Brussels: Europe and the Arabs
With growing European fears of a decline in US commitment to the continent, French President Emmanuel Macron is seeking to raise a debate about the possibility of extending the scope of France's nuclear umbrella to include European Union partners, in a move that could reshape the balance of power within the continent.
France and the United Kingdom are the only two countries in Europe that possess nuclear weapons, with Paris maintaining 290 nuclear warheads, compared to 225 in London. However, the fundamental difference between the two countries lies in the nature of their sovereignty over this arsenal. While France enjoys complete independence in its nuclear decisions, Britain relies on the United States to operate its arsenal, which raises questions about the extent of its ability to use it freely in the event of war. According to a report published by the European News Network in Brussels, "Euronews", which indicated that in addition to that, the means of using nuclear weapons differ in the two countries, as the British capabilities are limited to launching weapons from submarines, while France has an additional option of using fighter bombers to drop its nuclear warheads, which gives it greater flexibility in employing its arsenal.
These discussions come in response to calls within Germany, as the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, Friedrich Merz, expressed his desire to open a dialogue with Paris and London about the future of European nuclear deterrence.
This call represents a shift in German policy, which has long relied on the American nuclear umbrella to ensure its security, but with geopolitical changes, the search for European alternatives has become more necessary.
Deterrence doctrine.. Can it become European?
Expanding the French nuclear umbrella requires a redefinition of the deterrence doctrine adopted by Paris. Currently, the potential use of French nuclear weapons is limited to protecting the "vital interests" of the state, but granting the European Union nuclear protection means expanding this concept to include the security of member states.
But this expansion carries increasing risks, as France could become a direct target for any country that might be subjected to a French nuclear strike in defense of another European country.
As Christoph Wasinski, professor of international politics at the Free University of Brussels, explains, “Extending the nuclear umbrella means that we are prepared to retaliate nuclearly on behalf of another country, and this makes us vulnerable to a retaliatory strike in turn.” He adds: “So, in a way, France will also be a hostage to what you propose.”
Is the French arsenal sufficient?
This debate also raises questions about the extent to which France’s nuclear deterrence is capable of protecting the entire European Union. Although having a few hundred nuclear warheads is a formidable deterrent, some point out that the military balance still favors Russia, which has 4,380 nuclear warheads.
Increasing the French arsenal to protect the EU would necessarily mean expanding the delivery systems and strengthening the nuclear infrastructure in partner countries, which could impose a significant financial burden on the Union. “Nuclear weapons can kill thousands, even tens of thousands, when they are launched, and can destroy very large areas, so having a large number of them doesn’t necessarily change the situation,” says Wasinski.

The most important question remains: who has the power to decide whether to use nuclear weapons if the French umbrella is expanded? According to Macron, the power to make this decision will remain exclusively in the hands of the French president. But this raises a political challenge, as expanding nuclear deterrence requires a broader European consensus and could complicate decision-making in times of crisis.

Ultimately, the idea of ​​transforming France’s nuclear deterrence into a European shield represents a bold step towards strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy. However, it also opens the door to political and military challenges that require a deep European consensus before they can become a reality.