Where is France right now...

[Starfox]

On Monday, the president of France, made his annual speech regarding the state of France nuclear forces. That was two days after Israel and the USA attacked Iran (and yes, I'm putting Israel first in this duo, and there is a reason for that). The speech about our nuclear forces is nothing new, according to our constitution the French president is the sole authority that can order the use of our nuclear weapons but he is also accountable to the French people about the state and the deployment of those nuclear weapons and so occasionally the president has a speech to inform the people in case of a change in the nuclear posture and/or doctrine of France. Such changes just happened. It's also an obligation he has because the money comes from the French people pockets and he has to explain how and why it is spent.

Things that are changing.

First, France will increase the number of its nuclear warheads (which hadn't happened since the early 1990s). There won't be any proliferation, we're not trying to emulate Russia or the US because there's no reason to -- according to our doctrine -- but this is an acknowledgement that the world has become much more dangerous during the past years and that now France will not only have to watch over itself but also over its European allies due to the apparent disengagement of the US from NATO and its allies.

Which leads us to the second big change. France will deploy, in willing European allied countries, nuclear armed Rafale jets which will be stationed in those countries as part of what the president described as an advanced nuclear deterrent for the protection of Europe. Even though Macron gave us a list of the first few countries likely part of this deal (talks are ongoing for others), I won't repeat it here because I personally think it's a bad idea to let any potential adversary know in which countries France deployed or intend to deploy nuclear weapons. The principle of French nuclear deterrence has always been to keep adversaries guessing not to give them hints. Those countries will participate in France's exercises regarding nuclear deterrence.

And in order to better leave adversaries guessing, from now on, the number of France's nuclear warheads won't be discussed publicly in any format. Sure there is a base number that everybody knows (between 290 and 300 -- 280 being deployed, the others in reserve) but the new number after increase will remain secret. You can still find a number in open source though, the number of nuclear warheads France owned at the end of the Cold war; the estimate was 540 (about the same as China currently). Make of that what you will.

Things that do not change:

France won't go nuclear unless France's vital interests or France territory itself are threatened. The interesting part here, though, is that the president of the French Republic decides what France's vital interests are. Which can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, the integrity of the European Union and its sovereign member countries is certainly in France's best interest. And there I would be remiss to not remind "some" people currently eyeing "some" borders that Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, are all members of the EU (additionally to being members of NATO). And I would certainly engage "some" people to reflect on that before going stupid.

In accord with that previous point, France's red lines will remain undisclosed as they always have been. In essence, to prevent an adversary from trying to find a way to "adapt", France will not discuss the threshold above which nuclear force will be authorized. There will not be a "if you do that" or whatever. You'll know you crossed the line thanks to the following:

The "warning shot" (sometime referred to as "last warning") still remains a thing. That's a part of the French nuclear doctrine that always amused our allies but in fact is kinda terrifying and a very official policy. So Macron precised that again in his speech. France reserves the possibility to fire one (and only one) relatively low yield (knowing that France "officially" doesn't have anything under 100Kt anyway -- which is already 5 times Hiroshima) missile as a last warning to give a chance to an enemy to have a change of heart before things get really serious. It's the equivalent of saying "Now you've gone far enough, if you don't turn back, conventional warfare will go out the window". The target (or lack of) for this warning shot is left at the sole discretion of the president. It's a bit like pointing a gun at a head, firing and missing intentionally, then saying: "the next one is for you". Yeah, I know, very "Hollywood drama". Hey, your fault for submerging us with US movies.

A nuclear shot to prevent a nuclear war? The French are MAD!! In fact it's precisely because we don't go MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that we have a warning shot. We're not Russia or the US with 1000+ nuclear warheads each. So the next best thing for us to be credible is to make sure that the adversary knows we are not joking. And what's best than firing a warning shot? Plus, you know, French and foreplay, kind of a thing...

Let me leave you with a video. It's a boring one, we have a president that made some good points but takes ages to come to the essential, essential I summed up above and that he took 41 minutes to expose. It was so long that apparently they had to switch the English translator part way. At least you have some good shots of the "Téméraire" (reckless, harsh or foolhardy... your pick, they all could be used as a translation, myself I'd go for reckless), one of our nuclear submarines Ballistic Missiles launcher, which is preparing to go on patrol in a few days, so not all is lost, you get pictures.

In other news

This is the part where I should talk about Iran but I won't. not that I don't have my opinion but for the time being I'll keep it to myself. In a nutshell though: I'm not sad for the Iranian leadership, I don't think anyone is, but I still think that the US is going at it all wrong. And I'm not the only one thinking that, former US Generals, US military experts, allies, a lot are questioning the logic of the US administration there, with good reasons. If there is a military or even political strategy involved, nobody is seeing it and apparently not even the US administration itself, which is rather concerning.

And seriously... "Epic Fury"? Even said in French it's atrocious "Furie Epique". Who even thought of this name? Are we in a Japanese manga now?

But maybe that will be a topic for another time...