# Why does France have nukes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582 "2003-01-14T21:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/81 "2003-01-18T16:14:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > …and lets not forget the capture German scientists who were housed and eavesdropped by british intelligence (in england i believe). Thats when they determined that the Nazis were so far behind, they couldnd have possibley make the bomb in less than 10 years. Calculations for critical mass was wrong. Yes, reading summaries of speculation by German scientists, who hadn’t even reached the stage of the Frisch-Peierls memorandum when they arrived at Farm Hall, was sooooo helpful to the design of a British bomb. > [@](#): > > And why would the French need the Los Alamos scientists when they can get their notes? I didnt mean de-classified as in everyone can get it. It was de-classified to “friendly” nations. It’s at least possible that the US passed weapons research to the French in the Fifties, though I think it unlikely and I’ve yet to see any cite for this claim. “Atoms for Peace” was a _public_ programme and, as such, is not directly relevant. And I’ll re-iterate, that’s a strange use of the term “de-classified”. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/82 "2003-01-20T02:18:19Z")
Ultimately, the idea was to insure against the possibility that the US would fold when faced with a Soviet invasion backed by a nuclear threat. The US was happy to go along, since it removed any incentive the Rooskies would have to try it. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/83 "2003-01-25T08:26:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mswas \* > \*\*1. Hmm, something that’s always made me curious is why do people need hundreds or thousands of nukes? Do we plan to make the enemy stop existing? > > 1. I would think that any nuclear exchange would be limited, and that any nation on the receiving end of a nuclear exchange is pretty much screwed. I mean you could take out the US with just four nukes. If you detonate one over downtown Manhattan, Washington, Chicago and LA, the US is pretty much going to be a third world country for a while. \*\* 1. Military targets. 2. I don’t know about that. If some country hit us with the four nukes you describe, do you really think our response would be limited? ---
**Author:** ![Vinnie\_Virginslayer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/53a042/32.png) [@Vinnie\_Virginslayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vinnie_Virginslayer)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/84 "2003-01-25T11:53:53Z")
You know, why don’t we just ask the French to surrender their nukes? They surrender every other time. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/85 "2003-01-26T04:51:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gonzalo de cordoba \* > \*\*We have them because we were fighting the Japanese, but we keep them because we are still threatened by others By whom exactly? What country could be a threat for the US and wouldn’t or couldn’t be a threat for France? Give me a good reason for the US to have nukes and this reason will very likely be equally valid for France. > [@](#): > > This leaves France. Why do they have nukes? Who, now, threatens them with destruction of the type that they need a nuclear deterrent? Does France need nukes to threaten others? See above… > [@](#): > > If the Cold WAr ever went nuclear, and the US lost, France would have been toast, whether or not it had its nukes. Was there a guarantee that the US would go nuclear to protect Europe? What if the USA had chosen an isolationist policy at some point, or even chosen to withdraw its troops from Europe? If the NATO had faced a soviet invasion and had been defeated in a classical war, was there any guarantee that the US would risk to be engulfed in a nuclear war against the USSR rather than accepting a soviet domination in western Europe? If the Soviet Union had been situated in south America, do you think that an US government would have thought “Oh well…the UK and France have nukes, anyway, and since they’re are our allies we can rely on them in case we’re invaded so we don’t need nukes anymore”? Beside, the french nukes weren’t intended only as a deterrent against a nuclear attack (the MAD concept) , but mainly as a detterent against a classical attack (remember…it was unlikely that the russian armored divisions would come close to Washington, but they could very well come close to Paris). The idea being that if France security was threatened (for instance, if the NATO was defeated in Germany…) , the nukes would be used against USSR cities, making an attack against France pointless since the costs would vastly exceed the benefits. This doctrina was called “la dissuasion du faible au fort” in other words it meant : “You’re strong enough to defeat/invade us, but we’re able to cause so much damages in case you’d try that it just wouldn’t be worth it”. France definitely had a “first use” doctrina. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/86 "2003-01-26T04:52:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Steve MB \* > \*\*Ultimately, the idea was to insure against the possibility that the US would fold when faced with a Soviet invasion backed by a nuclear threat. \*\* Exactly… ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/87 "2003-01-26T05:00:39Z")
And of course, as soon as you have to rely on another country (the US in this case) for your security, you just can’t have an independant policy anymore. You just have to accept to do whatever you’re told to and shut up…I’m sure you’re able understand why your country wouldn’t accept to be in such a situation. The same applies to any other country, France included. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/88 "2003-01-26T05:59:03Z")
Je ne sais quois. Is “deterrence” a French word? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582/89 "2003-01-28T01:40:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*Je ne sais quois. > > Is “deterrence” a French word? \*\* I already read it on occasions in french texts, but the correct french word is “dissuasion” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-france-have-nukes/148582.md?page=4)