In 2025, nuclear accounted for roughly 23% of EU electricity generation , ahead of wind at about 18% and natural gas at around 17%, based on data compiled by energy analysts and platforms tracking Europe’s power system.

Combined, low-carbon sources, including nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower, now make up the majority of electricity generation across the EU.

This reflects a broader structural shift. According to Ember and European energy data, wind and solar together generated more electricity than fossil fuels in 2025 for the first time, a milestone widely seen as a turning point in Europe’s energy transition.

Solar alone contributed roughly 13% of electricity generation, while wind accounted for close to 17%, supported by sustained investment and policy backing across the bloc.

Despite the growth of renewables, fossil fuels still play a significant role.

Natural gas, coal and oil together accounted for roughly 27% of EU electricity generation, underlining the bloc’s continued reliance on dispatchable power sources to stabilise grids during periods of low renewable output.

Gas remains particularly important for its flexibility, though analysts warn that Europe’s electricity prices remain closely tied to gas markets, exposing the system to geopolitical volatility.

Coal, once a dominant source of European power, has continued its long-term decline, falling below 10% of the electricity mix in recent data.

Renewable energy has expanded rapidly in recent years.

According to Eurostat and industry reports, renewables accounted for around 47% of EU electricity generation in 2024, up sharply from previous years, driven largely by wind and solar expansion.

In 2025, that momentum continued, with record solar installations and strong wind output contributing to further gains.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) notes that renewables are now the fastest-growing sources of electricity globally, with solar leading growth and accounting for a significant share of new energy supply.

Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is civilian, stating it is used for energy and medical purposes and is within its sovereign rights.

Uranium enrichment is not unique to Iran. Several countries have operated enrichment facilities, including Argentina, Brazil , China, France, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The US position has often been based on concerns about security and stability, arguing that other countries with such capabilities are allies or partners. Iran, however, is located in a region with multiple neighbouring states.

The comparative assessment, compiled by Military Power Rankings 2025 and cited by defence analysts, measures manpower, land, naval, air and nuclear capabilities.

The United States fields approximately 2.18 million military personnel, compared with 1 million for Iran and 643,000 for Israel. The figures include active-duty forces and reserve components.

In land forces, the United States deploys around 534,000 personnel, ahead of Iran’s 354,000 and Israel’s 145,000. While the U.S. Army remains the largest and most technologically advanced of the three, analysts say Iran’s ground doctrine emphasises missile units and asymmetric operations rather than conventional manoeuvre warfare.

Naval strength shows the widest gap. The United States Navy accounts for roughly 532,000 personnel and operates the world’s largest fleet, including 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers .

Iran’s naval forces total about 18,000 personnel, with a focus on fast-attack craft and anti-ship missile systems designed for operations in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian state media, including Fars News Agency, have reported. Israel’s navy comprises approximately 10,000 personnel and centres on coastal defence and submarine-based deterrence in the Mediterranean.

The United States Air Force also includes around 339,000 personnel and operates advanced fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35. Iran’s air force numbers about 31,000 personnel and relies largely on ageing aircraft, though Tehran has invested heavily in drone and missile capabilities. Israel’s air force, with roughly 28,000 personnel, is widely regarded as one of the most technologically capable in the region and operates F-35 stealth fighters.

In nuclear capabilities, the United States is estimated to possess around 5,000 nuclear warheads. Israel is widely believed to maintain an undeclared arsenal of approximately 80 to 90 warheads, although it neither confirms nor denies possession . Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, though its nuclear programme remains under international scrutiny amid ongoing diplomatic tensions.

On Feb. 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against targets across Iran in a major escalation of regional tensions. The offensive, variously referred to as Operation Epic Fury by the U.S. and Operation Lion’s Roar by Israel, targeted Iranian military infrastructure, command and control facilities and missile sites.

Explosions were widely reported in Tehran and other cities, and Iranian air defences and missile launchers were struck. The strikes were described by both governments as pre-emptive and aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, amid stalled diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was reported killed in the initial attack by Iranian state media and later confirmed by multiple outlets, marking one of the most significant developments in the conflict.

The offensive sparked immediate retaliation from Iran, including missile and drone strikes against Israeli territory and U.S. military bases in the region, leading to a wider conflict.

Explosions were reported overnight in Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj, with Iranian media saying airstrikes also hit Isfahan, Yazd and Khuzestan on Monday, March 2.

The United States

The United States Navy is the dominant force in this specialised arena. It operates 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, including both the classic Nimitz class and the newest Gerald R. Ford class. These vessels form the backbone of US power projection at sea, able to launch fighter jets, early-warning aircraft and support missions wherever needed in the world.

Ship names like USS Ronald Reagan, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS George Washington are part of this group. They routinely deploy across oceans as part of carrier strike groups, acting as floating bases with global reach and endurance.

This fleet isn’t just powerful but also huge. Nuclear propulsion lets these carriers remain at sea for extended periods, limited only by food and crew endurance rather than fuel. That’s a strategic advantage no other navy currently matches.

France

France stands alone in Europe with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in active service: Charles de Gaulle . Commissioned in 2001, it’s Europe’s only carrier of this kind, helping Paris maintain an expeditionary naval presence from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

French defence officials have recently approved plans for a next-generation nuclear carrier to succeed Charles de Gaulle by the late 2030s. This new ship will be bigger and more capable, showing France’s continued commitment to carrier-based power projection.

A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can operate for 20 to 25 years without refuelling its reactors. Conventional carriers, by contrast, need to refuel every few days or weeks. That difference is enormous.

It allows nuclear carriers to cross oceans, loiter in crisis zones, and respond instantly without depending on fuel tankers. What this really means is freedom of movement. No fuel lines to protect. No ports required.

An analysis of 119 seawater samples showed iodine-129 concentrations in the West Philippine Sea — part of the South China Sea that sits within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone — were around 1.5 to 1.7 times higher than in other Philippine waters.

Researchers said the isotope did not originate locally but likely travelled from further north, pointing to the Yellow Sea as the most probable source.

Previous Chinese studies have linked elevated iodine-129 levels in the Yellow Sea to decades-old nuclear weapons tests and nuclear fuel reprocessing in Europe, with radioactive residues accumulating in northeastern China’s soil and river systems.

From there, scientists believe the isotope was carried into the Yellow Sea and transported southwards through ocean currents, including the Yellow Sea Coastal Current and the Chinese Coastal Current.

While further oceanographic modelling is needed to confirm the exact pathway, the findings suggest radioactive materials can travel thousands of kilometres across national boundaries through marine circulation.

The researchers stressed that the current iodine-129 levels pose no known risk to human health or the marine environment , noting the isotope’s extremely low radioactivity at the concentrations detected.

Instead, they said the discovery highlights iodine-129’s value as a scientific tracer. 

This study highlights the need for stronger international monitoring of radioactive substances in shared waters, particularly in politically sensitive regions where environmental data can carry wider strategic implications.

The research was conducted by experts from the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute and the University of Tokyo, with funding from Philippine government science agencies.

The map above captures the gravity of that confrontation: Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missile bases in Cuba, U.S. naval and air “quarantine” (blockade) zones around the island and the looming threat circle stretching deep into the continental United States .

This wasn’t just another Cold War standoff. It was arguably the moment when nuclear war crept into real possibility, when world leaders and citizens alike recognised that missteps might have unleashed catastrophe.

The roots of the crisis lay in a series of strategic moves: the United States had placed medium-range nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy, threatening Soviet territory, while the Soviet leadership under Nikita Khrushchev responded by emplacing nuclear missiles in Cuba to counter U.S. dominance and protect the regime of Fidel Castro.

Kennedy’s October 22 speech declared that any nuclear attack launched from Cuba would be met with full retaliatory response. Through a naval “quarantine” announced publicly, the U.S. effectively blocked further Soviet shipments to the island.

Within two weeks, the tension subsided, but only after a secret agreement: the Soviets would remove the missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. would privately agree to remove certain missiles from Turkey and Italy. The parties also established a direct communication link, the famed “hotline”, to avoid being so perilously close again.

To be clear: Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-specific and rooted in the principle of credible minimum deterrence. Its longest-range missile – Shaheen III – has a range of 2,750 km, sufficient to cover targets in the Indian subcontinent, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where India maintains strategic assets. That is the extent of Pakistan’s nuclear ambition; it has no plans to develop ICBMs and remains the only nuclear-armed state without one.

Despite these facts, dubious speculation abounds suggesting that Pakistan wants an ICBM capable of reaching the US in order to deter Washington from intervening on India’s behalf in a future conflict. This faulty logic then suggests that since no ICBM-possessing country outside of Nato is considered a US ally, Pakistan therefore becomes a de facto adversary. Such assertions collapse under scrutiny.

Pakistan and the United States have been partners since 1947 . Over the decades—from the 1950s through the Cold War and into the post-9/11 era—the relationship has had ups and downs but has proved to be enduring. In contrast, Pakistan’s chief rival, India, has an uneven relationship with Washington, shaped by Cold War-era alignment with the Soviet Union and a long flirtation with non-alignment. Even today, despite grand declarations of strategic partnership, India continues to prioritise its ties with Russia . Since the Ukraine war began in 2022, India has capitalised on discounted Russian oil and gas , re-exporting it at a profit. It also leads BRICS initiatives aimed at challenging the US-led world order.

Why, then, the renewed effort to portray Pakistan and the US as potential adversaries? Who benefits from this fiction? In the May 2025 hostilities between India and Pakistan, President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio chose diplomacy over partisanship. They mediated a ceasefire, underscoring Washington’s commitment to regional stability. The US chose even-handed diplomacy over partisanship in favour of India.

Furthermore, by attempting to smear Pakistan on the basis that no ICBM-possessing nation is a US ally, these speculative voices ironically draw attention to India, which has already tested the Agni-V platform, an ICBM with a range of 5,500 to 8,000 km. Has that made India a US adversary? India is now developing a MIRV-capable Agni-VI, with an estimated range of 9,000 to 16,000 km. If ICBMs automatically signal hostility, why is India exempt? The logic is inconsistent.

Partly to blame is the unchecked “ Indomania ” that skewed US policy under the Biden administration by exaggerating and mischaracterising the Pakistani military’s research and development programme. For instance, the development of large rocket motors for MIRV-enabled intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), with a declared range of 2,200 km, or for space launchers, is entirely within Pakistan’s defensive remit. Misrepresenting them as an ICBM programme, as a former US National Security Council official suggested last December, is inaccurate. The sanctions that followed—targeting four Pakistani entities—were unjustified.

India exploits such attitudes to undermine Pakistan by seeding disinformation through selected media outlets and amplifying it via domestic megaphone journalism—TV channels, newspapers and social media—all orchestrated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The real goal is to curb or cap Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities via US pressure, while deflecting attention from India’s rapid ICBM expansion. Though India claims these weapons are aimed at China, its intent is ambiguous, especially given its growing ties with Beijing and a hedging behaviour in light of the Trump Administration’s regional realignment .

Critics also ignore India’s growing military ambitions. It is accelerating the regional missile race by expanding its footprint in Tajikistan, Oman, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles. By falsely accusing Pakistan, it tries to obscure its own ICBMs in plain sight while hiding behind a Beltway consensus, which is right now fraying, that frames India as a steadfast US ally. Despite Indian provocations, Pakistan has chosen restraint - committed to credible, proportional deterrence rather than open-ended arms competition. Its only adversary is India, right on its borders. The US, a long-standing partner of Pakistan, does not factor into this equation.

Many of those fanning fears about Pakistan’s missile intentions previously served as advisors during the Biden Administration and helped shape a narrative rooted in mistrust. Their talking points are out of step with current realities, particularly with the Trump Administration’s role de-escalating the 2025 India-Pakistan crisis. Contrary to some expectations, the US did not side with India. Since the ceasefire, President Trump has adopted a balanced approach, offering assistance on Kashmir and acknowledging Pakistan’s stabilising role. The latest round of speculative theorising not only omits this diplomatic progress but fails to recognise India’s increasingly aggressive posture, which only increases the threat that nuclear ICBMs pose to global peace.

The opinions and thoughts expressed in this article reflect only the author's views.

Masood Khan is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United States, United Nations and China.

With another referendum off the table for at least two years, questions now turn to what role nuclear power could play in import-dependent Taiwan, an island still grappling with the threat of a Chinese blockade.

For nuclear energy researcher Suleyman Turkes, the way forward lies in international partnerships.

“The way forward for Taiwan should start with cooperation, agreements on SMR (small modular reactor) technology, and Generation III reactors with big international companies, like the United States, France, South Korea, and Japan,” said Turkes, who studies nuclear energy and energy policies at Turkey’s Academic Research Institute (Akademik Araştırma Enstitüsü).

“This partnership will bring not only reactors, but also the transfer of safety culture and operational standards,” he told Global South World . 

Turkes outlined a three-step roadmap he believes could guide Taiwan’s nuclear future: first, revive decommissioned reactors; second, work with foreign partners to build new plants; and third, develop local expertise to design Taiwan’s own next-generation reactors.

He noted that jointly built facilities could be completed faster, a key advantage if Taiwan decides to quickly scale back on energy imports, which currently shoulder roughly 98% of its consumption. 

In the meantime, he suggested reviving Maanshan and other previously decommissioned reactors to serve as a “bridge” between old and new facilities for up to two more decades.

Over the longer term, Turkes said Taiwan must invest in its own academic institutions and researchers to sustain nuclear capacity.

“Taiwan must also think of its own capacity, its own nuclear know-how,” he said. “Because if you only use foreign technology, maybe you solve today's problem, but not tomorrow’s.”

“Universities should expand their nuclear program, and new research and development centres must come. Young engineers should also join international projects,” he added.

Although critics argue that nuclear power only contributes around 5% of Taiwan’s energy mix, Turkes said the impact of completely abandoning it would go far beyond that figure.

“That 5% share from nuclear will not only be replaced by fossil fuels, but it can only be replaced by imported fossil fuels. And this means Taiwan will move away from net zero, more exposed to global price change, and under more political pressure from suppliers,” he said.

“Losing nuclear is just not losing 5%. It's losing competitiveness, losing stability, losing also the credibility of climate commitments.”

While recognising Taiwan’s potential to expand renewable energy such as solar and wind, Turkes stressed that these could only operate at a supporting capacity due to storage and reliability issues.

Nuclear, he argued, can deliver the same output with far greater stability.

“The best way for Taiwan's energy security is nuclear,” he said. “Nuclear not only reduces fossil dependence, it's the backbone of the system.”

Hundreds of participants — including government officials, students, and atomic bomb survivors — gathered at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park to remember the bombing, which contributed not only to Japan’s surrender at the end of World War 2 but also to the start of the global nuclear arms race.

Flowers were laid at the cenotaph, with the ruins of the Atomic Bomb Dome visible in the background.

Local residents and younger generations shared their thoughts during the commemoration.

“In order for us to move forward, we need to pay our respects and gratitude to those who have rebuilt the city, and I think it's important for us to continue to develop Hiroshima, the world and Japan,” said 62-year-old Kozo Morien, a resident of Hiroshima.

Risa Kobayashi, whose grandmother survived the bombing, emphasised the importance of preserving Hiroshima’s story for future generations.

“My grandmother was also a victim, but she is getting older, and the number of people who have experienced it is decreasing. So, unless young people go out and tell their stories, I think in less than 20 years there will be no one left who can tell their stories,” the 18-year-old Hiroshima student told AFP in an interview.

The Hiroshima anniversary takes place amid ongoing concerns about nuclear proliferation and the risk of conflict involving nuclear-armed states such as the US and Russia.

For Morien, ongoing geopolitical tensions highlight the need for Japan to strengthen its defences to prevent another catastrophe like Hiroshima.

“Regardless of whether we have nuclear weapons or not, there's no doubt that nuclear weapons are a deterrent in reality. They act as a deterrent to prevent war. That's why Ukraine ended up like that. Japan is surrounded by three nuclear-powered countries — China, North Korea and Russia — so I think it's necessary for us to strengthen our defence capabilities to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.” 

The remarks come in the aftermath of the recent 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, a volatile confrontation that ended with a series of high-impact Israeli and U.S.-backed strikes on Iran’s suspected nuclear sites.

Trump, during the meeting, claimed responsibility for the degradation of Iran’s nuclear capability during that conflict.

“Can you imagine the beating they took?” Trump said. “We wiped out their nuclear possibilities. They can start again. If they do, we’ll wipe it out faster than you can wave your finger at it.”

He added that Iran has been "sending very bad signals" despite suffering heavy losses. “Very nasty signals,” he emphasised. “And they shouldn’t be doing that.”

Trump’s fiery comments come as Iran resumes negotiations with the E3: the UK, France, and Germany, along with the European Union , in an attempt to revive diplomatic discussions over its nuclear programme.

Tehran, however, continues to maintain that its nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful and focused on civilian energy development.

“We are ready to do any confidence-building measure needed to prove that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever, and Iran would never go for nuclear weapons, and in return, we expect them to  lift their sanctions ,” Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told Fox News last week.