It happened in 1958, but now it cannot be more relevant. Then, General Charles de Gaulle had a vision of the need for France to maintain some strategic dependence by launching the sovereign nuclear deterrence policy, a kind of nuclear umbrella arguing that, although the United States was an ally, their interests may not always coincide with those of Europe. It has spent more than half a century and, suddenly, the continent has set the French nuclear doctrine against US uncertainty.
The possible extension of the shield. It was French president Emmanuel Macron who raised the possibility of associating French nuclear deterrence with the defense of other European countries. Although its announcement a few days ago generated rejection in sectors of the extreme right and the extreme French left, the government has clarified that it is not about sharing nuclear weapons, but about discussing whether France’s protection could explicitly spread to other nations.
In this regard, the French defense minister, Sébastien Lecornu, reiterated that the nuclear arsenal will continue to be completely French, under the only authority of the president. However, the key issue is whether France could assume a more active role in the continent nuclear defense.
The (in) definition. Historically, French nuclear doctrine has been ambiguous with the threat of a massive response if France’s “vital interests” were in danger. However, these interests have never been defined precisely. Since the presidency of De Gaulle, France has suggested that some European countries were already de facto, under their protection. In fact, in 1964 de Gaulle declared that a Soviet attack against Germany could be interpreted as a threat to France.
We remember that France and the United Kingdom are the only European nations with nuclear weapons. France has almost 300 eyes, deployed in airplanes and submarines, while the United Kingdom has approximately 250. Thus, there is a crucial difference: France maintains total independence in the development and operation of its arsenal, while the United Kingdom depends on US technology.
Europe thinks about it. Actually, what has really changed in this debate is not the French proposal, but the attitude of the rest of Europe. Until recently, the idea of depending on French nuclear deterrence was not well received by other European nations, which did not want to send the message that they distrusted the nuclear umbrella of the United States and NATO.
This idea has jumped through the air with the second mandate of Donald Trump, added to his current rhetoric to reduce military support to Europe, which has generated a change of perspective. Countries like Germany have seriously considered the option of a European nuclear shield. Moreover, the next German chancellor Friedrich Merz, surprised his allies by suggesting that it was time to open a dialogue with France and the United Kingdom about the possibility of reinforcing European nuclear deterrence.
Scenarios for the alleged nuclear shield. Analysts have become more or less according to the time of summarizing the options. There is talk of a deployment of French airplanes with nuclear weapons in other countries, such as Germany or Poland. The decision to use them would continue to be in the exclusive hands of the French president, but his presence would send a disjection message.
Also of patrol of French nuclear bombers in European borders, as they do in French airspace, and the creation of air bases in other European countries, allowing a rapid deployment of French nuclear forces in case of crisis.
The importance of eyelets. We would say that key for obvious reasons. The number of eyelets is a crucial factor. As we said, France has 300 nuclear heads, and together with the 250 of the United Kingdom, the total number would reach 550. The problem: which is significantly lower than Russia’s arsenal, which exceeds approximately 6,000 eyelets (most of them in reserve), although it is usually clarified that the principle of deterrence does not depend only on the amount of weapons, but on the capacity for credible and fast response.
Another aspect in discussion is if France should modify its nuclear doctrine to explicitly include the defense of its European allies within its “vital interests.” Some analysts argue that maintaining strategic ambiguity is part of the deterrence itself, but others argue that a clear statement of commitment would strengthen trust among European allies.
The Russian threat. Although France has M51 missiles, capable of reaching Moscow and other large Russian cities with enormous destructive power, Moscow’s response capacity is, what is very doubtful. According to estimates in Russian media, a single “Satan II” missile could “atomize Paris in 200 seconds”, which underlines the risks of a direct confrontation.
The problem lies, in addition, that Russia, given its geographical extension, could resist a prolonged nuclear exchange, while France lacks that strategic advantage. This asymmetry in the ability of mutual destruction raises doubts about the effectiveness of French deterrence in case of a conflict with Russia.
If the “yes” occurs. In any case, what seems clear is that if France manages to expand its nuclear role within Europe with the support of the United Kingdom, this would represent a crucial step towards the strategic autonomy of the EU. The deployment of combat aircraft with nuclear capacity in Eastern Europe would not only strengthen the defense of the continent, but would send a clear political sign of unity and determination to Russia.
It would be to see, of course, what would be Moscow’s reaction.
Image | James Vaughan
In WorldOfSoftware | Europe rescues an old plan to defend Ukraine without a third World War: Sky Shield and its 120 combat planes
In WorldOfSoftware | Ukraine will lose his most powerful weapon in the US. That will give Russia an unprecedented advantage: attack more than 30 kilometers
