Global nukes, deterrence strategies from the US to Russia unveiled

When discussing nuclear deterrence, the United States often comes to mind first, given its status as the world's leading military power. The need for global action underpins the US's development of the most advanced nuclear forces and strategies. Similar doctrines are found in European NATO countries and Russia, stemming from a mix of extensive experience in developing and deploying nuclear weapons and the unique history of their use, particularly by the US against Japan in 1945. Despite its smaller financial resources, Europe also boasts significant achievements in this arena.

Since 1953, the United Kingdom has maintained its nuclear arsenal. Government documents reveal that the primary purpose of the UK's nuclear deterrence is to deter opponents from aggressive actions by significantly escalating the costs of an attack on the Isles or NATO allies. This means that the mere existence of its nuclear potential serves as a deterrent. London intentionally remains ambiguous about the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons, enhancing the UK's unpredictability to discourage adversaries further. However, the use of nuclear weapons is reserved for extreme situations, such as self-defense or supporting NATO allies. The Prime Minister makes decisions to deploy nuclear weapons.

The UK lacks a full nuclear triad, relying solely on submarines equipped with Vanguard-class ballistic missile carriers. These will soon be upgraded to the more advanced Dreadnought-class submarines. Despite developing and producing its warheads, the UK imports Trident II ballistic missiles from the US, reflecting a dependence on its transatlantic ally due to shared operational responsibilities with the US Navy.

Like the UK, France reserves nuclear weapon use for "extreme circumstances" without clearly defining these "vital interests." This duality, highlighting both the defensive nature of nuclear forces and the fluidity of the "red line" based on political conditions, underscores the complexity of France's doctrine. Notably, France reserves the right to a preemptive nuclear strike as a final warning. The President of France is responsible for delineating the nation's vital interests at the start of their tenure, with current doctrines considering European allies under France’s "nuclear umbrella." Despite this, France's stance on nuclear deterrence extends beyond NATO, displaying readiness to escalate if necessary, contrasting with its absence from NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.

With 290 warheads, soon to be over 300, France boasts air and sea nuclear delivery systems but lacks a complete triad. The Rafale M aircraft, capable of launching ASMP-A missiles from sea and land bases, alongside Le Triomphant-class submarines equipped with M51 ballistic missiles, comprise France’s strategic force. Unlike the UK, France's nuclear capability is fully independent.

The European nuclear potential developed mainly in response to the Soviet Union's capabilities. Despite economic challenges, Russia maintains one of the largest nuclear arsenals, complete with a full triad. Moscow's nuclear rhetoric, especially during the Ukraine conflict, serves as a stark reminder of nuclear weapons' role in geopolitical strategy. Russia's doctrine allows for nuclear weapon use under specific conditions, aiming to deter or respond to aggressive actions against it. However, the taboo surrounding nuclear weapon use, reinforced by historical precedent and international norms, has so far prevented their deployment in the ongoing conflict, highlighting the complex calculus of nuclear deterrence.

This analysis underscores the intricate landscape of global nuclear strategy, where power, deterrence, and diplomacy intersect and shape the actions of nuclear-armed states.