According to the German weekly Der Spiegel, the issue of a European alternative to the (presumed) U.S. nuclear umbrella has been, for monthes, the object of informal, off-the-record dicussions within NATO.

Should the SNP’s (Scottish National Party) anti-nuclear stance be a problem for an independent Scotland eager to keep its membership card in NATO ?* In short, not really. Calling for the removal of UK nuclear weapons from its territory and becoming a non-nuclear state is not a priori inconsistent with membership in NATO. Reminder: 20 member countries out of the current 28 do not possess and/or host any nuclear weapons on their soil.

All too often, it is tempting to equate American nuclear presence in Europe to its sole tangible dimension. Namely the stationing of hundreds of U.S. bombs in five countries of the European continent, as part of NATO and of its so-called "nuclear sharing". And it is a mistake to do so.

First of all, it is worth underlining that neither the French elections of 2007, nor those in the United States in 2008 are bound to alter in a notable way - i.e. in addition to the gestures and effect-based announcements scheduled for these occasions - the traditional orientations of the two countries’ foreign and security policies. Likewise, the calvaries of the new European treaty, the actual rhythm of the EU’s blind rush to enlargement, and the endless transatlantic initiatives based on stylistic changes in Washington are equally secondary from the point of view of the real evolutions in European integration and in our relationship with the United States.