The Nuclear Deal That Could Save NATO

Foreign Affairs | Ivo H. Daalder

European members of NATO face an unprecedented breakdown in transatlantic security guarantees as Washington makes extended nuclear deterrence conditional on political and economic compliance. Ivo H. Daalder demonstrates that zero European foreign ministry officials present at a recent summit believed Washington would honor its Article 5 commitment during an attack.

Deterrence has fractured. This crisis echoes the 1957 Sputnik shock, which previously prompted the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. Today, allies like Poland and Germany are weighing national nuclear capabilities to counter Russian coercion, while France offers its own strike forces. Re-establishing credibility requires a revamped nuclear bargain led by France and the United Kingdom rather than reliance on conditional American assurances. Without a structured European nuclear core, unilateral proliferation will inevitably dismantle the nonproliferation architecture established during the Cold War, exposing the continent to unchecked Russian strategic coercion and alliance fragmentation.

Comment

The erosion of extended nuclear deterrence undermines the consultative mechanics that have stabilized NATO since the 1960s. Historical stability relied less on deployed warheads than on political codification through the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. When transactional conditions are attached to mutual defence under Article 5, consultation mechanisms lose their credibility as reassurance tools. Without credible US guarantees, dual-capable aircraft missions using U.S.-owned B-61 nuclear bombs cease to function as cohesive alliance ties.

This institutional breakdown operates through specific command procedures rather than simple posture changes. The NATO Nuclear Planning Group depends on shared risk-taking and operational consensus to justify non-nuclear member participation in strike planning. If bilateral conditionality replaces multilateral consultations, non-nuclear hosts lose institutional oversight of regional escalation dynamics. Consequently, European interest in national deterrence programs grows precisely because the NATO Nuclear Planning Group can no longer ensure a unified response against Russian strategic pressure.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If extended US guarantees lose political credibility, can multilateral consultation frameworks like the NATO Nuclear Planning Group survive without transitioning operational command of dual-capable aircraft missions to European commanders?

The pattern suggests that consultation bodies like the NATO Nuclear Planning Group cannot maintain institutional cohesion once the core security guarantee is questioned. Without operational authority over warheads or targeting, European participation in dual-capable aircraft missions becomes politically symbolic rather than strategically credible. My assessment is that this institutional divergence will force allies toward independent national options or a restructured European command framework centered on French and British capabilities.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here