Parliament in Finland just passed a bill (2/3 majority) to lift a ban on nuclear weapons that had been in place since the 80s. This website indicates it'd most likely be fighters (F-35 or Rafale) and either US or French weapons. That said, Foxnews indicates the lifted ban would also repeal a ban on production. I would think Finland producing their own nukes is unlikely compared to the previous examples. But if they don't get some nukes on their territory, they might.

In context with the UK defense minister's warning/resignment, it's going to be interesting in the coming years; to what degree will the European rearmament include nuclear weapons?

5 hours ago, busdriver said:

Parliament in Finland just passed a bill (2/3 majority) to lift a ban on nuclear weapons that had been in place since the 80s. This website indicates it'd most likely be fighters (F-35 or Rafale) and either US or French weapons. That said, Foxnews indicates the lifted ban would also repeal a ban on production. I would think Finland producing their own nukes is unlikely compared to the previous examples. But if they don't get some nukes on their territory, they might.

In context with the UK defense minister's warning/resignment, it's going to be interesting in the coming years; to what degree will the European rearmament include nuclear weapons?

If they want a credible nuclear deterrent they need also nuclear armed TBM or cruise missiles and a secondary strike capability, a nuclear sub. Basically mirroring the Israeli nuclear capability (allegedly), 100-150 weapons.

If the Euros want their own deterrent, pooling resources, agreeing to sharing technology and buying common delivery systems could make this feasible. Also keeping the requirements tight and focused, i.e. not trying to deter anyone other than regional aggressors, weapons yields and delivery ranges focused on that. All nations agreeing to a minimum capability purchase and maintenance, also declaring these capabilities are in addition not in lieu of conventional capabilities.

They could probably make this work within their political and philosophical boundaries: declare no first use, no threat of first use and no deliberate targeting of civilian population centers unless their civilian populations were struck first by a WMD.

Edited Monday at 07:15 PM2 days by Clark Griswold

On 6/22/2026 at 2:14 PM, Clark Griswold said:

If the Euros want their own deterrent, pooling resources, agreeing to sharing technology and buying common delivery systems could make this feasible.

This kind of touches on where my thoughts are at the moment. I'm curious if the European coalition can stick together. There will be differing national interests and alignments (eastern nations vs western nations, coastal nations vs more land locked, etc) as well as demographic problems.

I'm curious if one nation starts down the domestic nuclear program path, does that result in others following suite? Is Russia enough of a boogey man to keep them all focusing in one direction?

17 minutes ago, busdriver said:

This kind of touches on where my thoughts are at the moment. I'm curious if the European coalition can stick together. There will be differing national interests and alignments (eastern nations vs western nations, coastal nations vs more land locked, etc) as well as demographic problems.

I'm curious if one nation starts down the domestic nuclear program path, does that result in others following suite? Is Russia enough of a boogey man to keep them all focusing in one direction?

I’d be interested in Russian reactions to this. Nuclear weapons right on the border was a topic that almost caused war between the USSR and the US. Granted, Russia’s ability to project power has been severely diminished after Ukraine but short of them collapsing that won’t always be the case.