And in light of your accurate description of French policy (or lack thereof) on when they would actually use them, I repeat my answer to the OP: inertia.
Nukes made sense in '49. They probably don’t, strategically, now. But dumping them would be a big political issue, essentially saying that “we want to acknowledge our diminished stature in the world.”
So they say “screw it.” The francs they spend maintaining them (yeah, I know, euros) are cheaper that the political capital it would cost someone to get rid of them. The rightists won’t do it, and the leftists can’t, both for political reasons.
Yep, better to have a nuke and not need it than to need a nuke and not have it. The French could save some money by dismantling their nukes now, but the cost would be immense if they ever needed to build them again in a hurry.
gonzalo’s statement that:
…is a bit of a leap. I don’t agree that I (or NATO) has a strong interest in France disarming completely. As long as their weapons are well-maintained and well-guarded, and the former Soviet Union’s bombs aren’t (i.e. one could end up in the hands of terrorists), and they don’t conduct any more tests, I’m not going to lose any sleep over this issue. I’m much more concerned about Iraq and NK’s nuclear programs than I am about France’s nuclear bombs.
I don’t think so. Being Austrian (thus, speaking german and being part of the “agressor nations” in WWII), but living in France for 4 years, I don’t think the french had the germans in mind.
I think the french want to be independent, and that is also the reason why they are not part of the NATO.
They wanted the US to take them seriously and they didn’t want to be pushed around. In a perfect world you do not need weapons for that, but who said that we live in a perfect world? In this world, sometimes you need nuclear weapons in order to be safe, and that is the reason that North Korea tries to get them (also I would have prefered that they feel safe without nukes).
The french have the nukes because they wanted them. point. Anything else is ridicolous. And looking at the postings in american forums I am sometimes inclined to think that they really need them … Anyway, anybody saying that the US need them but any other nation doesn’t, has some explaining to do in my point of view.
A very brave and gracious apology, although you were nowhere near as unpleasant as some of the knob heads who pop up occasionally. Welcome to Great Debates.
France carries a lot more weight than it should because a lot of people think that it ought to. Having an independant nuclear arsenal is a pretty good way for us to perpetuate this state of affairs. A lot of French public figures go on about le rayonnement de la France dans le monde, and they’re right to because it’s what gives us a voice. Nukes are one of the amplifiers.
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?
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.
I’ll accept your apology, gonzalo. And no, I didn’t take it personally.
This raises a few questions.
What is “real justification”? Only the existence of a nuclear-armed foe? Only the existence of even a conventional foe who might attack in the next five years? The preservation of international autonomy?
Second, why does property require justification? France is within its sovereign rights to produce and maintain its nuclear arsenal. It has no treaty obligations whatsoever to forego a nuclear program. Whether France needs them or not, how can the United States or the world arrogate to itself the right to take away sovereign France’s property?
The United States has a lot of money. It really doesn’t need to be quite this rich. It would benefit the entire world if it were forced to relinquish its wealth. Therefore it should.
Careful, you’re inviting people to ask you how the U.S. can claim justification for stopping Iraq and North Korea.
Personally, I think the U.S. has the same “right” to stop Iraq and NK as France has to possess nukes. Basically, because they can. I take a real “law of the jungle” attitude when it comes to warfare, namely you only have the territory (or the nukes) that you can defend.
You build lots so that the other side comes off worse than you do. 4 nukes wipe NY, Washington, Chicago and LA…hmmm I’ll see you’re 4 cities and raise you 10 more. Sure we’re both maimed but I’ll be better off. So you up the ante.
The idea being that overwhelming response to any attack no matter how big makes the initial attack pointless. So no initial attack.
And back to the OP, the french wanted an independant force that did not require US approval.
Spoken like a New Yorker! (I’m insulted that my hometown of Stow, Ohio wasn’t on your short-list)
Wipe out those four cities and the US would be staggered, in terms of morale, leadership and infrastructure, but 3rd world? I don’t think so. We have ALOT of natural resources, manpower, industry and communications capability. You would need to blast many more cities and overwhelm every single state’s national guard in order to “take us out”. Who’s going to invade and occupy Nebraska? Look what they have to get past. And they thought invading Russia in winter was hard…
mswas, it was part of the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. So no matter how effective, devastating and surprising their first strike is, they will be unable to get at all the warheads and will have 20 minutes to enjoy “victory” and contemplate their own imminent extinction. Which also takes into consideration that a couple of hours into the exchange the system will have broken down so far that you’ll be unable to continue shooting.
wasnt solen, it was given. “Atoms for Peace” speech in 1953 by Dwight D Eisenhower culminated a long negotiation by France and England to obtain technologies to make the bomb. Not nuclear reactors, the bomb. Yes, France had a working nuclear reactor at the time and they have technologies to develop nuclear power on their own but no bomb. The speech talks about sharing nuclear technoloy for peace, but both england and france already have nuclear power at the time. Technologies shared included de-classifed papers on the manhattan project (which india and even iraq obtained)
The documents do show that France obtained access to information that the US freely shared with several countries. What, I can’t build a firearm if I don’t invent gunpowder from scratch? Besides that, the documents do not themselves support that “Atoms for Peace” was established for the purpose of “giving the Bomb” to the UK and France: that is a “between the lines” reading, someone’s opinion (probably well founded) of what may have “really” been going on in the backroom.
You indeed state that India used that same information to develop their nuclear program, and India took until 1974 to get to where France got in 1960. This tells me two things: France had a serious headstart even before AFP, and even with AFP info they had to put in 7 years’ hard work to get to their goal. Since we’re trading speculations, what if No Atoms For Peace would not have meant no French nukes, but instead a 10-year delay? (a French nuke in 1970 and the Indian one in 1984. And the Pakistani and North Korean Bombs still a decade in the future). We’d still be in the same position: France holding on to the Force de Frappe even after the USSR falls and the established nuclear powers trying to stop every Tom, Dick and Kim-Il in the 3rd world from getting their hands on one of the damned things.
It just does not look to me like being “given the Bomb just because they whined” although I can understand how it could look collusive to anyone (I would still object to the unnecessary derisiveness of your original description. If anything, it looks like it was a policy decision of the US to work in cooperation with the two (at the time) major European regional powers to make sure everyone was on the same page on nuclear proliferation (As in: “We the Respectable Countries of the Free World, good nukes; other slimeball countries, bad nukes”.)
Which BTW keeps us able to ask Iraq or North Korea to disarm regardless of how they got the bloody things.
You’re misunderstanding the whole significance of “Atoms for Peace” speech.
For a start, Britain already had nuclear weaponry at the time: the Monte Bello test had been on 3rd October of the previous year. The British had been keen for American help in the matter in the postwar years, but that hadn’t been forthcoming. To quote from part of Margaret Gowing’s classic official history Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy 1945-1952, volume 2 Policy Execution (Macmillan, 1974, p499) about the development of the UK bomb:
“In the event Britain received very little help indeed from that quarter [the US]; the only major area of mutual support had been uranium procurement. Britain’s deterrent was perforce an independent one. Furnished, it is true, with information from the wartime sojourn of her scientists in North America, Britain found she could carry out the whole of the first phase of her project up to the first bomb test perfectly well by her own native efforts, supplemented with some essential help in facilities from Canada.”
She goes on to describe how the US government had actively tried to dissuade the British from their programme.
In 1953 about the only disadvantage that the French had, compared to the British, was that they didn’t have the equivalent of the wartime British Mission to Los Alamos etc., i.e. a (fairly small) group of scientists who’d worked on the Manhatten Project. That difference is possibly enough to explain the lag in their bomb project.
US attitudes did change, more or less as a result of “Atoms for Peace”, but in an odd way. The speech itself really only proposes that some fissionable material be pooled with the UN. Nothing about helping the British or the French. To my knowledge, Eisenhower’s specific proposal never came to pass. What did matter is that the speech was a huge propaganda success, with people responding to the phrase. The result is that the Eisenhower administration more or less got bounced into a programme of promoting civilian nuclear power around the world. A lot of this was just stuff like funding conferences on particle physics and the like. No doubt some of this did help other countries develop weaponry, but that wasn’t the intention. The real intention was frankly much more shallow: project an image of the US as peaceful and friendly. In the long run this presumably helped foster a climate where US policy was more open to collaboration on nuclear weaponry programmes with other countries. But I can’t think of any specific deal (other than deployment of US controlled weapons on foreign soil) before Kennedy and Macmillan. And that’s after the French get their bomb.
There’s a good discussion of the background to the “Atoms for Peace” speech and its consequences in Nuclear Fear by Spencer Weart (Harvard, 1988).
Finally, almost by definition, anything de-classified is available to foreign powers. I presume that anybody, American citizen or not, can walk into the National Archives and ask to see any de-classified Manhatten Project papers. (Such institutions often fuss about ID, for understandable reasons, but they don’t run security checks.) For that matter, you can get The Los Alamos Primer from Amazon these days.
You have that backwards. France had the gunpowder already. It was the gun that was missing. Which would explain why it took France a shorter time than India. India had to start from scratch. France had to just process weapons grade fuel and at the same time develop the delivery system (the bomb). While its relatively easy to create a runaway chain reaction, its quite difficult to precisely control the reaction until the precise moment you need to (detonation) and its yeild.
it was a policy decision by the US. This was in the fifties. They do (dumb) things like that then. It “seemed” collusive? President DeGaulle vowed France would never be shamed again, 11 years later even with a head start and still no bomb? However, 7 years after a transfer of military technology they have one? coincidence? I’ll trade you another speculation. Had there been no “atoms for Peace” India would be where Iraq is now (maybe) and Iraq would exclusively work with nerve gas. Iraq’s leading nuclear scientist (who defected) said as much.
I apologize for the objective nature of my intial post but come on, I got a laugh. How many times can anyone seriously say “I dont know” in this thread? Everybody here is a tad serious. We’re on page 2 and I dont think anyone has conclusively answered why France has nuclear weapons. We had no beef about having nuclear technology, its just the 400 some odd bombs that was questioned.
…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.
No, the pool of fissionable material for allies did not materialize. Turns out they didnt need it because transfer of bomb technolgy plus the experience already present showed them how to make their own reserve of fissionable material.
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. Which at that time would be anyone against the USSR, including india, iraq and iran. Ever wonder why Egypt, Jordan, Syria and lebanon didnt get the bomb but iraq did? those four accepted aid from the soviets, iraq did it after they got the plans for the bomb.
