3 ms·

What would have been the intended target of those missiles? Russia? A few rockets isn't enough for a believable MAD doctrine.

thriftwy 3y ago
Perhaps it was deemed sufficient to dissuade otherwise not very motivated potential nemesis from attacking.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Putting the probable in probable adversary.
greedo 3y ago
27 Megaton sized warheads would be a significant problem for the USSR assuming their penetration aids helped them avoid the ABM system protecting Moscow. Also, France had more than just their IRBMs; they had submarine launched missiles as well as nuclear weapons carried by aircraft (primarily the Mirage IV, eventually the Mirage 2000N). France has always valued this Force de frappe; the idea was to convince the USSR that "France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities".
dogma1138 3y ago
French nuclear doctrine is predominantly deterrence through first strike as a response to any invasion or an action that has a significant impact on French national interests, they don’t need to achieve full MAD just be in a position that messing with them is costly enough for it to not be worth it. They don’t have enough weapons to target military infrastructure any French nuclear strike is going to be leveling cities, hence their focus on small number of high yield fusion weapons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > They don’t have enough weapons to target military infrastructure any French nuclear strike is going to be leveling cities, hence their focus on small number of high yield fusion weapons. According to wikipedia the French have 280 deployed nuclear weapons. That's a lot. I believe the explanation for the high yield bombs is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing. A strike aimed at just killing as many civilians as possible is best done with lower yield weapons. Russia has 2 very large cities (Moscow and Sankt Petersburg); for any of the other cities using high yield weapons has very diminishing returns. I just modeled on nukemap [1] a strike against Russia's third largest city, Novosibirsk. A 100 kT bomb kills about 156k people while a 1 MT bomb kills 486k people. An ten fold increase in yield results in a three fold increase in casualties. If you go to Belgorod, a ten fold yield increase results in less than double the number of casualties. Where high yield nuclear weapons make sense is against military hardened targets. There a 100 kT bomb might not damage a missile silo, while a 1 MT bomb might obliterate it. [1] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
  - dogma1138 3y ago
    You can read the French nuclear doctrine, they literally used to publicly measure their target capability by number of soviet cities destroyed and the amount of civilian casualties they will inflict as a % of the population of the USSR. That target btw was (at least as far as there late Cold War goes) the complete obliteration of 50 of the largest cities in the USSR, the destruction of 40% of its industrial capacity and the immediate death of 20% of its population. And back then they target the USSR not Russia so Poland and East Germany as well as other soviet republics were on their target list and very publicly so. France hasn’t really reduced their nuclear stockpile since the Cold War, their doctrine also hasn’t change much in fact they are the only country which said that it is willing to respond to terrorism with nuclear weapons if it comes to that. So yes their doctrine is very much still deterrence through unimaginable punishment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thriftwy 3y ago

Perhaps it was deemed sufficient to dissuade otherwise not very motivated potential nemesis from attacking.

selimthegrim 3y ago
Putting the probable in probable adversary.

greedo 3y ago

27 Megaton sized warheads would be a significant problem for the USSR assuming their penetration aids helped them avoid the ABM system protecting Moscow. Also, France had more than just their IRBMs; they had submarine launched missiles as well as nuclear weapons carried by aircraft (primarily the Mirage IV, eventually the Mirage 2000N). France has always valued this Force de frappe; the idea was to convince the USSR that "France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities".

dogma1138 3y ago

French nuclear doctrine is predominantly deterrence through first strike as a response to any invasion or an action that has a significant impact on French national interests, they don’t need to achieve full MAD just be in a position that messing with them is costly enough for it to not be worth it. They don’t have enough weapons to target military infrastructure any French nuclear strike is going to be leveling cities, hence their focus on small number of high yield fusion weapons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion

credit_guy 3y ago
> They don’t have enough weapons to target military infrastructure any French nuclear strike is going to be leveling cities, hence their focus on small number of high yield fusion weapons. According to wikipedia the French have 280 deployed nuclear weapons. That's a lot. I believe the explanation for the high yield bombs is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing. A strike aimed at just killing as many civilians as possible is best done with lower yield weapons. Russia has 2 very large cities (Moscow and Sankt Petersburg); for any of the other cities using high yield weapons has very diminishing returns. I just modeled on nukemap [1] a strike against Russia's third largest city, Novosibirsk. A 100 kT bomb kills about 156k people while a 1 MT bomb kills 486k people. An ten fold increase in yield results in a three fold increase in casualties. If you go to Belgorod, a ten fold yield increase results in less than double the number of casualties. Where high yield nuclear weapons make sense is against military hardened targets. There a 100 kT bomb might not damage a missile silo, while a 1 MT bomb might obliterate it. [1] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
- dogma1138 3y ago
  You can read the French nuclear doctrine, they literally used to publicly measure their target capability by number of soviet cities destroyed and the amount of civilian casualties they will inflict as a % of the population of the USSR. That target btw was (at least as far as there late Cold War goes) the complete obliteration of 50 of the largest cities in the USSR, the destruction of 40% of its industrial capacity and the immediate death of 20% of its population. And back then they target the USSR not Russia so Poland and East Germany as well as other soviet republics were on their target list and very publicly so. France hasn’t really reduced their nuclear stockpile since the Cold War, their doctrine also hasn’t change much in fact they are the only country which said that it is willing to respond to terrorism with nuclear weapons if it comes to that. So yes their doctrine is very much still deterrence through unimaginable punishment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]