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.
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”.
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.
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.
See above…
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.
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.
