Thread by @jmc_nonukes

The “pre-launch” phase of the President’s #Macron March 2 speech on #deterrence is underway with this publication from @Armees_Gouv
My comments below, a short🧶otherwise it could be very long.

#EuropeanSecurity defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/…

The term “responsible” raises a problem.
There is nothing responsible about planning, threatening, or even using (with catastrophic humanitarian consequences) weapons of mass destruction.
Everything is in contradiction with international humanitarian law. #IHL #ICRC

The UK version does not use the same language as the FR version #funnynotfunny
🇬🇧Classic used "Level of strict sufficiency"
🇫🇷New wording "son arsenal au plus juste niveau" #aka "size its arsenal at the most appropriate level"
Why ?
Because the disappearance in the 🇫🇷version ...

of the notion of “strict sufficiency” in favor of “at the most appropriate level” is not insignificant.
It suggests (or confirms? see #Luxeuil speech) an upward evolution of the arsenal, probably concerning the Strategic Air Forces
I would be surprised by an increase in the FOST

If President #Macron confirms this increase on March 2 it would mechanically mean that France is participating in the dynamics of an #armsrace
Good luck to its diplomacy @FR_Desarmement in explaining #NPT that the long-standing principle of “non-participation” has not been broken

These statements pose a REAL problem
Attributing effectiveness to #deterrence as if it were an established fact is impossible. Nothing proves it
Nothing allows us to state with 100% certainty that in case of escalation it will always work
We are dealing with pure theory #believer

It is positive to recall that “a #nuclearwar cannot be won and must never be fought.”
But it would have been more complete to specify that this was a joint commitment made in January 2022 by the five Nuclear-Weapon States 🇺🇸🇷🇺🇬🇧🇫🇷🇨🇳

The “Nuclear warning” logic is problematic.
If an adversary attacks, despite the existence of #deterrence, that means they are not deterred
And if a weapon is used, even a single 1, that confirms the failure of deterrence while also gambling on the absence of further escalation…

I explain this in my article "The flawed logic of the French ‘nuclear warning" published by @theELN

europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the…

Presenting #deterrence as protection offered to Europe is politically FALSE:
🔺Austria Ireland and Malta parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons #nuclearban reject this logic
🔺It also raises the question of the special status of the Norwegian Svalbard Islands

True transparency would have meant recalling: 🔺Deterrence: €7.5 billion = €14,269 per minute in 2026.
🔺A force built on 210 nuclear explosions (1960-1996) whose environmental, health, and human consequences remain visible in Algeria and Polynesia.

🔺Nuclear waste buried #Sahara and dumped #Polynesia continues to pose problems
🔺The Moruroa atoll remains under permanent surveillance Its instability could in the event of collapse, trigger a tsunami
🔺Nothing proves a strong consensus among the🇫🇷public in favor of #deterrence

🔺Legally, France is therefore moving further and further away from the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and perhaps tomorrow (we shall see on March 2) from its most demanding interpretation #gooddfaith
This is going to be “fun” at the Review Conference in April #NPT2026