Locations Affected: United States and Global Allies
Since President Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025, US foreign policy has increasingly adopted a transactional and unilateral approach. Central to this shift is the renewed pressure on NATO allies—especially in Europe—to increase defence spending and share a greater burden of collective security. The administration has also introduced tariffs on several countries and made provocative statements questioning the strategic value and sovereignty of longstanding allies such as Canada, Greenland, and Panama. These developments have created an image of the U.S. as a less predictable and less reliable security partner, calling into question its role as the primary guarantor of global security.
Perceived Unreliability of the US During Increased Tensions
US security assurances have historically underpinned the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Nations such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea opted to forgo nuclear weapons in return for protection under the US nuclear umbrella. This commitment has been a cornerstone of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by 190 countries.
However, the perceived erosion of these assurances is prompting allies to reconsider their long-term defence strategies in the face of escalating regional threats:
- · Europe is grappling with Russia’s nuclear signalling and continued aggression in Ukraine.
- Asia faces heightened tensions due to Chinese military assertiveness and North Korean provocations.
Amid this geopolitical volatility, confidence in Washington’s extended deterrence is weakening. Public discourse and policy debates around nuclear options are resurfacing in countries like South Korea and Germany. Simultaneously, discussions of a European-led deterrence structure, potentially led by France or the UK, are gaining momentum.
Impact of Potential Nuclear Proliferation
- Nuclear Hedging: Countries such as Germany, Poland, South Korea, and Japan may pursue hedging strategies—investing in nuclear infrastructure or initiating policy reviews that allow for future proliferation if necessary.
- Nuclear Hedging: Countries such as Germany, Poland, South Korea, and Japan may pursue hedging strategies—investing in nuclear infrastructure or initiating policy reviews that allow for future proliferation if necessary.
- Strategic Instability: A collapse in extended deterrence could lead to regional arms races, reduce crisis stability, and increase the likelihood of miscalculation or escalation.
- In East Asia, this could embolden North Korea or provoke countermeasures from China.
- In Europe, it could strain NATO cohesion and diminish collective security.
- Threat to the NPT: Growing distrust in US credibility may erode the foundational assumptions of the NPT. If non-nuclear states no longer see value in remaining compliant, a broader unravelling of global non-proliferation norms could occur.
- Alliance Shifts: States may pursue alternative or diversified security partnerships—either by aligning more closely with regional powers or by developing indigenous nuclear capabilities, potentially disrupting the current global security architecture.
Outlook on the Situation
While immediate nuclear proliferation remains unlikely due to political, legal, and technical constraints, the trend toward nuclear hedging, strategic recalibration, and increased policy autonomy is clear. If the perception of US disengagement persists, more countries may explore nuclear options as part of their long-term defence posture, gradually reshaping the global security and arms control landscape.
