Tribune. Fabien Drop, MP (the Republic in March) of the Eure and member of the National Defense Commission and the Armed Forces, responded to a forum [published on lemonde.fr on December 31, 2021] to our proposal to open A discussion on nuclear deterrence in the context of the presidential campaign. We thank him for it. He treats seriously and respect a subject that engages the security of the nation and the direct personal responsibility of the head of state.
Responding to the remarks on a television show [on BFM-TV on November 25, 2021] and on the site Melenchon.fr, he writes: “The deterrence is anchored in the future. The future, Because zero, including Mr. Mélenchon, can not replace it in his current acceptance. “However, he does not answer the questions we raise.
Let’s start by reminding it: we adhere to the deterrence concept. It is for France to arrange at any time of a weapon out of reach of an enemy and likely to discourage an attack against it.
The deterrence consists of having the means of inflicting damage by the response, still higher than the benefit of the attack that could hope for the abuser. The deterrence is based today on the nuclear weapon. France has built its independence and self-sufficiency on this strategy for its defense. This strategy works.
But also note his limits. On a territory like ours, a single well adjusted blow carried by an enemy can eliminate us. Thus, a strike on our civilian nuclear facilities or our chemical facilities would be deadly. The response would always be posthumous. Because there is not a perfect symmetry between the nuclear powers. For some very extensive countries, it should indeed be capable of several keystrokes to be dissuasive.
Other weapons than the nuclear
Added to this are the questions related to the use of a weapon likely to destroy the world itself. Nuclear weapons stocks owned by Russia and the United States would suffice to annihilate the planet several times. And if not, there would still be irreversible radioactive pollution. If a nuclear war triggered, it could not be won: it would necessarily end with total mutual annihilation. These facts must remember that global nuclear disarmament remains an imperative objective. But also that it is desirable to support deterrence on other weapons that avoid the disadvantages of nuclear power.
You have 68.67% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.