21-03-2025
Ballistic missile interceptors and pamphlets dropping in France: How Europe is preparing for nuclear war
The pace of re-armament in Europe is accelerating and going in many unexpected directions. The most recent was a report in the French newspaper, Le Figaro, that the French SGDSN (General Secretariat for Defence and National Security) has been preparing a new pamphlet providing advice on how the population might prepare itself for a conflict, including nuclear war.
For those who can remember the 1980s, this has echoes of the (at the time derided) pamphlet issued in the UK, 'Protect And Survive'. France has not yet published and released its version – but it shows where the focus is for many European governments right now.
In November, Sweden updated its advice to the population about how to prepare for a war. Called, 'In case of crisis or war', the 32-page pamphlet covers what stocks you should keep at home, public alarms and warnings in the event of a crisis, and what to do about your pet! It even has a link to the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (which published the booklet) to an interactive map for the locations of all the civil defence shelters across Sweden – most blocks of flats have one. An earlier version also had tips on guerilla warfare should an enemy invade.
All of the Nordic nations, as well as the Baltic States have now issued similar guidance, and homeland defence is not some abstract concept – it is very real. Those states that border Russia, or are in close proximity to it view the actual threat with the seriousness that it deserves.
As one example, last year, Sweden upped its home defence budget from SEK8.5bn (£650m) to SEK15bn (£1.15bn) over four years – and this might yet be accelerated. Quite a lot of the spending is set to be on stocks of things such as food, shelters, and medical supplies. If the same percentage of spending in Sweden on home defence was to be spent in the UK, the budget would be over £5bn annually.
There is another element to preparations in the event of a conflict: air defences. Many European countries have been investing billions into advanced surface-to-air missiles, especially the US-supplied Patriot system. A key capability of the system is that it has shown that it can intercept quite a wide range of ballistic missiles, as well as advanced cruise missiles.
When Ronald Reagan talked in the 1980s about creating a 'Star Wars' defence shield against Soviet missiles, he was laughed at, as the science/engineering at the time could not produce the radars, the missiles, or the command systems to undertake such complex operations. But the video of an Israeli Arrow 3 missile intercepting an Iranian ballistic missile in space or reports of HMS Diamond shooting down Houthi ballistic missiles in the Red Sea shows that a lot of aspects of Reagan's vision are now eminently achievable – albeit at a huge price.
What could that be for the UK, where we have absolutely no credible surface-to-air missile defences (apart from a few destroyers, two of which are about to decamp 8,000 miles on a deployment to Asia)? Looking at air defence programmes in Germany, as well as the cash-rich Gulf States, coming up with a 'pretty good' air defence missile system in the UK that could take on many ballistic and cruise missiles would cost £15bn as a start.
A more comprehensive air defence missile system? North of £25bn. Put simply, the cost of a weapon that has a good chance of intercepting a ballistic missile is not cheap – but the cost of the damage that the missile can do is even higher. 'Third Party, Fire and Theft' missile defence is acceptable, right up until casualties are suffered.
But as the spectre of nuclear stand-offs looms, there is a further issue to consider: an independent European nuclear multi-layer deterrent. The MoD website says about the nuclear deterrent:
'The UK's independent nuclear deterrent has existed for over 60 years to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life, helping to guarantee our safety, and that of our Nato allies.'
There has always been an element of the UK deterrent being at the disposal of Nato. France has not done this for decades, although Emmanuel Macron has been much more open to Paris adopting a similar position to the UK, while still keeping the French deterrent independent. Taking the French and the UK strategic deterrents together, this would provide a more-or-less credible top-level nuclear deterrent for Euro-Nato.
Where there are serious doubts is in the tactical nuclear deterrent area. The UK gave up tactical nuclear weapons (smaller yield warheads, ones that can be fired from systems as small as an artillery piece). France is now the only European country currently to have its own tactical nuclear weapons. France's non-strategic deterrent, the current ASMP-A near-hypersonic missile, is launched from Rafale fighter bombers, and is being replaced over the next five years by a longer-ranged, faster missile.
Again, Macron has posed the question as to whether this part of France's deterrent – a nuclear umbrella – could be placed at Europe's service. At a recent speech at the airbase that contains the air-launched nuclear deterrent, he suggested that elements could be based closer to Germany – heading east.
For the rest of European Nato, various countries have offered their air forces to carry and deliver US-supplied (and controlled) tactical nuclear bombs. Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands all have (US-dictated) aircraft dedicated to this mission. However, the political ructions of the past weeks have caused many to have doubts as to whether the USA would release these weapons if there was a crisis (Russia being the opponent) in Europe.
The issue about the reliability of the USA over nuclear weapons has had echoes in the UK. In talks with MoD sources last year, raising the issue about whether Washington would release Trident nuclear missiles (the warheads are UK sovereign) to Britain was met with derision. However, whether a Royal Navy Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine would be guaranteed access to the Trident missile stocks is now no longer a given.
When people talk about the US having a 'kill switch' on the UK nuclear deterrent, there is no big red switch somewhere in the Pentagon to power down the UK's Trident missiles. However, access to the stocks could be denied, and if the UK cannot regularly rotate missiles, they would become ineffective over time. This is, in effect, the 'kill switch' people are now concerned about.
The solution? Well, over tactical nuclear weapons, Poland has talked for some years now about acquiring these weapons. Put simply, the history of Poland is one of being dominated or sold out by larger powers. Warsaw is reading the lessons of Ukraine bargaining away its stock of nuclear weapons/missiles – and trust in France, Germany, and the UK was already low before the 2022 invasion. Now, trust in the USA has also taken a hit, so even offering to host US tactical nuclear weapons isn't good enough.
In short order, only the UK and France could get a tactical nuclear weapons programme together – and the good news is that the two countries already share a series of test and validation tools for warheads. On top of this, the UK has announced that it is resuming the production of highly enriched uranium, the key component for new tactical nuclear weapons. It would be far from inconceivable for a new generation of tactical warheads to be built, and there are a variety of options for missiles to carry those.
The 'Step Too Far' for the UK is whether the reliance on the USA for the Trident strategic missiles has ended. If reliability of the USA is now at such a low ebb, might the UK swap horses? An industrial source inside the UK's nuclear enterprise told me: 'There's, actually, never a better time than now if we are to swap Trident for the French M51 [submarine-launched ballistic missile] – we are early enough in the Dreadnought programme to achieve it.'
Almost all of this would have been completely unthinkable even six months ago – that's how fast things are moving. Anyone suggesting that the UK government would need to issue a pamphlet about building your own shelter in your house would have been completely ridiculed. But look East – this is exactly what a dozen countries are doing and have been doing for over a year.
The previous Conservative government did start to look at issuing advice – suggestions? – about what every household should stock up on to ensure 'resilience' against natural disasters, but also conflict: wind-up radios, head torches, water – and at the time, the wider reaction was pretty much the same as for the 1980s 'Protect And Survive' pamphlet.
It is now to Starmer's government to re-visit this and take home(land) defence seriously – and also nuclear defence too.
