Discussions about a “German bomb” are like Dracula. No sooner has one killed the Transylvanian vampire than he rises again from his coffin. Since the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when candidate Donald Trump seemed to indicate that the U.S. might no longer be willing to protect its allies, some German observers have argued that an eventual loss of the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” would make a national nuclear arsenal indispensable.
Back then, the debate quickly died down. President Trump put a lot of pressure on the Europeans to raise defense spending, but he did not question America’s nuclear commitment to Europe. Moreover, most experts agreed that if the U.S. were indeed to disengage from European security, a model based on the British and French nuclear arsenals would be the most plausible “Plan B.”
Although such an arrangement would face numerous challenges, it still appears to be the most reasonable alternative in the event of the loss of the traditional Atlantic option. In particular, it would not encourage the emergence of new nuclear powers.
Alas, the debate about German nuclear weapons is back again. Fueled by transatlantic disagreements, most recently over Greenland, the idea of Germany acquiring its own nukes appears to have again gained salience. Proponents argue that thinking about a German bomb must no longer be a political taboo, since it is the logical consequence of a ruthless realpolitik assessment of the situation. But is it?
The demand for a German bomb is rarely put forward in clear terms. Apart from the bizarre proposal by a German expert that Germany should simply buy 1,000 nuclear warheads from the United States (which would result in the immediate end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), most German commentators remain vague. They refer to the new security situation, which, they argue, was obliging hard-nosed analysts to “think the unthinkable.”
Some maintain that the treaties in which Germany has committed itself to permanently renouncing weapons of mass destruction were created under conditions that no longer apply. Once these outdated legal obstacles were removed, acquiring the bomb would become mainly a question of financial resources and technical know-how. Consequently, like Japan and South Korea, proponents of the bomb argue that Germany should invest in “nuclear latency”, i.e. in maintaining the basic technologies necessary for a national nuclear weapons program.
However, Germany’s exit from nuclear power generation has left the country with very little “nuclear latency.” As the British and French experience shows, the financial costs of a national nuclear program would be staggering. The timeframe for developing a true nuclear option (which must also include command systems, including satellites, and delivery vehicles, such as missiles or submarines) will be 20 years or more, which would seem too long to deter a belligerent Russia.
And there is more. Proponents of a German bomb usually skirt around the question of what would happen if Poland, Italy, and other larger European countries followed Germany’s example and initiated their own nuclear programs. Even if Washington would drop any objections to allied countries acquiring nuclear weapons, a German bid for the bomb could trigger a political earthquake with unforeseeable consequences. If Berlin were to commit to a national nuclear weapons option, old resentments among Germany’s neighbors, which up until now have been contained, would resurface. The European Union might well fracture.
A Germany that withdraws from several major international treaties would cause more fear among many Europeans than Moscow’s nuclear weapons. And although the German public’s attitude toward nuclear weapons remains fickle, the idea of their country building its own bomb would hardly meet with widespread approval. Hence, whatever the reasoning for a German nuclear arsenal, no German government will go down that road. The disadvantages of such a step would far outweigh any tangible security gains.
Even if a German national nuclear option remains unrealistic, however, the debate holds an important lesson: The U.S. “nuclear umbrella” remains far more important than some analysts and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic dare to admit. It spares Europe a destructive debate on a nuclear-driven re-nationalization, and it spares the U.S. the prospect of having to deal with a multi-nuclear Europe.
Hence, both sides of the Atlantic should refrain from loose talk, be it about the diminishing credibility of the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” or about the desirability of new national nuclear options. Before starting to think about the “unthinkable”, one should first try the “thinkable” – and let Dracula rest in his coffin.
Michael Rühle worked for over 30 years in NATO’s International Staff, including as a speechwriter for six secretaries-general, as well as in policy planning, climate and energy security, and hybrid threats.
