliance is consistently emphasized by NATO officials.¹⁹ The program is a prime example of a military posture whose political value is arguably greater than its purely operational utility. The physical presence of U.S. weapons and personnel on European soil serves as the ultimate “tripwire,” a tangible commitment that inextricably links America’s security to that of its European allies. It is this political act of sharing the nuclear burden and risk that binds the alliance, making the program a vital instrument of transatlantic cohesion, irrespective of the evolving military-technological landscape.

Part III: The Broader European Nuclear Landscape

Beyond the sovereign arsenals of the UK and France and the formal NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, several other crucial developments shape the European nuclear environment. These elements, occurring both as a direct counter to and as an evolution of the established NATO posture, are reshaping the strategic calculus and introducing new complexities to deterrence and stability on the continent.

The Russian Counterpart: Nuclear Basing in Belarus

In a significant strategic development that alters the post-Cold War security architecture, the Russian Federation has forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons onto the territory of its ally, Belarus.² Moscow has explicitly framed this action as a direct and symmetric response to NATO’s long-standing nuclear sharing arrangements, arguing that it is merely mirroring a practice the West has engaged in for decades.² This move, however, carries profound strategic implications that extend far beyond simple reciprocity.

Geographically, placing nuclear assets in Belarus moves them significantly closer to NATO’s eastern flank. This positioning drastically reduces warning times for potential targets and holds key political centers, military bases, and critical infrastructure in Poland, the Baltic States, and even eastern Germany at greater risk. The deployment provides Russia with additional, more flexible options for nuclear signaling or limited use in a regional conflict. It complicates NATO’s defense planning and escalation management by creating new attack vectors and forcing the Alliance to account for nuclear threats originating from outside Russian sovereign territory.

Furthermore, the deployment serves as a powerful tool of political subjugation. It effectively cements Belarus’s status as a military client state of Russia, stripping Minsk of any remaining strategic autonomy and transforming its territory into a forward operating base for Russian power projection. This move is not merely a tactical repositioning of military assets; it is a deliberate political act designed to dismantle a key pillar of the post-Cold War European security order. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives led to a mutual, albeit informal, withdrawal of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons from forward deployments by both the United States and Russia. Former Soviet republics like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus voluntarily returned their inherited nuclear weapons to Russia, establishing a de facto norm against the stationing of Russian nuclear weapons outside its own borders.² The deployment to Belarus shatters this three-decade-old norm, signaling Russia’s definitive rejection of past arms control conventions and its intent to pursue a more confrontational, nuclear-backed coercive diplomacy against NATO.

A Special Case: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the United Kingdom

The nuclear landscape in Europe is further layered by the unique situation in the United Kingdom. After being withdrawn in 2008, marking the end of a 50-year presence, U.S. nuclear weapons are confirmed to be returning to the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Lakenheath.⁵ It is anticipated that these weapons will be the modernized B61-12 gravity bombs, intended for delivery by U.S. Air Force F-35A aircraft stationed at the base.²⁰

This deployment is strategically distinct from the NATO nuclear sharing program. The UK is a sovereign nuclear-weapon state in its own right. The weapons at Lakenheath will be stored, maintained, and, if ever used, delivered by U.S. forces, not by RAF pilots.⁵ This arrangement does not involve the “sharing” of nuclear burdens with a non-nuclear host but rather the forward-basing of U.S. assets on the territory of a nuclear-armed ally.

The rationale for this move is multifaceted. Operationally, it provides the U.S. and NATO with an additional, highly secure forward-basing location in Northern Europe. This increases the survivability of the tactical nuclear force by dispersing the assets and enhances operational flexibility. Politically, the move is a powerful reaffirmation of the unique US-UK “Special Relationship” in defense and security matters. It creates a multi-layered nuclear deterrent posture on British soil, combining the UK’s sovereign sea-based deterrent with hosted U.S. air-delivered assets. Most importantly, the return of U.S. nuclear weapons to a location from which they were previously removed sends an unambiguous signal to Moscow. It demonstrates a heightened threat perception and a renewed, long-term commitment to nuclear deterrence in Europe in response to Russian aggression.

This development signifies a full-circle return to a more robust and complex deterrence architecture reminiscent of the Cold War. During that era, the UK hosted a vast array of U.S. nuclear systems, including gravity bombs, missiles, and artillery, in addition to its own sovereign force, creating a dense, “layered” deterrent posture.⁵ The post-Cold War period saw a dramatic consolidation and reduction of this presence, culminating in the 2008 withdrawal.²⁵ The decision to return U.S. weapons to Lakenheath, coupled with the UK’s own arsenal modernization and its recent decision to acquire F-35As to contribute to the NATO nuclear mission, effectively re-establishes this layered model.³ This suggests that strategic planners in Washington and London have concluded that a single deterrent system is no longer sufficient to address the current threat environment. The new posture aims to maximize complexity for Russian military planners by creating multiple, redundant, and geographically dispersed nuclear options under different command structures (USAFE and UK sovereign), thereby strengthening the overall credibility and resilience of NATO’s deterrent posture.

Part IV: Geopolitical Alignment and Strategic Imperatives

The technical details and operational doctrines of Europe’s nuclear forces are underpinned by a clear and deeply entrenched geopolitical alignment. This section synthesizes the preceding analysis into a broader assessment of the strategic posture of European nuclear actors, the overarching purpose of their capabilities, and the emerging dynamics that will shape the future of deterrence on the continent.

Unaltered Alignment within the Transatlantic Alliance

The geopolitical posture of all European nations possessing or hosting nuclear weapons—the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey—is fundamentally and unequivocally aligned with the United States through their membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).²⁴ This alliance forms the bedrock of their national security policies. Their collective defense posture, including its nuclear dimension, is explicitly oriented against the primary perceived military and existential threat from the Russian Federation.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 served as a powerful and clarifying event, forcing a hard realignment of European security policy and dispelling any lingering post-Cold War illusions about a potential partnership with Moscow. The war effectively terminated decades of policies predicated on economic engagement, such as Germany’s Ostpolitik (Eastern Policy) and the concept of Wandel durch Handel (change through trade), which posited that economic interdependence would lead to political moderation.³⁴ Across the continent, from Rome to Brussels, national governments subordinated economic interests to the overriding imperative of collective defense against Russian aggression.³⁷

Even France, which maintains a posture of strategic independence from NATO’s integrated military command, remains a core political member of the Alliance. Its independent deterrent is widely understood, both in Paris and within NATO, to contribute significantly to the overall security of the Alliance. By creating a second, sovereign center of nuclear decision-making, France complicates the strategic calculations of any potential adversary, thereby strengthening NATO’s overall deterrent effect.⁶

Navigating the China Challenge

The relationship of these European nations with the People’s Republic of China is significantly more nuanced and complex. For all European capitals, China represents a multifaceted challenge, simultaneously acting as a vital economic partner, a formidable technological competitor, and a systemic rival that promotes an alternative vision of global governance that challenges the Western-led, rules-based international order.³⁵

This has led to the adoption of a strategy broadly defined as “de-risking, not decoupling”.⁴⁰ This approach seeks to reduce critical strategic dependencies on Chinese supply chains—particularly in sensitive areas like rare earth minerals, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals—without completely severing the deep economic ties that are vital to European prosperity.⁴¹ This creates a persistent tension within European policymaking, as governments attempt to balance pressing economic interests against long-term security concerns.

However, despite these deep economic entanglements, the primary security alignment of European nations remains firmly with the United States. In the face of a direct military threat, there is no ambiguity. European nations are increasingly coordinating with Washington on strategic challenges posed by China, including through increased naval presence in the Indo-Pacific and stricter controls on technology transfers. Nevertheless, this relationship lacks the formal, treaty-based collective defense obligation that defines their posture towards Russia. In the strategic hierarchy of European capitals, China is a long-term, systemic challenge; Russia is a direct and present existential threat.

Strategic Implications and Future Trajectories

The core strategic purpose of Europe’s multifaceted nuclear posture remains threefold. First is deterrence: to prevent a major conventional or nuclear attack by the Russian Federation by ensuring the costs of such aggression would be unacceptably high. Second is reassurance: to assure non-nuclear NATO allies that they are protected under a credible nuclear umbrella, thereby obviating any incentive for them to develop their own nuclear weapons and preventing proliferation on the continent. Third is political solidarity: to serve as the ultimate symbol of the transatlantic security bond, demonstrating that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

The central dynamic shaping the future of European nuclear policy is a growing crisis of confidence in the long-term reliability and durability of the U.S. security guarantee.¹⁶ This uncertainty is driven by a perception of a long-term U.S. strategic pivot towards Asia to counter China, as well as by concerns about American political volatility and the potential for a future administration to adopt a more isolationist or transactional foreign policy.¹⁷

This crisis of confidence has ignited an unprecedented and increasingly mainstream debate across Europe about the need for greater “strategic autonomy” and the potential development of a more independent European nuclear deterrent.⁷ This discussion, once confined to academic circles, is now being publicly broached by senior political leaders. Proposals range from the more plausible, such as extending the existing French and/or British deterrents to formally cover other allies, to more radical and complex ideas of a “Eurobomb” with shared financing, command, and control.²³ Key nations like Germany and Poland, which have historically been the primary beneficiaries of and strongest advocates for the U.S. nuclear umbrella, are now openly engaging in strategic dialogues with France about these very options.¹⁰ This emerging debate confronts Europe with a fundamental strategic trilemma: accept a future of potential vulnerability under a possibly wavering U.S. guarantee; pursue a collective European deterrent that would require an unprecedented ceding of national sovereignty over matters of ultimate survival; or risk a future of uncontrolled national proliferation as individual states seek their own security solutions.⁴²

These developments collectively signal the definitive end of the post-Cold War interregnum. For three decades following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European security order was predicated on a set of assumptions: the unchallenged military and political supremacy of the U.S./NATO alliance, the relative weakness and integration of Russia, and the primacy of economic interdependence as a guarantor of peace. Nuclear weapons were often viewed as a legacy issue, their relevance fading in a new era of cooperation. Russia’s revanchist war in Ukraine, China’s rise as a systemic rival, and a perception of U.S. strategic retrenchment have shattered all three of these foundational pillars. As a result, nuclear deterrence has returned to the forefront of European strategic thought for the first time in a generation.⁷ Europe is at the end of a historical interregnum and is being forced to fundamentally re-architect its security framework. The current nuclear posture is a product of the Cold War. The ongoing debates about extending the French deterrent, the return of U.S. nuclear weapons to the UK, and Russia’s forward-deployment in Belarus are not isolated events but symptoms of a system in profound flux. The key strategic question for the next decade is whether the existing transatlantic framework will be reinforced and adapted, or if it will be supplemented—or even partially replaced—by a new, more distinctly European nuclear deterrent structure. The outcome of this debate will define the continent’s security landscape for the 21st century.

Summary of European Nuclear Deployments

Table 1: Sovereign European Nuclear Arsenals

This table details the nuclear arsenals under the independent, sovereign control of European nations.

Country	Estimated Total Warheads	Primary Locations / Delivery Systems
United Kingdom	~225 1	Sea-based: Four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines operating from HMNB Clyde, Scotland, armed with Trident II D5 missiles.5
France	~290 2	Sea-based: Four Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines armed with M51 missiles.12	Air-based: Rafale fighter aircraft (land and carrier-based) armed with ASMPA cruise missiles.12

Table 2: U.S. Forward-Deployed Nuclear Weapons in Europe

This table details the U.S.-owned B61 tactical nuclear bombs deployed in Europe under NATO’s nuclear sharing program and other bilateral agreements. The U.S. retains absolute custody and control of these weapons.⁶

Host Nation	Air Base(s)	Estimated U.S. B61 Warheads
Belgium	Kleine Brogel 1	10–15 20
Germany	Büchel 1	10–15 20
Italy	Aviano & Ghedi 1	30–45 20
Netherlands	Volkel 1	10–15 20
Turkey	Incirlik 1	20–30 20
United Kingdom*	RAF Lakenheath 5	25–30 20

*Note: The deployment to the UK is distinct from the NATO nuclear sharing program. The weapons are for delivery by U.S. forces stationed at the base, not RAF pilots.⁵

Table 3: Combined Summary of All Nuclear Weapons in Europe

This table provides a consolidated overview of all known nuclear weapons physically located in Europe, combining sovereign arsenals and U.S. forward-deployed assets.

Country	Arsenal Type	Estimated Warhead Count	Location(s) / Base(s)
France	Sovereign	~290	Sea-based (SSBNs) & Air-based (Rafale aircraft) 12
United Kingdom	Sovereign	~225	HMNB Clyde (Sea-based SSBNs) 5
Italy	Hosted U.S.	30–45	Aviano & Ghedi Air Bases 1
United Kingdom	Hosted U.S.	25–30	RAF Lakenheath 5
Turkey	Hosted U.S.	20–30	Incirlik Air Base 1
Belgium	Hosted U.S.	10–15	Kleine Brogel Air Base 1
Germany	Hosted U.S.	10–15	Büchel Air Base 1
Netherlands	Hosted U.S.	10–15	Volkel Air Base 1
Total Estimated		~620–685

Conclusion

The nuclear posture in Europe is a complex tapestry woven from sovereign capabilities, alliance commitments, and a shared perception of threat. It is not a monolithic entity but a dynamic, multi-layered system with distinct centers of command and diverse strategic logics. The independent arsenals of the United Kingdom and France provide two sovereign pillars of deterrence. The UK’s sea-based force is technologically linked to the United States and doctrinally integrated with NATO, while France’s dyad stands as a testament to the enduring Gaullist ideal of strategic autonomy. Complementing these is the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, a Cold War legacy that remains a potent symbol of transatlantic cohesion and the ultimate guarantee of the U.S. commitment to European security.

All European nations involved in this nuclear architecture—whether as sovereign powers or as hosts for U.S. weapons—are firmly aligned within the transatlantic security framework. Their collective deterrent is unambiguously aimed at countering the primary threat posed by the Russian Federation, a reality that has been starkly reinforced by the war in Ukraine. While navigating a complex economic relationship with China, their fundamental security orientation remains fixed on the Euro-Atlantic area.

However, this long-standing architecture is now facing its most significant challenge since the end of the Cold War. A crisis of confidence in the long-term reliability of the U.S. nuclear umbrella has forced European nations to confront uncomfortable questions about their own security. The resulting debate on strategic autonomy and the potential for a more independent European deterrent marks a pivotal moment. The decisions made in the coming years in Paris, London, Berlin, and Warsaw will determine whether the continent reinforces its reliance on the transatlantic partnership or begins to forge a new, more autonomous path. The nuclear landscape in Europe, stable for decades, has entered a period of profound and consequential transformation.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

---

Sources Used

1. Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance – Arms Control Association, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance
2. List of states with nuclear weapons – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
3. Nuclear weapons profile: United Kingdom – The House of Commons Library, accessed September 26, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9077/
4. Nuclear Disarmament United Kingdom – Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-kingdom-nuclear-disarmament/
5. Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom
6. NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy and forces, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm
7. Taking the Pulse: Can Europeans Build Their Independent Extended Nuclear Deterrent?, accessed September 26, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2025/04/taking-the-pulse-can-europeans-build-their-independent-extended-nuclear-deterrent?lang=en
8. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=As%20of%202025%2C%20the%20UK,at%20RAF%20Lakenheath%20since%202025.
9. France and weapons of mass destruction – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
10. Can Europe Build Its Own Nuclear Umbrella? | Carnegie …, accessed September 26, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/04/can-europe-build-its-own-nuclear-umbrella?lang=en
11. The French nuclear deterrent in a changing strategic environment :: Note de la FRS, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/french-nuclear-deterrent-changing-strategic-environment-2025
12. France – Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nti.org/countries/france/
13. Nuclear Disarmament France, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/france-nuclear-disarmament/
14. France’s Nuclear Inventory – Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, accessed September 26, 2025, https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/France.pdf
15. Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: France, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-france
16. Can France and the United Kingdom Replace the U.S. Nuclear …, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-france-and-united-kingdom-replace-us-nuclear-umbrella
17. US Extended Nuclear Deterrence in Europe: Three Scenarios …, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/us-extended-nuclear-deterrence-in-europe-three-scenarios
18. The Trump card: What could US abandonment of Europe look like?, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/trump-card-what-could-us-abandonment-europe-look
19. NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf
20. Nuclear sharing – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
21. 11. Nuclear Sharing and NATO as a ‘Nuclear Alliance’ – Egmont Institute, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.egmontinstitute.be/app/uploads/2021/12/ch11.pdf?type=pdf
22. Articulating the logic of nuclear-sharing – Egmont Institute, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.egmontinstitute.be/app/uploads/2019/09/SPB116.pdf
23. European Nuclear Weapons – Verfassungsblog, accessed September 26, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/nuclear-weapons/
24. Six of the ten locations with nuclear weapons in Europe are American – Reddit, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/1glpjv8/six_of_the_ten_locations_with_nuclear_weapons_in/
25. United States nuclear weapons in Europe | CND, accessed September 26, 2025, https://cnduk.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/US-nuclear-weapons-in-Europe.pdf
26. NATO: Nuclear Sharing or Proliferation?, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/90409/05-04%20NATO%20Nuclear%20Sharing%20or%20Proliferation.pdf
27. Nuclear Disarmament NATO, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/nato-nuclear-disarmament/
28. Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe, accessed September 26, 2025, https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/
29. Countries with nuclear weapons – ICAN, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals
30. COMMANDING AND CONTROLLING NUCLEAR WEAPONS – Program on Science and Global Security, accessed September 26, 2025, https://sgs.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/2020-01/mian-2012b.pdf
31. Reconsidering U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe – Defense Priorities, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.defensepriorities.org/reports/reconsidering-us-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/
32. More investment in nuclear deterrence will not make Europe safer | SIPRI, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2023/more-investment-nuclear-deterrence-will-not-make-europe-safer
33. Turkiye And The West: Between Geopolitical Risks And Strategic Roots – Hoover Institution, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.hoover.org/research/turkiye-and-west-between-geopolitical-risks-and-strategic-roots
34. Germany–Russia relations – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Russia_relations
35. Germany’s Continued Illusions About China and Russia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2022/10/germanys-continued-illusions-about-china-and-russia?lang=en
36. Russian Geopolitical Challenges: Economic Relations with Germany | Defense.info, accessed September 26, 2025, https://defense.info/global-dynamics/2025/08/russian-geopolitical-challenges-economic-relations-with-germany/
37. Belgium–Russia relations – Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium%E2%80%93Russia_relations
38. Italy’s challenging divorce from Russia | ECFR – European Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 26, 2025, https://ecfr.eu/article/italys-challenging-divorce-from-russia/
39. The ambassador – Russian Federation – Netherlandsandyou.nl, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/web/russian-federation/about-us/ambassador
40. Why we won’t abandon China | FPS Foreign Affairs – Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation – Belgium.be, accessed September 26, 2025, http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/policy-areas/highlighted/why-we-wont-abandon-china
41. Germany’s China Policy: Has It Learned From Its Dependency on Russia?, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/germanys-china-policy-has-it-learned-its-dependency-russia
42. How can Europe’s nuclear deterrence trilemma be resolved? – Bruegel, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.bruegel.org/working-paper/how-can-europes-nuclear-deterrence-trilemma-be-resolved
43. Europe’s Nuclear Deterrent: The Here and Now, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2025/06/europes-nuclear-deterrent-the-here-and-now/