By warning that France could use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism, President Jacques Chirac is signaling that the US does not have a monopoly on nuclear deterrence, analysts said.
French experts also agreed that Chirac's speech on Thursday did not mark a fundamental policy shift but rather a refinement of current nuclear doctrine.
Chirac's unexpected warning to "rogue" states was intended to show that "one does not leave the monopoly of deterrence to the Americans," argued Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).
"It was a Gaullist-inspired speech aimed at giving renewed legitimacy to France's deterrent arsenal, within the context of Europe," he said.
Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), also saw the message as an assertion of nuclear independence from the US, but one aimed at France's European partners.
"Jacques Chirac wants to give credibility to the European Union's strategic autonomy," Maulny said -- despite the fact that, according to one military expert, most European nations wish to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
France and Britain are the only EU nations to have nuclear arsenals.
Asked whether Britain would consider using nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism, the British Foreign Office said its policy was not to give advance warning of its intended response to specific threats.
Meanwhile, Maulny questioned the strategic wisdom of Chirac's decision to clarify French strategic doctrine in the face of emerging threats.
"Is this necessary? That's not certain. Because the doctrine of deterrence is all the more effective when it stays vague," Maulny said.
"Under [late presidents] De Gaulle and Mitterrand, the doctrine was simply to say: `I have nuclear weapons and I will not hesitate to use them,'" he said.
In a wide-ranging policy speech, Chirac warned on Thursday that any state that sponsored a terrorist attack -- or was considering using weapons of mass destruction -- against France, would be laying itself open to a nuclear attack.
He also extended the definition of the "vital interests" that France would defend with nuclear weapons to include its allies and "strategic supplies" -- widely taken to mean oil -- and condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties".
Although no specific country was mentioned, Chirac was understood to be referring to Iran. The West is currently engaged in an escalating dispute with Tehran over its nuclear program and is seeking to win guarantees from Iran that it is not developing nuclear arms.
"We are thinking quite clearly of Iran," Moisi said of that reference by Chirac.
Chirac also indicated in Thursday's speech that the previous Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with massive and widespread destruction had been changed to a doctrine permitting a graduated and limited nuclear response.
He said that France had configured its nuclear arsenal -- widely believed to number between 200 and 300 warheads -- to be able to respond "flexibly and reactively" to any threat, by reducing the number of heads on certain missiles.
Such a move would enable it to conduct strikes on specific targets and limit the zone of destruction.
Both Maulny and Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, warned against drawing too swift a parallel with the US' so-called "mini-nukes," developed to destroy installations such as deep underground bunkers.
According to Maulny, Chirac's statements mark a clarification but not a fundamental change to the nuclear doctrine he outlined in 2001.
"Chirac is saying: France is adapting, We are applying the same strategic thought but to deeply different circumstances," Moisi said.
Heisbourg saw a similarity with British strategic policy "in terms of the ability to shoot missiles that are not equipped with their full payload."
"That gives the possibility of extending the range but also of carrying out something other than a massive strategic strike," he said.
But above all, Heisbourg argued that Chirac, who is nearing the end of his term in office, had delivered a "heritage speech, a nuclear testament, in relation to which future presidential candidates are called upon to position themselves."
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS