Eurobombs would make the world a much more unstable and dangerous place

by Kati Juva and Arja Alho

According to the most recent Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Year Book, the United States has approximately 1,700 deployed nuclear warheads—400 land-based strategic intercontinental nuclear missiles, 300 on 66 bombers based in the US, and 970 missiles on 14 submarines. Another 100 US aircraft-launched nuclear weapons are deployed in five NATO countries in Europe.

Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons, of which there are some 220, are all on board submarines. France, which has a nuclear arsenal of just under 300 warheads, has non-strategic warheads launched from bombers in addition to submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Both countries are planning to increase the number of nuclear weapons and modernize their launch platforms.

The fear that the United States would withdraw its “nuclear umbrella” from Europe and repatriate its nuclear weapons has fueled the debate on Europe’s own nuclear weapons. In the shadow of militarism, the multi-faceted weighing of the issue has been allowed to fade and panicky reactions have taken over.

France has announced that its nuclear weapons could provide a wider nuclear umbrella for Europeans, but that the decision on their use would remain exclusively with France. The French would be happy to receive European funding. Britain currently has no US nuclear tactical weapons stationed in their country and its own nuclear weapons are all strategic.

Poland has long wished to have US nuclear weapons on its soil, and welcomes the idea of a “Eurobomb”. Similar discussions have also taken place in Sweden, Denmark, and even Finland. So would we build our own Nordic nuclear weapon?

Nuclear weapons are terrifying weapons of mass destruction that target population centers. They do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Even today’s non-strategic nuclear weapons are 5-10 times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The explosion of a single nuclear weapon can kill millions of people.

Moreover, even a regional war fought with ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons would lead to a nuclear winter, and with it a decline in food production—and even the starvation of billions of people. According to recent scientific studies, more than 95% of Finland’s population would die within two years.

The leaders of the major powers have repeatedly stated that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This is the essence of nuclear deterrence and part of the balance of terror. However, nuclear weapons states have also been attacked, as Syria and Egypt did to Israel in 1973 and Pakistan did to India’s Kargil region in 1999.

Nuclear weapons have also enabled aggression by the countries that possess them against non-nuclear countries. Russia dared to attack Ukraine because it calculated that threatening to use nuclear weapons would ensure that NATO countries would not come to Ukraine’s aid.

Eurobombs are designed for use in Europe. But there are already many times as many nuclear weapons in the world to destroy all countries and all human civilization. Europe does not need any more of them.

On the contrary, nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons—in a balanced way, taking into account all security concerns—is essential to ensure the survival of humanity.

Nuclear deterrence is a very precarious construct. It is based on the assumption that the leaders of the world’s nuclear weapons states always think rationally and share the same view of the risks and consequences.

In crises, they are under intense pressure. Leaders can be misinformed or take big risks where a bluff goes disastrously wrong. Nuclear war can also break out accidentally. There have been plenty of near misses. Even a single nuclear missile launched can lead to uncontrollable consequences when chains of command interpret an attack as having begun.

So far, only good luck or decisions by responsible officers have prevented nuclear wars from breaking out. But as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said, “Luck is not a strategy.”

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, is considered the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation. At that time there were five nuclear weapon states in the world, which are also permanent members of the UN Security Council. The non-nuclear-weapon states pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons, were granted the right to use nuclear power technology, and the nuclear-weapon states promised to undertake disarmament. Since then, four other countries (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) have acquired their own nuclear weapons.

Without the treaty, there would probably be more nuclear sites.

If European countries now start planning their own nuclear weapons, this would be a clear violation of the NPT. The nuclear weapons currently deployed in NATO countries are strictly under the US chain of command, so they do not directly violate the NPT. If, on the other hand, Poland, Germany or some of the Nordic countries were to build nuclear weapons under their control, this would violate the NPT and would probably lead to the disintegration of the NPT as a whole.

European countries should not send the message to the world that nuclear weapons are a safeguard against military threats. Traditional defenses must be maintained, but nuclear weapons do not add any military advantage. Besides, nuclear weapons are absolutely devastatingly expensive. Building and maintaining them would probably be out of the rest of Europe’s defense budget, not to mention the transfer of funds from social security or education.

The withdrawal of European countries from the NPT would certainly cause a chain reaction among the countries seeking nuclear weapons. If the NPT ceases to be the universal norm, the next in line would probably be Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia, then South Korea and possibly Japan.

The world would become a much more unstable place and the risk of nuclear war—provocative or unintentional—would increase significantly.

Europe’s security and defense must be taken care of, but without nuclear weapons. Europe’s disarmament must also look beyond. It is difficult to see how lasting security can be achieved in a Europe of fear, suspicion, and armament, let alone in the world. Building trust, cooperation, and peace is difficult but possible.

Kati Juva is a physician, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and former Helsinki City Councillor (Greens). Arja Alho, has a PhD in political science, is editor-in-chief of Ydin magazine and is a former Member of Parliament and Minister (SPD). This is a translation of their article, which originally appeared in the Finnish newspaper Demokraatti.