Nuclear Weapons | Strengthening Nuclear Deterrence Increases Risks

Expanding and modernizing Europe’s nuclear arsenals would not make Europe safer, Julia Jernvall and Kati Juva argue in an opinion piece published by Helsingin Sanomat. Instead, they say, a larger and more widely distributed nuclear capability would increase the risk that such weapons could be used deliberately or by accident.

The argument responds to a recent guest column by William Alberque and Stefan Forss, who said European NATO members need a joint nuclear deterrent. Jernvall and Juva write that deterrence rests on the assumption that possessing nuclear weapons influences an adversary’s behavior. Traditionally, their main role has been to prevent a nuclear attack by threatening a retaliatory strike capable of inflicting unacceptable destruction. The authors say that goal does not require a large arsenal.

They also question the military usefulness of nuclear weapons because their destructive power and the risk of escalation constrain their use. Possessing nuclear weapons has not prevented other countries from attacking nuclear-armed states, they write. Nuclear weapons can also serve as tools of pressure and coercion, but research shows that their value for coercion is limited.

The authors point to Russia’s threats against Ukraine as an example. Nuclear intimidation has not forced Ukraine to accept Russia’s demands or stopped it from carrying out strikes inside Russia, they write. In the case of Iran, they add, the nuclear weapons held by Israel and the United States have not given those countries a decisive advantage. Iran has fired missiles at Israel and has not yielded to U.S. demands.

Jernvall and Juva conclude that Europe should reduce its dependence on nuclear weapons. They propose a ban on first use as a possible first step and say NATO should also commit to it. The article is signed by Jernvall and Juva of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Finland.