NextFin News - The global nuclear non-proliferation framework, a cornerstone of international security for over half a century, is facing its most severe existential threat as middle powers from Europe to East Asia openly debate the necessity of indigenous atomic arsenals. The shift follows a series of disruptive foreign policy moves by U.S. President Trump, including the recent military escalation against Iran’s nuclear facilities and a controversial proposal to share sensitive enrichment technology with Saudi Arabia.
The strategic calculus for non-nuclear states has been fundamentally altered by the perceived erosion of the U.S. security umbrella. According to documents seen by Bloomberg, the Trump administration recently circulated a report to Congress advocating for a deal that would grant Saudi Arabia access to uranium-enrichment and plutonium-reprocessing technologies. This move has drawn sharp criticism from non-proliferation experts like Robert Kelley, a former director at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who described the policy as hypocritical given the administration's simultaneous military campaign to dismantle similar capabilities in Iran. Kelley, who led inspections in Iraq and Libya, noted that the proposal "bucks all precedent" and undermines the very norms the U.S. claims to defend.
The anxiety is not confined to the Middle East. In Europe, the long-standing reliance on American "extended deterrence" is being questioned with unprecedented intensity. Following U.S. President Trump’s unconventional diplomatic musings—including past suggestions of purchasing Greenland—officials in Germany and Poland have begun welcoming French overtures to extend Paris’s independent strategic deterrent across the continent. A European diplomat confirmed that the necessity for the continent to develop its own sovereign nuclear capabilities is now an "active discussion" in several capitals, a topic that was once considered a political taboo.
In East Asia, the "proliferation cascade" feared by analysts is nearing a tipping point. Public support for an indigenous nuclear program in South Korea has reached an all-time high of over 75%, according to data from the Asan Institute. While South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has publicly maintained that pursuing such weapons would trigger international condemnation, the country’s push for nuclear-powered submarines has already drawn formal protests from Moscow and Beijing. Japan, the only nation to have suffered a nuclear attack, is also seeing a shift in its internal discourse. In December, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested that Tokyo should consider the nuclear option in light of rising tensions over Taiwan, a statement that prompted the IAEA’s Chinese envoy to warn of the risks posed by Japan’s 8-ton stockpile of separated plutonium.
The technical barriers to entry are lower than the political ones. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi pointed out that while only nine nations currently possess nuclear weapons, more than 20 others have the industrial base and engineering expertise to "climb the ladder" to the bomb. It requires as little as 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium to destroy a city, a threshold that many advanced economies could cross within months if they chose to divert civilian energy resources to military ends. Grossi warned that more nuclear weapons in more countries will not increase security but will instead accelerate the collapse of the 56-year-old Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
However, some strategic analysts argue that the current alarmism may be overstated. William Alberque, a senior fellow at the Pacific Forum and former NATO negotiator, suggests that while the rhetoric has intensified, the economic and diplomatic costs of exiting the NPT remain a powerful deterrent. A move toward nuclearization would likely trigger immediate U.S. sanctions and a total rupture in trade relations with China, a price most export-dependent economies like Japan or Germany are currently unwilling to pay. From this perspective, the talk of "going nuclear" serves more as a bargaining chip to pressure U.S. President Trump into reaffirming traditional security commitments rather than a settled policy objective.
The expiration of the New START treaty and the U.S. administration's assessment of a return to atomic bomb testing—ending a three-decade hiatus—further signal the dismantling of the Cold War-era arms control architecture. As conventional missiles continue to fall on cities in Ukraine and the Middle East, the lesson for many smaller states is becoming grimly clear: security guarantees are fleeting, but a nuclear shield is permanent. The upcoming NPT review meetings next month are expected to be the most contentious in the treaty's history, as the divide between the established nuclear powers and those seeking their own "shield and sword" continues to widen.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
