Not just small European countries, but all European countries that do not have their own nukes, which is all except France. The issue is, they’ll have to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty for that, and once an otherwise respected country does that, the floodgates would be open in the world. The other problem is that such a decision would be very divisive in the European country’s electorate, and therefore highly problematic on the respective domestic political front. This is simply not likely to happen.

The more likely outcome is that French nukes will be stationed in other European countries. But France is also not willing to give up exclusive control over those nukes, and the next French government could very well be far-right, and thus become as unreliable as the current US government. It’s a difficult situation.

Both France and the UK have floated the idea of extending their nuclear umbrella to include other European nations. Both countries operate ICBM carrying submarines so don't have to deploy nukes on anyone's territory.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on the fact they could share the cost between nations alone for something they've already paid for.

The UK’s nukes are sourced from the US. If they want to be independent, they’ll have to develop their own.

For other countries, the problem remains that if the UK or France government turns far-right, the other countries may quickly be on their own again, just like what they now fear with the US.

An EU-level control over the nukes seems unlikely, as France (and even more the UK) want to retain their sovereignty over that.

The UK's warheads are UK made by the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).

The UK lacks an independant warhead delivery system since the cancellation of the Blue Streak in 1960, and currently uses US missiles for the UK submarines.

The UK was the first country to start a nuclear weapons programme and talked the US into starting the Manhatten project.

Once subsumed by the US project, the UK started again post WWII and developed warheads and bombs tested in Australia. They managed to dust a future UK prime minister with fallout as a child in Adelaide.

> small European countries do now have to consider nukes

It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too. 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.

I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example.

In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.

> while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test'

Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't think this is physically possible.

Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)

There are seismometers on the moon, though.

The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT conceal them, but boast as loud as possible.

For Europe, yes. But on a tangent, for example for Iran it would be desirable to conceal tests until the point you have proven that you can make and deliver nukes.

Not really. For example, everyone considers the UK to be a nuclear power.

Exactly what weapons they have seems to be tied to the deals of the US-UK defense agreements. The UK's development of fission weapons is well documented. The development of thermonuclear is unclear and its not exactly obvious when and how they tested proper thermonuclear weapons.

Pakistan probably had nuclear weapons decades before their official tests. The US even made them one heck of an offer to maintain this policy of uncertainty. Ultimately they would debut very small thermonuclear weapons. They probably can manufacture large scale nuclear weapons into the megaton range. Pakistan probably also has plenty of delivery options. But ultimately their arsenal is mainly just there to deter China or India's territorial expansion. Pakistan can't really threaten other nuclear powers and it seems unlikely that a country like France is just going to launch an invasion of Pakistan. So there isn't really too much reason to bother with more tests. Ambiguity is their ally.

> In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it.

Only because the US decided to officially look the other way. See "The Vela incident" which was never publicly attributed, but was almost certainly a joint Israel-South Africa test.

I think you're correct but it also hasn't ever been publicly attributed to Israel. It's certainly a nuclear weapon test, but there isn't anything to directly tie it to Israel. "could have been anyone" is a pretty good shield

Not just European countries. Non proliferation is dead.