How does France’s nuclear deterrent contribute to the defense of Europe?
France’s nuclear deterrent, serving first and foremost to defend France’s vital interests, also contributes to the defense of Europe. This contribution has been recognized within the North Atlantic Alliance since 1974, but remains little known. In a speech closely followed by France’s European partners and its adversaries alike, President Emmanuel Macron announced a new concept for French nuclear deterrence: “forward deterrence” (dissuasion avancée). This article aims to explain the origins of this concept, outline its main pillars, and describe the partnerships that are sought. It then discusses the relationship with the U.S. doctrine of “extended deterrence”, and finally offers some ethical considerations.
A historical overview of the French nuclear deterrent
France’s first efforts to develop a nuclear weapon date back to the mid-1950s. Based on scientific research that had begun even before World War II under the leadership of Frédéric Joliot-Curie, France’s goal at the time was to acquire the industrial capability, particularly for the production of fissile material, to build its first weapon in the early 1960s. The main strategic rationale was that in order to survive in the post-World War II world, it was essential to possess nuclear weapons. This reasoning was fueled largely by Soviet nuclear blackmail and a lack of American backing to resist it, during the Franco-British operation in Suez in 1956.
Upon his return to power in 1958, General de Gaulle found a well-advanced nuclear program in place, enabling the first French nuclear test on February 13, 1960. He deliberately steered the program toward the creation of a fully sovereign and independent nuclear strike force, convinced that in this domain, decisions cannot be shared – especially with a more powerful ally that does not necessarily have the same interests. American hostility toward this policy of nuclear independence, coupled with NATO’s adoption of the “flexible response” doctrine – widely perceived in Paris as an elastic doctrine allowing the U.S. to avoid nuclear involvement in the defense of Europe – led to France’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military command in 1967. The reflections on nuclear doctrine conducted under the aegis of General Lucien Poirier, as set out in the 1972 White Paper on Defense, clearly stated that a country’s vital interests could be defined only by “reference solely to that country itself”.1 The perception that the French nuclear deterrent protected France – and France alone – thus became firmly established both in France and among its European allies. Nevertheless, the same 1972 White Paper emphasized that the limits of these vital interests must necessarily remain vague and that the logic of deterrence relies on a degree of uncertainty. Noting that France was not isolated and existed within a web of intertwined interests with its European neighbors, it thus pointed out that France’s nuclear deterrence strategy was a determining factor in European security. General de Gaulle had, in fact, clearly stated back in 19632 that nuclear weapons could, if necessary, play a part in protecting France’s allies. The contribution of France’s nuclear deterrent to the defense of Europe was recognized by its allies at the 1974 NATO summit in Ottawa. The final communiqué acknowledged that the two European states possessing nuclear forces were capable of playing a distinct deterrent role that contributed to the overall strengthening of Europe’s deterrent. It was primarily the role of London and Paris as a second decision-making center – complicating the adversary’s calculations – that this acknowledgement highlighted.
Nevertheless, the notion that the French deterrent served exclusively to defend France persisted throughout the Cold War, as evidenced by a famous exchange that took place in June 1987 during a meeting of G7 heads of state and government in Venice.3 Asked by Margaret Thatcher about the use of French nuclear weapons were Bonn to be invaded by the Soviets, François Mitterrand replied that such a scenario would mean that the deterrent had failed. This was a situation that must not be allowed to occur. And, moreover, the mission of protecting the Federal Republic of Germany and Western Europe was the responsibility of the North Atlantic Alliance, not that of France.
However, the post-Cold War era and the construction of a political Europe in the 1990s led French statesmen to attempt to integrate this European dimension into their national deterrent more effectively. It had certainly been present since the beginning but had never been properly developed. In 1995, French Prime Minister Alain Juppé proposed to Germany the concept of “concerted deterrence” between the two countries. This proposal did not meet with a favorable response at the time. The lack of interest in the French deterrent among European countries, starting with Germany, during a period of happy globalization and the United States’ continued commitment to NATO, would thus persist for some thirty years. The only country with which France made progress in this area during that period was the United Kingdom.
The Franco-British nuclear axis
Political talks between the two European nuclear powers led to the creation of a Joint Nuclear Commission in 1992. The initial discussions within this framework focused on comparing the two deterrents in terms of concepts and doctrines, missile defense, and nonproliferation. These discussions revealed that the two countries’ nuclear doctrines were closely aligned. In late October 1995, British Prime Minister John Major and French President Jacques Chirac issued a statement (the so-called Chequers Declaration) in which they affirmed that they could not identify any situation in which the vital interests of one of the two powers might be threatened without those of the other power also being threatened. This declaration was systematically reiterated in the following years by the leaders of both nations, including after Brexit, until it was reinforced by the Northwood Declaration in 2025. This bilateral agreement clearly signaled a strong strategic alignment regarding the vital interests of both nations. Studies on the adoption of a joint air-launched nuclear missile, the ASLP4 were conducted, but without success. The British ultimately rejected this option, given the risks it could pose to their nuclear relations with their American ally.
[...]
Jean-Louis Lozier is an Advisor to the Security Studies Center at the French Institute for International Relations (Ifri) and a naval officer who has served for 39 years in the French Navy. His career at sea has been mainly onboard submarines. Among others, he commanded two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) (2004–2006). Promoted flag officer in 2012, he held during eight years high responsibility assignments, among them head of the nuclear forces directorate and inspector of nuclear weapons. As vice-admiral, his last assignments were “préfet maritime de l’Atlantique” and commander of operations in the Atlantic and Arctic areas.
- This article is available on the website of the journal Ethics and Armed Forces.
Available in:
Themes and regions
DOI
10.48701/opus4-944
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
How does France’s nuclear deterrent contribute to the defense of Europe?
Framework Nation: A European Challenge and French Ambition
First appearing in the early 2000s, the framework nation concept follows several distinct rationales, whether it refers to a country assuming the leadership of a military operation, directing a multinational capability project, or commanding a permanent force structure. In every case, the country that takes on this role fully intends to derive from it additional politico-military influence.
The Nuanced Relationship Between Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
Public sentiment is something decision-makers must contend with, especially in democratic states. However, the extent to which public opinion shapes foreign policy varies. Three Council of Councils experts in France, India, and Nigeria reflect on how public opinion does—and sometimes does not—affect foreign policy decisions.
Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Fury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?