SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
diplomacy
The Only True Nuclear Protective Shield Is Global Disarmament
Politicians and the media use deliberately confusing terms that downplay the dangers of a military and nuclear arms race to the general population.
Feb 26, 2026
The use of key security policy terms in public discourse is intended to suggest facts that serve to calm people down. However, there are many reasons for concern that could also trigger peace forces.
The Illusion of a Nuclear Protective Shield
Political scientist and historian Herfried Münkler called for a European atomic bomb as early as 2023. There is currently an increasingly heated debate about whether Germany should seek refuge under France's nuclear protective shield in view of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. The leader of the Social Democrats in the European Parliament, Katarina Barley, also raised the issue of acquiring nuclear bombs as part of European armament in 2024. The German and French heads of government, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, are also paving the way for talks on European nuclear armament and the extension of France's nuclear umbrella, according to Merz in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early 2026.
There is repeated talk of a nuclear umbrella. The problem is already clear in this choice of words. Such a protective shield, which one would only have to deploy to be protected, does not exist. This term suggests that Germany or even Europe would be protected from attacking missiles with nuclear warheads if the nuclear protective shield were installed. However, there is no protection against dozens of hypersonic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads attacking simultaneously. The few minutes of reaction time are not enough for a successful counterattack.
Anyone who promises a nuclear protective shield in this sense is trying to deceive people about the real danger of a nuclear conflict in order to achieve their actual military-strategic goals.
So-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Those who are more knowledgeable know that the term “nuclear protective shield” refers more to the nuclear deterrence of a potential attacker. This deterrence would result from the nuclear second-strike capability if a nuclear first strike is underway or has already taken place. The question here, of course, is whether a nuclear second strike is still possible if the first strike with nuclear weapons could not be repelled. Here, too, the talk of a nuclear protective shield is problematic.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold Through ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapons
The distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons also poses a semantic problem. Here, technological language suggests that there is a clear distinction between the two. Tactical nuclear weapons are weapons that are intended for limited use due to their lower explosive power, shorter range, and deployment. However, the boundaries are fluid, and Russia also considers tactical weapons to be strategic. If this distinction is nevertheless used, the use of more limited (tactical) nuclear weapons could then be viewed fundamentally differently from the use of larger and longer-range nuclear weapons in terms of explosive power.
The conceptual problem is further exacerbated by so-called “mini-nukes.” Thus, the gradation and differentiation of nuclear weapons pretends that a nuclear war could be confined to a regional or local level. This merely lowers the nuclear threshold and thus downplays the risk of nuclear escalation. Incidentally, so-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is therefore also a linguistic distortion and trivialization of a terrible weapon.
Putin's Special Military Operation as a Crude Semantic Deception
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a clear act of war, albeit without a declaration of war. Russia's war against Ukraine, which has now been going on for over four years, has been disguised as a “special military operation.” To this day, the Kremlin refuses to acknowledge the conceptual truth of its war. In doing so, it attempts to downplay the illegality and barbarity of its aggression to its own population and to the world. "Special military operation" sounds more like a clean, technical intervention. Language could not be used in a more manipulative way, considering that hundreds of thousands of people have already fallen victim to this war, millions have fled, and Ukraine's vital infrastructure and ecology have been destroyed.
When people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them.
Equally problematic is the term "Russian world" (Russkij Mir), which Russian President Vladimir Putin uses repeatedly. A Russian world as such does not even exist in Russia, as it is a multiethnic state created by coercion and military force, with very different cultural characteristics among its peoples. Thus, talk of the "Russkij Mir" serves to justify military aggression against other states with the argument that the Russian world and the Russian-speaking people there are under threat.
This ethnically charged term is also the central ideological construct used to restrict the state independence of countries such as Belarus and Ukraine.
Deception Through the Term ‘Nuclear Sharing’
Since Germany is not permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the 2+4 Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NATO has agreed on the principle of "nuclear sharing." However, this term also serves to obscure harsh security policy realities. According to reports, up to 20 US B61-3/4 nuclear bombs are stored in Büchel (Rhineland-Palatinate), combined with German Air Force Tornadoes capable of delivering nuclear warheads to an enemy target.
However, the American nuclear capabilities stored there—and also in other European NATO countries—do not allow for participation by the German federal government. Participation implies the possibility of having a say. But the US government repeatedly makes it clear that the possible use of these nuclear weapons is exclusively subject to the respective US government. This undermines and circumvents the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear sharing among NATO countries, while at the same time obscuring the fact that these weapons are controlled by a foreign power.
Misuse of the Term ‘Modernization’ of Nuclear Weapons
The potential dangers of the "modernization" of nuclear weapons are also being downplayed. The term "modernization" as used in security policy also implies a positive development of nuclear weapons—after all, "modern" represents a positive innovation in language usage—and obscures the increasing danger of these weapon systems.
A particularly problematic aspect of this modernization is the integration of artificial intelligence and the expansion of its functionality within the framework of nuclear strategies. However, AI works on the principle of probability calculation and is extremely prone to error. The information from hundreds of sensors, which an AI uses to make a statement in a very short time, e.g., about attacking nuclear missile swarms, cannot be reliably verified by those responsible in the few minutes of time available. However, this development could make an accidental nuclear war more likely.
War Readiness Versus Defense Capability—the Importance of Conceptual Usage
When German Defense Minister Pistorius says that Germany must become “war ready,” this contradicts the defense mandate of the Basic Law and the prohibition of wars of aggression (GG Art. 26 (1) and 115a). The concept of war includes both defense and attack. Therefore, if the federal government adheres to the Basic Law, it should only talk about and take appropriate measures to become defensible.
War readiness is based on the postulate of military strength through deterrence. Since no state wants to voluntarily face the military superiority of an enemy state or military alliance, that state will devote an increasing share of its national budget to further armament measures in order to surpass its opponent in military strength. This leads to an arms race and—as World War I shows, for example—ultimately to war.
Defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties.
Defense capability means prioritizing military defense capabilities, e.g., with regard to defending against drone attacks, in conjunction with improved “resilience” of critical infrastructure. Even this kind of resilience is currently unachievable for any state. Today's industrialized nations in the digital age are virtually impossible to protect against hybrid attacks, especially hacking of power and heating networks. Anyone who suggests that this is entirely possible creates a false sense of security.
But when people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them. They are deprived of the civil society power to resist their government's risky course. This also characterizes the dilemma of the current peace movement. Although it clearly addresses the dangers of military escalation and nuclear war in its appeals, it does not find the resonance that would actually be expected in the current crisis situation.
Deployment of US Missiles in 2026 as a ‘Security Policy’ of Deterrence
The deployment of three different missile systems, including hypersonic weapons, planned for November 2026, follows the verdict of strength through deterrence. These weapon systems will be stationed in Germany under US command. This was agreed upon between former US President Joe Biden and former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the sidelines of the NATO summit in New York in the summer of 2024, without any debate in the Bundestag. The deployment will take place without any accompanying offer of negotiation to Russia. These are so-called "decapitation weapons," i.e., weapons that are not primarily intended for defense, as stipulated in the Basic Law.
In this case, too, it is problematic to speak of "security policy" in relation to the US missile deployment. It could well be that this deployment could increase uncertainty and the risk of escalation for Germany. These weapon systems, which certainly pose a threat to Russia, could become targets for Russian missile attacks, which in turn would trigger a corresponding spiral of retaliation, possibly even nuclear.
But defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties. In this context, building up military defenses and attempting to secure critical infrastructure is entirely necessary and legitimate. However, the planned US missile deployment undermines this defense policy objective. What will Russia do in this case? It should not be forgotten that Russia has already deployed Zircon and Kinschal hypersonic missiles, for example in Kaliningrad, and has already used the Oreschnik hypersonic weapon, which is virtually impossible to defend against, at least twice in the war in Ukraine. If NATO's Western allies are not prepared to renegotiate the disarmament and control treaties, Russia will certainly attempt to expand and upgrade its own arsenal once the US missiles are deployed at the end of 2026.
Conclusion
Disclosing the dangers implied in security policy language in connection with nuclear weapons does not mean defeatism or resignation in the face of an opponent armed to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons.
However, if people allow themselves to be deceived by appeasing terminology and its use in public discourse on security policy, this leads to a dangerous lulling of these people into a false sense of security. The security policy promises behind this terminology give them a feeling of security that does not correspond to the actual risk when states focus on military armament, in particular the further development of nuclear weapons systems, and military escalation. The disclosure of real dangers is not intended to cause anxiety about security policy and paralysis, but rather to raise awareness of actual dangers as the basis for the priority need for improved defense capabilities, in particular through negotiations and diplomacy.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict.
In summary, it can therefore be said that the security policy goal must be defense capability. This also includes a disarmament proposal that has already been mentioned several times, within a framework controlled by the United Nations, that the two major military powers, the US and Russia, should gradually disarm all weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, to the level of the People's Republic of China. In a next step, under the transparent supervision of international institutions such as the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, these three states would have to disarm to the level of smaller states until, for example, the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is fully implemented.
This would be an effective and sensible security policy worthy of the name. Even though there are currently major geopolitical obstacles standing in the way of such controlled and transparent international disarmament, this peace-bringing disarmament strategy must not be lost sight of. The trillions that would be saved by all participating states as a result of disarmament and the elimination of further armament could also be a compelling argument for such an internationally coordinated and balanced disarmament strategy, at least in the medium term.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict. A security policy that is oriented toward defense capability rather than war capability would also have to use different language. Obscuring terms that are embedded in a context of meaning and semantically designed to conceal rather than reveal military risks are part of a media-mediated military strategy that will not lead to peace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Foreign Minister Says ‘There Is No Military Solution to Our Nuclear Program’ as Trump Ramps Up Threats
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," said Abbas Araghchi. "A military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences."
Feb 20, 2026
As President Donald Trump continued to threaten a potentially massive war, Iran's foreign minister stressed his commitment to peaceful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Amid the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, Trump said on Thursday that he was weighing an initial, limited strike in order to force Iran to negotiate a new deal to limit its nuclear enrichment and would launch a broader attack—potentially aimed at toppling the entire government—if the country refused to do so.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to these demands in a lengthy interview on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" on Friday, discussing recent talks with the US in Geneva.
"One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program," Araghchi said. "That was tested last year, and there was a huge attack on our facilities. They killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program."
After his strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. But less than a year later, he is once again threatening a much bigger attack on Iran using the same justification.
Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian insisted earlier this week that his country is “absolutely not seeking nuclear weapons” and invited international inspectors in to verify it. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, has reiterated that Iran has the right to a nuclear industry.
"If they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain peaceful forever," Araghchi said on Friday, "the only solution is diplomatic negotiation."
Although Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear power for peaceful means under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump publicly declared that he would not accept a deal that allows "any enrichment” by Iran.
Araghchi, however, said that's not what the discussion has looked like behind the scenes. "The US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said.
Instead, he said they discussed "political commitments and technical measures" to "make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes" and said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, was involved in helping to craft them.
"This is what we have already done in 2015," Araghchi said, referring to the first nuclear deal between Iran and the US, which Trump ripped up during his first term, even though Iran was complying with its strict enrichment limits. "I believe that we can do it again, even a better one," he said.
Although the US president warned on Thursday that Iran must agree to a deal within 10 days or "bad things happen," Araghchi said there has been "no ultimatum" from Trump and that the only discussion between the two sides was on how to reach a "fast deal."
"We are under sanctions. Obviously, any day the sanctions are terminated sooner would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal," Araghchi said. "For the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal."
Trump has also demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missile program and support for regional allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, which Iran has said are nonstarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nudged Trump keep pushing these maximal demands and has been accused of attempting to goad the US into war with its number one adversary by injecting "poison pills" into the negotiations.
Araghchi did not clarify the extent to which these demands have come up as sticking points during recent talks.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," Araghchi said. "[A] military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region and for the whole international community, which is fed up with different escalations and wars in our region and beyond."
Soon after Araghchi's interview aired, Trump told reporters he was considering a military strike to force Iran into a deal.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said at the start of a meeting with governors at the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog: Sure Looks Like Trump Uses App That Auto-Deletes Messages to Chat With World Leaders
"President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping."
Jan 27, 2026
A watchdog group is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may have violated federal recordkeeping laws by using an auto-deleting message application to text world leaders.
On Tuesday, the group American Oversight sent a letter to White House Counsel David Warrington asking for information about whether the president is taking all the required steps to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all presidential records—including digital correspondence—during official duties.
The group highlighted two posts Trump made on Truth Social last Tuesday in which appeared to reveal that he was using Signal or another similar messaging app to discuss world affairs with world leaders.
The first screenshot shows a message from French President Emmanuel Macron, who discussed plans to meet with Trump about his proposal to take over Greenland and meetings with other foreign diplomats.
The second was sent from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who told Trump he'd use his "media engagements" in Davos to "highlight" Trump's work in Ukraine and Gaza, and expressed an interest in "finding a way forward on Greenland."
While some European diplomats found it troubling that any intimate communication they have with Trump could be exposed to the world on a whim, American Oversight said it also raised concerns about the preservation of records.
Trump has a long history of flouting rules surrounding the proper storage of documents. The group pointed out that during his first term, the president would often rip up notes, memos, and documents after reading them and at least twice reportedly attempted to flush them down the toilet.
More recently, he was indicted for improperly stashing away classified documents at his personal residence at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House and showing them to people without security clearances.
The second Trump White House has already been involved in a scandal surrounding their use of deleting message apps when a journalist was accidentally invited into a private Signal chat last year, which contained the administration's plans for an imminent strike on Yemen. The messages in that chat were reportedly set to delete after one week, before later being changed to four, which would have also violated the Presidential Records Act.
“President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping,” said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. “The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency of presidential decisions and safeguard the historical record for the American people."
"Given President Trump’s well-documented history of mishandling sensitive information and presidential records," he added, "the White House must assure the public that these communications are secure and being preserved and protected in full compliance with the law.”
The group has requested that the White House counsel disclose any other messages Trump may have sent using auto-deleting apps and ensure that any messages sent through mobile messaging programs are properly preserved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular