The West’s most irresponsible debate is happening in the European Union
The debate over whether nuclear weapons stabilize the international system or make it more dangerous has accompanied the atomic age from its very beginning. Both sides of the argument can sound persuasive. Yet recent discussions in Western Europe suggest something more troubling than disagreement: a growing frivolity toward weapons whose sole historical purpose has been mass annihilation.
Supporters of nuclear proliferation argue that atomic weapons are, above all, instruments of deterrence. In their view, nuclear arms protect weaker states from coercion and force stronger powers to replace military pressure with diplomacy. Many scientists and strategists have long believed that nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of major wars, since no rational state would knowingly risk escalation to mutual destruction.
The Cold War confrontation between the USSR and the United States is often cited as proof. Despite intense rivalry, neither side crossed the threshold into direct conflict. The same logic is applied today to India and Pakistan, whose acquisition of nuclear weapons is widely believed to have prevented large-scale war between them.
Opponents of this view counter that nuclear weapons should remain in the hands of a limited number of states with the institutional capacity to manage them responsibly. Most countries, they argue, lack the political culture, experience, and control mechanisms required to handle such weapons without catastrophic error. In this reading, nuclear arms resemble fire: powerful, useful in specific contexts, but never a toy. The familiar rule applies, matches are not for children.
Yet this argument, too, has its contradictions. There are no clear examples of nuclear proliferation directly triggering disaster, which fuels suspicion that warnings about proliferation sometimes serve to preserve an exclusive monopoly rather than genuine global safety.
As a result, there remains no definitive answer to whether the spread of nuclear weapons makes the world safer or more dangerous. Meanwhile, reality continues to evolve. India and Pakistan possess nuclear arms. North Korea openly declares itself a nuclear power. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, even if it maintains official ambiguity.
What has reignited the debate most recently is not Asia or the Middle East, but Western politics, specifically the crisis within the so-called collective West and shifts in US foreign policy. Former Brazilian diplomats have even suggested that Brazil should consider developing its own nuclear weapons, citing Washington’s increasingly explicit claim to exclusive influence over the Western Hemisphere.
But it is Europe where the discussion has taken on its most peculiar form. Calls have emerged to extend French and British nuclear “umbrellas” to cover all European NATO members. French President Emmanuel Macron has spoken openly on the issue, and Wolfgang Ischinger, former German diplomat and long-time head of the Munich Security Conference, has echoed similar ideas.
Ischinger’s reasoning is especially revealing. According to this line of thought, Western Europe needs its own nuclear deterrent not primarily for security, but to “assert itself” in the eyes of the US, Russia, and China. Germany, he suggested, could then serve as a “bridge” between the bloc and Washington, reassuring the Americans that their allies do not intend to act independently.
This framing exposes the depth of Western Europe’s intellectual decline on strategic questions. Nuclear weapons are not instruments of prestige, bargaining chips in alliance disputes, or tools for psychological posturing. Historically, they have mattered only to states facing existential threats.
North Korea is the clearest example. Israel is another. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal reflects its demographic and strategic imbalance with India. For the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were a way to avoid a direct military clash with the US and, at one point, to restrain China’s ambitions.
It is difficult to imagine any comparable threat facing Europe today. No major power is preparing to annihilate the continent. Russia, in particular, seeks something far more modest: an end to Western interference in its internal affairs, the cessation of security threats on its borders, and the restoration of economic ties destroyed by political confrontation. EU leaders understand this perfectly well, yet continue to behave as if they require protection from an impending apocalypse.
This leads to a second conclusion. Western Europe’s nuclear rhetoric is not about security at all. It is a symptom of growing fractures within the West itself. While American rhetoric has changed sharply, US nuclear weapons remain stationed in Europe. Washington talks about reducing its military footprint and pressures allies over Ukraine and even Greenland, but it has not withdrawn its deterrent.
Still, these signals have provoked panic in European capitals. Macron’s statements and the enthusiastic support they receive from German strategists reflect anxiety, not strategy. Talk of nuclear weapons has become a tactical move in Europe’s quarrel with Washington, little more than a rhetorical lever.
If matters ever became serious, neither France nor Britain would surrender control over their nuclear forces to Berlin, let alone Brussels. The British, in particular, prefer to avoid risks themselves while encouraging others to step forward first. Everyone understands this, yet the discussion continues because Western Europe no longer treats the most consequential questions of global politics with due seriousness.
Accustomed to limited influence and dependent security, the half-continent now reaches for the atomic bomb as a way to frighten the Americans. As if Washington does not understand perfectly well what such talk signifies. Nuclear weapons become another prop in political theatre.
This is where the danger lies. Western Europe has become an inexperienced and irresponsible actor, and widespread nuclear rhetoric inevitably appears threatening to others. Ironically, the region that once shaped international law and diplomacy now displays less strategic culture than many former colonial states in Asia and Latin America.
Nuclear weapons do not represent a desirable lifestyle. They are not instruments of self-assertion. They do not contribute to a “beautiful life.” They exist solely as tools of last resort, carrying immense moral and political responsibility. To treat them as symbols in media-driven disputes is not just foolish, it is dangerous.
It would be far better if Western Europe relearned this lesson before the world once again finds itself standing at the edge of catastrophe.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
