Grandstand. Nuclear deterrence recently made its way into the presidential campaign. While the candidate of La France insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, wondered on its usefulness, the deputy La République en Marche from Eure Fabien Gouttefarde justified its maintenance in a column published by The world on December 31, 2021, taking up the arguments of the military-industrial and political complex. However, it suffices to review them to realize that these arguments are hackneyed to say the least.
So it is with the allegedly low cost of nuclear deterrence. Everything is obviously relative. Reducing the annual cost of nuclear weapons to a per capita calculation is meaningless if it is not compared. On the other hand, it is shocking to know that the credits allocated to nuclear deterrence have been doubled in the 2019-2025 military programming law, from 3 to 6 billion euros per year. This can only be done, despite the increase in the budget of the armies, to the detriment of conventional forces which are nevertheless permanently on the ground, to the detriment of investments in new technologies and new conflicting spaces, such as cyberspace or outer space, or to the detriment of the fight against new global threats, climate and health in particular.
Inevitable escalation
Another argument invoked is the very strong involvement of the armies and the defense industry in favor of nuclear deterrence. As a soldier, I can only confirm the competence and dedication of the civilian and military personnel involved in the defense of our country. However, to suggest that their moral and professional qualities are linked to the use of nuclear weapons is to deny their intrinsic value. These qualities are their own. They are in the service of France and do not depend on a weapon, whatever it may be.
Moreover, claiming to be their interpreter is an imposture. This is to forget that, being in a situation of activity, they are bound by the duty of reserve. On the other hand, there are many soldiers in France and abroad who, no longer in service, have expressed their conviction that nuclear deterrence is now useless and dangerous.
As for the argument of the technological and economic benefits that nuclear deterrence would bring, it ignores that most of the researchers and companies that contribute to it could very well retrain in other more promising fields.
You have 60.45% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.