A hole in the nuclear umbrella? Rethinking European deterrence and escalation management through conventional counterforce.

European strategic discussions remain constrained by nuclear-centric thinking, especially the notion that deterrence requires credible nuclear escalation options. In scenarios short of a full-scale nuclear exchange, nuclear threats are problematic: they are often inherently incredible, too costly or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Affairs Vol. 102; no. 4; pp. 1267 - 1287
Autores principales: Desmaele, Linde, Cooper, Austin R
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Jul2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=195222516&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 195222516
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00205850
        INA
      jtl: International Affairs
      issn: 00205850
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2026
      vid: 102
      iid: 4
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        195222516
        10.1093/ia/iiag091
      ppf: 1267
      ppct: 20
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: A hole in the nuclear umbrella? Rethinking European deterrence and escalation management through conventional counterforce.
      aug:
        au:
          Desmaele, Linde
          Cooper, Austin R
        affil:
          Leiden University Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Turfmarkt 99, 2501 EE The Hague, Netherlands
          Purdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States
      su:
        Europe
        North Atlantic Treaty Organization
        Nuclear weapons
        Nuclear nonproliferation
        International security
        Deterrence (Military strategy)
        Military strategy
      sug:
        subj:
          Nuclear weapons
          Nuclear nonproliferation
          International security
          Europe
          North Atlantic Treaty Organization
          Deterrence (Military strategy)
          Military strategy
      keyword:
        copyrightHolder:The Royal Institute of International Affairs
        copyrightYear:2026
        European security
        inLanguage:en
        international security
        NATO
        nuclear
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag091
        transatlantic relations
        copyrightHolder:The Royal Institute of International Affairs
        copyrightYear:2026
        European security
        inLanguage:en
        international security
        NATO
        nuclear
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag091
        transatlantic relations
      ab: European strategic discussions remain constrained by nuclear-centric thinking, especially the notion that deterrence requires credible nuclear escalation options. In scenarios short of a full-scale nuclear exchange, nuclear threats are problematic: they are often inherently incredible, too costly or too dangerous. Continuing to rely on nuclear-centric strategies entails political, operational and strategic risks. It also narrows the conceptual space for imagining how Europe's future deterrence architecture, with or without the United States, might look. We propose a substitution deterrence model for Europe, centred on conventional denial combined with potential conventional escalation through advanced long-range conventional precision-strike capabilities. Existing national nuclear arsenals, maintained in a minimum deterrence posture to provide secure second-strike capabilities, would be a residual hedge against worst-case scenarios, including a pre-emptive strike or large-scale nuclear coercion. Substituting advanced conventional weapons for tactical and/or theatre nuclear weapons would offer deterrence benefits, enable more equitable burden-sharing between nuclear and non-nuclear NATO members, and reduce incentives for nuclear proliferation. Doing so also offers a more politically, operationally and strategically sustainable alternative to the nuclear-centric deterrence model that continues to dominate European and NATO strategic thinking.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N