Without nuclear deterrence, we could end up like Ukraine. That’s the message coming from some European leaders right now. And not just American nuclear weapons as part of nato, but European-controlled nuclear weapons. Manfred Weber, chairman of the epp Group in European Parliament, wrote an article in Germany’s Welt on March 7 titled “Europe Needs Its Own Nuclear Umbrella” (Trumpet translation throughout).

The West is watching Russia demolish cities in Ukraine, and it is hesitant to intervene, in part, because Russia has nuclear weapons. Ukraine had nuclear weapons when it was part of the Soviet Union, but gave them up, in large part due to assurances of help from the West in the event of an attack. Ukrainians have been fighting tenaciously, but if they still had a nuclear arsenal, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculus for invasion would have been different.

Now the West is using this crisis to push through some of its agenda that was previously stalled.

The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security’s Transatlantic Security Initiative summoned a task force of Atlantic Council experts to draw conclusions for the U.S. and nato. They too concluded that the “Alliance will need to assure its nuclear deterrent capabilities.” They advocate for nato nuclear capabilities to be modernized and adapted.

But for many in Europe this isn’t enough. They believe they need their own military union and their own nuclear deterrent. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard commented: “Some seem more interested in using this ‘beneficial crisis’ as a federalizing catalyst, a chance to force the pace toward EU fiscal and defense union, whether or not these architectural ambitions have any relevance to the slaughter before the world’s eyes.”

In his article, Weber advocated for a defense union with “functioning EU command structures for joint missions and a military headquarters” and even an EU unit for “foreign and rescue missions.” He noted: “Only a defensible Europe is truly sovereign.”

Contributing to nato is costly and, by design, creates dependence on the United States. Many Europeans are ready to change that. Weber stated, “We must create our own European missile defense shield, conceived together with nato and integrated into its structures. On the one hand, this would relieve the U.S. and make Europeans more responsible for their own defense.” He claimed that this would strengthen nato, as “the European pillar would assume greater responsibility.”

However, it would also form a military alliance that could break away and even oppose nato and the United States.

“The crucial question, of course, remains nuclear defense,” Weber wrote. “With its nuclear weapons, the U.S.A. guarantees a protective umbrella for its European partners via nato. Without a nuclear umbrella, there is no freedom. This is the most elementary protection, which today gives us the certainty that Putin is not seeking direct confrontation with nato. This security must not be called into question by us Europeans in a phase like the present one.”

Before the Ukraine crisis exploded, many were demanding that Germany stop hosting U.S. nuclear bombs. The recent crisis puts an end to this discussion and may revive another.

Even more controversial than U.S. nuclear weapons are Europe’s own. Weber explained: “Britain and France likewise have nuclear forces, but they are not integrated into nato. French presidents have indicated several times that French nuclear weapons, the Force de Frappe, can also serve to protect other European states. Moreover, in 2020, President [Emmanuel] Macron offered to hold a strategic dialogue on the role of France’s nuclear deterrent for common security. Germany and the EU must finally accept this offer.”

Weber continued: “Should France ever be prepared to formally take the EU states under the safe protection of its nuclear umbrella, Germany should at least propose to support France in maintaining its nuclear forces.”

Talks between France and Germany on this issue have been on hold for a long time, but now they are reviving. Weber noted: “The basis of real European sovereignty is the ability for Europe to defend itself. At some point this includes nuclear weapons.” Germany and France could soon decide a doctrine for usage of nuclear weapons separate from the U.S.

For years, Germany has trained for using nuclear weapons the U.S. has stationed in its territory. In theory, it would need U.S. permission before using them.

German political scientist Christian Hacke caused a widespread debate in 2018 with his article “Why Germany Should Get the Bomb.” He wrote: “The emerging nuclear threats of the 21st century should not be trivialized as relics of the Cold War but must be resolved with Germany’s active and constructive participation.”

He was right about the nuclear threat being real. Is he also right about Germany getting its own bombs? Germany has some of the world’s most advanced centrifuges and could produce a nuclear weapon almost overnight.

Germany has wanted nukes since it lost World War ii. Training to use U.S. bombs was a compromise. Spiegel Online recounted in 2011: “For [West German Chancellor Konrad] Adenauer and [Defense Minster Franz Josef] Strauss, [French President Charles] de Gaulle’s decision meant the final end of their lofty nuclear dreams. Their only remaining option was the ‘nuclear participation’ that the Americans granted them. Strauss, who was known for his nuclear ambitions, revealed his thoughts on this bluntly in his memoirs: ‘One allows the little clown to walk alongside the military music with his children’s trumpet and let him believe he is the drum major.’”

Strauss was so upset that he made plans to use America’s nukes without U.S. knowledge. Spiegel Online reported that after Henry Kissinger met with Strauss in 1961, he warned the Kennedy administration of Strauss’s ambition. He wrote that America should secure its nuclear weapons in the Federal Republic of Germany in a way that would be “physically impossible” for Germany to use them without American consent. He warned that in a crisis situation, it could be assumed that Strauss would “simply take” these weapons.

The U.S. was once concerned about Germany getting access to nuclear weapons, but the U.S. government today seems far less concerned. Russia is certainly a real threat to European security, but Germany’s nuclear ambitions are even more dangerous.

As Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote in his 2014 article “Europe’s Nuclear Secret,” America’s overseas nuclear arsenal is not secure. And Bible prophecy shows that nuclear weapons are about to be used.

The Prophet Isaiah saw a vision of the time we are living in today and asked God how long He would allow it to go on: “Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate” (Isaiah 6:11). Isaiah prophesied of this coming nuclear holocaust that we are about to see. Mr. Flurry warned in light of the U.S.-stationed nuclear weapons:

The sobering reality is that any one of the countries that have those bombs could take control of these weapons by force and use them against the U.S. Two hundred nuclear bombs are sitting in European countries—enough to destroy the world—and the proliferation is spreading!

Matthew 24:21-22 encapsulate this terrifying reality. It says that, because of all the nuclear bombs and other weapons that are about to explode, no flesh will be saved alive—unless Jesus Christ returns!

In his booklet Isaiah’s End-Time Vision, Mr. Flurry writes, “Why does God lay cities waste without an inhabitant? Because that is what it takes to get Israel’s attention! That includes spiritual Israel, or the Church of God, and the nations of Israel.”

Israel in this end time primarily refers to the U.S. and Britain. To learn why, request your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy, by Herbert W. Armstrong.