Europe needs 1,000 more nuclear warheads to deter Putin

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/01/europe-needs-1000-more-nuclear-warheads-deter-putin-europe/

Posted by TheTelegraph

20 comments

  1. ***The Telegraph exclusively reports:***

    Europe needs to acquire nearly a thousand more nuclear warheads if it hopes to deter Vladimir Putin, a German political scientist has warned.

    Maximilian Terhalle, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said [Putin had at least 1,550 long-range nuclear missiles,](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/17/nuclear-armageddon-getting-closer-russia-putin-trump/) while Europe had only several hundred.

    Concerns that President Donald Trump could scale back security guarantees in Europe has led to discussions in EU capitals about a nuclear deterrent that is [independent of the United States](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/22/us-weapons-are-not-good-enough-to-take-on-russias-nuclear/).

    “Trump has turned an enemy, Russia, into a friend, and that’s something of grievous concern. In the case that America draws away from Europe entirely – not yet – we have to ask how we will compensate for that because [Russia’s imperial ambition](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/19/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-russia-ukraine-joe-biden-nuclea/) has not diminished at all,” Dr Terhalle told The Telegraph.

    “We need to be on par with [Russia’s 1,550 strategic warheads](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/29/vladimir-putin-is-preparing-for-nuclear-war/), otherwise we will not strategically influence what is going on in Putin’s mind, which is critical for deterrence. Add to that, Russia has an unhelpful 10:1 lead as far as [short-range tactical nuclear weapons](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/14/putin-nuclear-arsenal-is-crumbling-ukraine-can-attack/) are concerned,” he added.

    Dr Terhalle said France and Britain’s nuclear arsenal combined consisted of around 450 long-range “strategic” nuclear warheads, meaning weapons that would determine the outcome of a war, and 200 smaller “tactical” warheads.

    “I’m a staunch transatlanticist, as such I don’t want to see Nato breaking up by any means, but we also need to look out for ourselves,” he added.

    **Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/01/europe-needs-1000-more-nuclear-warheads-deter-putin-europe/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/01/europe-needs-1000-more-nuclear-warheads-deter-putin-europe/)

  3. There is no winning in a nuclear war the Russians knew that in 61 and they know it now.

  4. It’s not about having a comparable number, just having deterrent, as France has suggested to be one for EU.

    Even having a couple is enough to be a catastrophe and speak back against.

  5. Advocating for a nuclear arms race when the strategic stockpile is already plenty to blow Russia back to the stone age is such a folly. Better to invest that money into actually useful defence investments which are aimed at modern conventional warfare.

  6. Yes, after 50 of the most populated Russian areas are nuked, Russia will still fight on./s

    How does this logic even work?

  7. Major EU countries without nukes (Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland) should get some. Only way to deter Putin

  8. Both France and the UK have enough, alone, to wipe out any sizable town in Russia.

    Granted, with 1000 more, we could wipe out the villages too.

    Enough already.

  10. I found an X thread looking at the issue in historical archives in the UK which may illustrate the logic. Bottom line is that Russia relied on air defense to block many incoming warheads targeting large population centers. The UK estimated that out of 384 warheads they possessed only 40-45 would get through. The US operated on the principle of having more warheads than Russians had interceptors.

    I’m guessing a similar logic is found here. Add in physical failures to launch. Add in human failures to launch. Having more missiles ensures at least some get launched, some get through.

    I’ll link to X if permitted.

  11. This is such a hilariously bad article. France + the UK have enough nukes to delete Russia’s 400 largest cities with enough nukes left over to utterly destroy every single military asset the Federation has. What are another thousand going to hit, a Siberian village?

  12. Between France and the uk we have 500 nukes right? That’s enough to end global civilisation? I kinda get the point but surely putin knows a nuclear conflict will end in Russian and global destruction

  14. This is a bad argument. Makes absolutely no sense. There should be more pressure to get the world back to a nuclear disarmament treaty

  15. Do it Russian style too, then. Add 2000 dud missiles to the arsenal, scatter the real warheads among their launch sites, and pretend they’re all fully capable. Even if someone calls the bluff on WWIII, we’ll at least know which ones will work.

  16. Larger standing and rapidly deployable forces (air land and sea) would be a more credible deterrent, showing a readiness and willingness to respond as an alliance.

    Between 10 nukes and 100 nukes and 1000 nukes there isn’t much of a difference in the MAD calculus if both sides have enough to wipe out each other’s cities.

  17. Why would this be a deterrent? We’reassivwly nuclear and tasked with defending Ukraine and it didn’t stop Russia from annexing and invading

  18. Europe has enough Nukes

    Only takes a couple to Destroy Moscow and St Petersburg , without those 2 cities there no Russia

  20. The call for 1,000 more nuclear warheads in Europe deserves careful consideration. While France and the UK already maintain significant nuclear deterrents, the strategic calculus is complex. These existing arsenals may indeed provide theoretical deterrence capability, but questions remain about credibility and regional security architecture.

    Eastern European NATO members like Poland and Finland face more immediate security concerns due to their proximity to Russia. Their perspective on deterrence requirements naturally differs from Western European nations. Rather than simply expanding warhead counts, perhaps we should focus on modernizing existing systems, improving conventional defense capabilities, and strengthening alliance commitments across Europe’s eastern flank.

    Effective deterrence isn’t just about numbers—it’s about strategic positioning, credible response options, and unified resolve.

Comments are closed.