La Francia prevede di aumentare il suo arsenale nucleare.

By Guerric Poncet

The Strict sufficiency, at the heart of France’s nuclear doctrine, could change in the coming months. At least, this is what several senior military officials have acknowledged to Le Point on condition of anonymity in recent weeks. “Discussions are taking place at the Élysée Palace, and they are considering several scenarios depending on the outcome of exchanges with European partners, notably Germany and Poland”, confides a five-star general.

Another general, this one with four stars, believes that “it may be necessary, for example, to adjust resources if the definition of vital interests that could trigger a nuclear response is broadened, or if it becomes necessary to carry out more strategic signals far from our bases”. “If anything needs to change, the Élysée Palace will decide soon”, he assures us, reminding us that “nuclear power is a long-term issue: what we are doing today is the result of decisions taken in 2010”.

In search of new guarantees.

France’s nuclear deterrent relies on some 300 warheads. These are installed on the M51 ballistic missiles of the four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SNLE) of the strategic oceanic force (FOST), or on the ASMP-A cruise missiles of the Rafales of the strategic air forces (FAS) and the nuclear naval air force (FANU). Operational when the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is at sea.

The reinforcement of the European dimension of the French deterrent, proposed once again by the President, Emmanuel Macron, in the context of announcements of American disengagement from Ukraine and Europe in recent months, may require an adjustment of French resources. While the United States has so far made no mention of reducing or withdrawing its nuclear weapons installed in five countries in the region (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey), Europeans are questioning the solidity of their alliance with Washington and are looking for other guarantees.

In Europe, only France is capable of proposing a sovereign alternative, as the British are largely dependent on American technologies and perhaps political decisions. An expert in the chain of implementation of these weapons in the Royal Navy also points to the “pitiful state” of the British SSBN fleet.To note The United Kingdom depends of The United States for theirs intercontinental balistic missile delivery systems called Trident which is designed, developed, built, upgraded, tested in the US with all items coming from different States, but The UK manufacture their warheads.

However, there is no question of Paris sharing its deterrent on a massive scale, “American-style”. France is considering more explicitly including European interests in France’s vital interests, which, if threatened by a foreign power, could trigger a nuclear response. But it does not intend to give partners the slightest role in triggering nuclear fire, which will remain exclusively under the authority of the French President.

The power to inflict unacceptable damage.

Seen from this angle, “there is no obvious correlation between the debate on the European dimension and the need to increase the number of nuclear warheads”, says Emmanuelle Maitre, Senior Research Fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS). For her, “the strategy remains the same: we must guarantee unacceptable damage to our adversary. And the question remains the same as it was yesterday: how many weapons do we need to inflict this damage, depending on the adversary’s defenses and the damage we could sustain in the event of a first strike by the adversary?”

“Before even thinking about building more nuclear warheads, the first thing to do would be to increase the number of carriers, with a third squadron of FAS Rafales, and a fifth or even a sixth SNLE,” says Héloïse Fayet, head of the Dissuasion and Proliferation research program at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri). “It’s also important to discuss the role of conventional forces in reinforcing European credibility, and enabling proportionate responses in the event of aggression against us,” adds Emmanuelle Maitre.

A number of factors could, however, lead to an increase in the number of French nuclear warheads. In addition to the rise in the level of the threat, particularly from Russia, the development of adversaries’ defense technologies may require a greater strike force to achieve the same effects. Bypassing or saturating defenses is becoming increasingly complicated, despite the technological leap expected with the entry into service of new French M51.3 (SNLE) and ASN4G (Rafale) missiles in the next few years.

What’s more, on a purely political level, European partners are “used to the American software”, regrets Héloïse Fayet, “which leads to a very simplistic debate, focused on a totemic aspect: the number of nuclear warheads”. And when it comes to deterrence, political messages count: increasing the arsenal could be a necessary signal.

“The government had planned to replace nuclear warheads one by one, and the current airborne warhead, for example, was to be dismantled over the next few years as the new warheads came into service,” explains a colonel familiar with the subject. “In the current context, it would be a shame to shelve them: we’re likely to keep them in service, which will double our airborne strike capability by 2035, perhaps even sooner,” he adds.

“These are choices that are in the process of being arbitrated,” comments an executive from the French defense procurement agency (DGA), laconically, reminding us that “the first decision-making criterion is linked to our industrial capabilities”. A person close to the President believes that “Emmanuel Macron will wait for a major sequence before making any announcements, when he will have both a vision of European wishes and our industrial capabilities”.

Also to note France possess a significant stockpile of Weapon grade Uranium U-235 and Plutonium Pu-239 & Pu-240, some estimates that this stockpile would be enough to produce between 1000 to 1500 warheads.The Know how on Enrichment is still there and an additional big factory of Enrichment of Uranium has started construction.

France was right not to entrust European security to the United States. Now, we need its nuclear program, as well as the development of defense industries in other parts of the EU.

On a strategic level, it may also be interesting to develop other civilian industries strategies, such as cloud services, energy, etc.

On the other hand, we ask France to stop boycotting Spain’s energy connection with the rest of Europe. Spain has the largest liquefied gas processing capacity in Europe by far, but France has been avoiding for years the development of infrastructure connecting Spain with Northern Europe.

Common interests, not only French, please.

Sharing is caring

God, France continues to be so based! Hopefully the sentiment spreads and more EU nations get themselves a nuclear program.

Should have invested in EU Nuclear Energy instead of buying Russian oil… but yeah… nukes.. fucking idiots.

I think Europe as a whole will need some of that too.

I’m sure this is what happens right before lasting peace, right? Right?!

Give us a French Nukes please.

Pretty late …

France expanding it’s arsenal would certainly be great, so good news if they’re considering it. The UK already dedicates it’s weapons to the defence of NATO allies so having both European nations politically committing that they will use their weapons to defend Europe is a strong step forwards. We should also coordinate between us to guarantee three SSBNs on patrol instead of just two at all times.

> In Europe, only France is capable of proposing a sovereign alternative, as the British are largely dependent on American technologies and perhaps political decisions. An expert in the chain of implementation of these weapons in the Royal Navy also points to the “pitiful state” of the British SSBN fleet.To note The United Kingdom depends of The United States for theirs intercontinental balistic missile delivery systems called Trident which is designed, developed, built, upgraded, tested in the US with all items coming from different States, but The UK manufacture their warheads

The British SSBNs are the same age as the French ones, so that’s something of a hypocritical point. There is no American political control over British use of the Trident missiles we own.

> Also to note France possess a significant stockpile of Weapon grade Uranium U-235 and Plutonium Pu-239 & Pu-240, some estimates that this stockpile would be enough to produce between 1000 to 1500 warheads.The Know how on Enrichment is still there and an additional big factory of Enrichment of Uranium has started construction.

The UK has a similar capability, something like 3.5 tons of military plutonium, 20 tons of HEU and an enrichment plant at Capenhurst

They should increase the size and capacity of the French army instead. Nukes are only a political weapon, a ground war with Russia is fought with ground forces.

I wonder if the rest of the EU can pay France to supply nukes