Fabien Gouttefarde, deputy (La République en Marche) of the Eure and member of the committee for national defense and the armed forces, replied in a forum [publiée sur Lemonde.fr le 31 décembre 2021] to our proposal to open a discussion on nuclear deterrence as part of the presidential campaign. We thank him for that. He treats with seriousness and respect a subject which engages the security of the nation and the direct personal responsibility of the Head of State.
Reacting to comments made on a television program [sur BFM-TV le 25 novembre 2021] and on the Melenchon.fr site, he writes: “Deterrence is rooted in the future. The future, because no one, including Mr. Mélenchon, would know how to replace it in its current meaning. “ However, it does not answer the questions that we raise.
Let’s start by reminding you: we adhere to the concept of deterrence. For France, this means having at all times a weapon beyond the reach of an enemy and likely to discourage an attack against it.
Deterrence consists of having the means to inflict damage by the response, always greater than the benefit of the attack that the aggressor could hope for. Deterrence today relies on nuclear weapons. France has built on this strategy its independence and self-sufficiency for its defense. This strategy works.
But let us also note its limits. In a territory like ours, a single, well-adjusted hit from an enemy can take us out. Thus, a strike on our civilian nuclear facilities or our chemical facilities would be fatal. The response would always be posthumous. Because there is not a perfect symmetry between the nuclear powers. For some very large countries, it would indeed be necessary to be capable of several strikes to be dissuasive.
Weapons other than nuclear
In addition, there are questions linked to the use of a weapon capable of destroying the world itself. The stockpiles of nuclear weapons possessed by Russia and the United States would be enough to wipe out the planet several times over. And if not, there would still be irreversible radioactive pollution. If a nuclear war were to break out, it could not be won: it would necessarily end in total mutual annihilation. These facts should remind us that comprehensive nuclear disarmament remains an imperative goal. But also that it is desirable to base the deterrence on other weapons which avoid the disadvantages of nuclear power.
You have 68.75% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.