Description
How and why has NATO relied on the option of a tactical nuclear strike as a means of achieving security? The debate over U.S. short- and intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe has been ongoing since their initial deployment in 1954. It has become more salient in recent years, however, due to Russia’s nuclear saber rattling in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus. These developments have sparked increased discussions about whether NATO’s existing tactical nuclear posture remains relevant and effective. Proponents of maintaining and modernizing NATO’s reliance on tactical nuclear weapons argue that they are critical for credible deterrence and defense. In contrast, critics contend that these weapons are increasingly redundant and vulnerable, and have called for their removal. At the heart of these conflicting perspectives lies a fundamental difference in views about the value of maintaining a tactical nuclear strike option today. To explore these different views, this paper first identifies four key functions that NATO has historically assigned to its tactical nuclear weapons: substitution, linkage, conflict termination, and counterproliferation. It then examines how NATO has emphasized each of these functions at different times, with a specific focus on the interplay between political cohesion and military coherence within the alliance. The paper concludes that the variation in contemporary policy prescriptions can, at least to a large degree, be attributed to which of the four functions NATO members prioritize today. This fourfold typology helps explain the ongoing debate about whether these weapons should be modernized, maintained or removed from NATO’s arsenal.