Three of Great Britain’s retired top military officers have
declared their country’s nuclear deterrent to be “completely
useless.” They suggest dropping the British submarine-based
missiles, relying instead on the U.S. Such a step would
effectively complete Europe’s status as America’s biggest
military dependent.
NATO was created during the midst of the Cold War to prevent
Soviet domination of Eurasia. Europe was a notorious freeloader
on the U.S. even then, but the conventional wisdom was that
Washington had to defend the Europeans even if they weren’t
terribly interested in defending themselves. Both Great Britain
and France created independent nuclear forces, but these arsenals
were viewed as adjuncts to America’s nuclear umbrella.
Europe’s dependence on the U.S. makes no sense today. The Cold
War is over, and with it Moscow’s potential for dominating the
continent. Even before the economic crisis Russia’s global
pretensions exceeded its capabilities. The victory over tiny
Georgia demonstrated that Moscow could defeat a small neighbor,
not conquer any of the populous and prosperous countries in Old
Europe, the traditional center of America’s defense efforts. The
Russian economy has since taken a huge hit and political protests
are increasing. Georgia might turn out to be Moscow’s high water
mark before its own social problems force Russians to turn
inward.
Even if the Europeans face a serious security threat, they do not
need America’s help. The European Union has a larger population
and GDP than does America; the EU also has begun forging a
continental perspective on foreign policy issues. Yet the
Europeans have proved to be the worst sort of military deadbeats,
with neither the will nor the ability to project much force
anywhere. This isn’t just an American judgment. British Defense
Secretary John Hutton declared in mid-January: “Free-loading on
the back of U.S. military security is not an option if we wish to
be equal partners in this trans-Atlantic alliance.”
He pointed to Afghanistan as emblematic of Europe’s defense
failure, demonstrating “a legacy of underinvestment by some
European member states in their armed forces, significant
variance in political commitment to the campaign, and underneath
it all a continued overreliance on the U.S. to do the heavy
lifting.” If a more centralized European Union does anything on
defense, it should be to develop a continent-wide force capable
of combat and backed by sufficient lift to get it where needed.
As part of that process, Europe needs to consider the question of
nuclear weapons. For 60 years the Europeans have relied on the
U.S., yet why should Washington risk nuclear war to protect them
from a sharply diminished threat? A week before the statement by
the three British military officers, a Pentagon panel recommended
keeping U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe and possibly modernizing
the arsenal.
If Europeans believe that Russia poses a nuclear threat, should
not Europeans provide the deterrence? Although the retired
officers correctly observed that Britain’s arsenal has no value
in combating terrorism, it surely guarantees that there will
never be a Russian attack on the island nation, even if Moscow
somehow reconstitutes its military. The same goes for France’s
force de frappe.
Neither country would have to “win” a nuclear war with Russia.
They simply need retain a sufficient number of warheads to
inflict unacceptable casualties on Russia in any conflict. The
mere possibility of destroying Moscow, St. Petersburg,
Novosibirsk, Ekaterinburg, Novgorod, and a few other major cities
would concentrate minds in the Kremlin.
The obvious problem, of course, is that the British and French
may hesitate before unleashing nuclear war to save Georgia,
Estonia, or even Germany. Their reluctance is understandable, but
why should Washington step in and do so instead? NATO expansion
has incorporated numerous nations which are at best of peripheral
interest to America. A U.S. government threat of war, let alone
nuclear war, to defend such countries would represent policy
malfeasance of the highest order.
Just as Europe has the wherewithal to create an effective
conventional force, so it already has the makings of a nuclear
deterrent. While concerns over proliferation might militate
against a proposal to create a new nuclear power, Europe already
is one after a fashion. The question is whether Britain and
France, whose president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has talked much about
empowering the European Union militarily, could be persuaded to
turn their forces into a true continental arsenal.
Not likely as long as Washington continues to extend both a
conventional and nuclear umbrella over Europe. But America no
longer can afford to defend countries that are well able to
confront what little dangers they might face. The U.S. is
suffering through economic crisis at home and is very busy
elsewhere in the world. There is much on which America and Europe
can and should cooperate, including security. But Washington’s
one-sided defense subsidy should end, and along with it the best
excuse for Britain and France holding their nuclear forces
separate from the continent’s defense needs.
Contrary to the judgment of Britain’s three retired commanders,
their nation’s nuclear force could be highly useful, giving
Europe some heft in dealing with a resurgent Russia. After more
than a half century, the U.S. should insist that its European
dependents take over responsibility for their own security. Which
should include sharing today’s bi-national nuclear deterrent to
ensure that Europe won’t have to call upon Washington for
military assistance in the future.
