Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Moreover, the French nuclear arsenal just isn’t adequate for the job of protecting Europe. France has about three hundred nuclear warheads. If a major war broke out in Europe, an enemy like Russia which possesses thousands of warheads might be able to destroy the French arsenal in a pre-emptive first strike. Deterrence only works if swift and thorough retaliation is assured.
     In addition, French nuclear weapons are the wrong type. They are strategic which means that each warhead is capable of causing many Hiroshima’s worth of devastation. They are only meant to be used in a total-war scenario to utterly destroy entire cities in the homeland of the enemy.
     If Russia were to escalate a war in Eastern Europe such as the current Ukrainian war, it would employ tactical nuclear weapons. These are smaller warheads that can be deployed at short ranges to frighten an enemy into submission or to win specific battles. It is just not thinkable for France or anyone else to retaliate for a limited tactical nuclear strike by going directly to strategic retaliation and nuclear Armageddon.
     The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that all Western nuclear powers must add more tactical nuclear weapons to their arsenals, to keep up with Russia and become capable of flexible responses to its agressions. The European Union, led by Germany and France, could collaborate on this effort. Even if that came to pass, the Europeans would still have to resolve the old questions about command structure.
     Alternatively, countries like Germany could develop their own nuclear warheads. However, in order for Germany to do that, it would have to first withdraw from the international treaty against nuclear proliferation and the agreement that allowed its reunification. In addition, Germany would have to turn its entire post-war political culture upside down. Many of its current leaders grew up protesting against the stationing U.S. missiles and nuclear warheads in general.
     For the time being, the most realistic answer to Russian aggression is to retain and patch the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The only language understood by Russia and China is more U.S. tactical nukes, in more places and deliverable in more ways. Following this course of action is probably the only way to slow the pace of other countries, allies or enemies, going nuclear. However, the entire U.S. political class, on both sides of the aisle must underwrite the U.S. commitment to its allies regardless of whether Trump or another like him comes to power in the U.S.
     Unfortunately, no conclusion could be more depressing. It amounts to entering a new tactical nuclear arms race. It goes in the opposite direction of  the vision behinds the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by eighty-six non-nuclear countries and meant to ban these horrible weapons altogether. Instead of eliminating all nuclear weapons, we’d have to look for new ways of deterring their use. Putin is to blame for all of this. He attacked Ukraine twenty eight years after Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s security in return for Ukraine giving up its own arsenal of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. He broke the long term taboo against threatening nuclear escalation in conventional warfare. In all these ways. The European Union must prepare for its own self-defense.
Emblem of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces: