The changing military posture of a major neighbouring power, combined with rising global competition and growing uncertainty about U.S. nuclear guarantees, has prompted European governments to rethink their security strategies. The stakes go beyond geopolitics: any nuclear conflict would have catastrophic climate and ecological consequences, potentially undermining decades of sustainability and energy planning. Countries near potential flashpoints in Central Europe, approach defence pragmatically, emphasizing strength, sovereignty, and environmental responsibility.

Nuclear deterrence works on a simple principle: the threat of a strong response prevents aggression. During the Cold War, this balance helped preserve peace between major powers. Today, deterrence calculations also account for environmental and humanitarian impacts. Even a limited nuclear exchange could release massive amounts of soot and particles into the atmosphere, disrupt agriculture, shorten growing seasons, and trigger global food insecurity.

Thus, credible deterrence also protects the climate: by preventing war it prevents environmental disaster. Effective deterrence requires the capability and political will to respond decisively. In a climate-conscious framework, capability ranges from minimizing environmental risks from energy use at military bases to the ecological impact of missiles and nuclear facilities. Policymakers in Central and Eastern Europe emphasize that strength, sovereignty, and environmental foresight should work together to protect both people and the planet.

Europe’s nuclear deterrence primarily relies on NATO and the U.S. nuclear umbrella. These guarantees provide security but come with high energy and environmental costs. Only France and the UK maintain independent nuclear arsenals, while several Central and Eastern European countries participate in NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements.

France’s force de dissuasion and the UK’s Trident system provide Europe with autonomous deterrence. France has modernized its arsenal, integrated hypersonic delivery systems, and explored low-carbon energy sources for its military infrastructure, ensuring modernization aligns with sustainability goals. Similarly, the UK is upgrading nuclear-capable platforms and incorporating energy-efficient practices across bases, balancing credible deterrence with environmental responsibility.

Central and Eastern European nations close to current conflict areas have adopted a pragmatic approach. Poland is expanding participation in NATO nuclear sharing, while Hungary emphasizes stability, diplomacy, and credible deterrence without escalation. This strategy seeks to protect regional security while limiting environmental risks.

Today’s security environment brings complex challenges at the intersection of technology, politics, and climate. Public opinion in Europe often favours disarmament and views nuclear weapons as risky and unnecessary. While these views are understandable, reducing deterrence too quickly could increase the risk of conflict—with severe environmental and humanitarian consequences.

New technologies like hypersonic missiles, AI, and cyber-enabled systems make nuclear operations more complex. Faster decision-making and blurred lines between conventional and nuclear forces increase the risk of mistakes. Stable deterrence requires strong command systems and continuous integration of climate and ecological risk assessments.

Disarmament discussions also need to account for environmental realities. Even a small nuclear exchange could inject enough soot into the atmosphere to disrupt agriculture globally, causing famine and social instability. Arms control agreements should be realistic, reciprocal, and mindful of these environmental consequences.

Hungary’s policy balances historical experience, realism, and ecological responsibility. The government supports global non-proliferation but opposes measures that weaken NATO’s security guarantees. Officials focus on preventing the spread of new nuclear arsenals while maintaining credible deterrence among responsible powers. At the same time, Hungary defends its right to develop nuclear energy for national sovereignty and energy security. Projects like Paks II exemplify low-carbon, climate-conscious energy development aligned with security priorities. Nuclear power is treated as both a strategic and environmental asset, supporting energy independence and carbon reduction. This philosophy also guides deterrence policy: Hungary prioritizes alliance solidarity, realistic defence planning, and avoidance of escalation, combining strength with environmental responsibility.

France and the UK have modernized their nuclear forces while considering climate impacts. France’s modernization includes hypersonic missiles and low-carbon operational practices, showing that credible deterrence can coexist with environmental responsibility. The UK applies energy-efficient practices to its nuclear platforms, reducing the ecological footprint of its deterrent while maintaining readiness.

Public perception remains a challenge. Many Europeans see nuclear weapons primarily as destructive rather than protective. Education is needed to show how deterrence can prevent conflict and environmental catastrophe, framing nuclear policy as part of climate-conscious governance. Research shows that even a limited nuclear exchange would have major climate effects. Fires from urban and industrial targets could inject millions of tons of soot into the atmosphere, block sunlight, lower temperatures, and reduce global crop yields. This would worsen climate crises, potentially causing famine, unrest, and instability in vulnerable regions.

Nuclear deterrence thus has a dual role: it prevents war and indirectly protects the environment. Responsible governance, restraint, and credible deterrence are central to human security and climate resilience. Smaller states, including Hungary, contribute by promoting stability, avoiding escalation, and supporting climate-informed defence planning.

Europe has several options for combining nuclear deterrence with climate and security goals: Maintain NATO’s U.S.-led nuclear umbrella while strengthening conventional forces and missile defences with minimal environmental impact. Pursue gradual, coordinated disarmament while keeping climate-safe defence strategies in place. Explore European nuclear autonomy, which could enhance security but would require careful environmental and financial planning. A pragmatic approach combines shared responsibility: the U.S. continues its nuclear role while European nations invest in sustainable conventional forces, climate-resilient infrastructure, and low-carbon military planning. This balances security needs with ecological stewardship.

Nuclear weapons present moral and ethical challenges, but they have prevented major wars for decades. Adding climate and sustainability considerations increases responsibility. Nations must manage arsenals carefully, limit environmental damage, and maintain credible deterrence. Transparency, restraint, and diplomacy are essential to safeguard both people and the planet. Deterrence is not domination; it is a tool to secure peace, protect ecological stability, and prevent catastrophic conflict. Europe’s challenge is to stay united, capable, and environmentally responsible in managing nuclear and energy policy. European nuclear deterrence remains crucial for security, but today, security cannot be separated from sustainability. France and the UK show how modernization can align with climate awareness, while Hungary demonstrates cautious, pragmatic, and ecologically responsible policy.

A realism-driven approach that prioritizes sovereignty, alliance cohesion, and climate-conscious planning provides the best path to lasting peace. Europe must maintain credible deterrence, develop resilient low-carbon energy infrastructure, and manage nuclear forces responsibly to protect both human and environmental security.

 

References

Arms Control Association. (2023, November). A new argument for nuclear arms control: Climate change. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-11/features/new-argument-nuclear-arms-control-climate-change

Brill, K. C. (2023, November). A new argument for nuclear arms control: Climate change. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-11/features/new-argument-nuclear-arms-control-climate-change

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2023, July). How climate change challenges the U.S. nuclear deterrent. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/07/how-climate-change-challenges-the-us-nuclear-deterrent

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2024, February). Climate change poses a hidden challenge to NATO nuclear deterrence. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/02/climate-change-poses-a-hidden-challenge-to-nato-nuclear-deterrence

Centre d'Analyse, de Prévision et de Stratégie. (2025, March). The French nuclear deterrent in a changing strategic environment. https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/french-nuclear-deterrent-changing-strategic-environment-2025

De Gruyter Brill. (2018). The role of deterrence in a new European strategic environment. Sirius: Journal of Strategic Studies. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sirius-2018-0023/html

European Court of Justice. (2025, September). EU's top court rules against Hungary's nuclear state aid. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eus-top-court-rules-against-hungarys-nuclear-state-aid-2025-09-11/

Evangelista, M. (2023/24). A “nuclear umbrella” for Ukraine? Precedents and possibilities for postwar European security. International Security, 48(3), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00423

Gaub, F., & Mair, S. (2025). Europe’s bad nuclear options: And why they may be the only path to security. Foreign Affairs, 104(4), 140–150. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2025-09-10/europes-bad-nuclear-options

Młynarski, T. (2017). Nuclear energy and its contribution to the energy and climate security of European Union. Humanities and Social Sciences, XXII(3), 197–212. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/server/api/core/bitstreams/e55e48e2-4a85-400b-9f5d-e996eec5111e/content

Verstraete, W. (2024). Anticipating Europe’s nuclear futures. The Washington Quarterly, 47(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2024.1854231