DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of NATO in the French White Paper and Implications for Nuclear Arms Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of NATO in the French White Paper and Implications for Nuclear Arms Control Arms Control Association (ACA) British American Security Information Council (BASIC) Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) Nuclear Policy Paper No. 15 October 2013 Jean-Marie Collin The Role of NATO in the French White Paper and implications for nuclear arms control Introduction Defence and National Securityi (LBDSN). Among the major strategic concepts By fully reinstating France into the military mentioned in the Paper, nuclear deterrence command structure of the North Atlantic is of course reaffirmed as a central element Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2009, then- of France´s security. President Nicolas Sarkozy wished to conclude a process that had begun in the Following the previous White Paper’s early 1990s, with François Mitterrand and continuity, a virtual deadlock is observed on Jacques Chirac in 1995 having had initiated topics related to nuclear arms control, the first reconciliations. The purpose of this nuclear disarmament and NATO tactical return to the Alliance - after the withdrawal nuclear weapons, which nevertheless made in 1966 by General De Gaulle - is directly affect the security of France and the much more political than military. Hubert rest of Europe. Lack of an official position Védrine’s famous phrase: "friends, allies, on these issues in such a strategic document not aligned", still defines the relationship proves the existence of a French timidity. between France and NATO. Moreover, it is essential to keep in mind the fact that This paper examines the relationship that France, despite its return to NATO’s France has with NATO, particularly through military command, is the only ally out of 28 its policy of nuclear deterrence in a not a member of the Nuclear Planning European context, and also during a time Group (NPG). when tactical nuclear weapons are less and less accepted by the international All of these political and military elements community. about France and NATO are found throughout the new French White Paper on Functions and role of a white paper France is undoubtedly one of the major military powers of the world. It has the third The author is a defence analyst and Coordinator for Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament in France. largest nuclear arsenal (300 warheads) after schedule. This shows that the drafting Russia and the United States, it is exercise was not easy, which was for two unilaterally able to carry out conventional main reasons: This White Paperiii was not military operations (as in Mali), and conceived in the context of an arrival or possesses its own command and control and disappearance of a new military power, or satellite capabilities. It has thus held a major with a new growing awareness of role in most crisis resolutions (as in the terrorism’s potential. It emerged out of the Republic of Georgia in 2008) and military tension between the return to power of the operations over the last twenty years left (under François Hollande) after 18 years (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Libya). in the wilderness and the growing demands The latest French White Paper outlines these of austerity caused by the global nuclear and conventional military economic crisis. This White Paper focuses capabilities, recent military operations, on three priorities for the defence strategy of command structures, and more generally, its France: “protection of the territory and the defence policy. population, nuclear deterrence, and intervention by the armed forces outside the The publication of this document is a rare national territory.” process; the decision to make a new one is taken only by the President. Only four The White Paper does not establish any new White Papers have been published since the laws. It is a document that expresses first issue in 1972. Clearly, the first Paper reflection, proposals or recommendations to was published with the aim of generating the government – mainly to the parliament. political will to help build support for the “The timeframe for this White Paper is ... a theoretical bases of nuclear deterrence. At long-term one, extending over some 15 that time France had implemented its years”iv, which is typical of French White nuclear submarine component in addition to Papers. In reality, however, the period of 15 its air component (in operation since 1964) years is probably only virtual, as the and the land-based component (operating publication of this fourth White Paper since 1971). The second White Paper comes only five years after the Sarkozy published in 1994 was justified by the end White Paperv (in 2009) was published. In of the Cold War and the agreement to use fact, it is primarily a policy and strategy conventional military capabilities for paper with a pedagogic purpose as with external action, which was at the heart of the many other countries like Germany and the defence doctrine. The third White Paper, United Kingdom. Finally, the White Paper commissioned by President Sarkozyii in seeks to validate concepts that were already 2008, came after September 11, 2001 when confirmed (decrease the size of the armed there was more awareness around the threat forcesvi, purchase drones), concepts or of international terrorism. The innovation of geopolitical visions which begin to be more this White Paper was to add a strategic present in international relations (like the function, which binds “defence” and Arcticvii issue that appears for the first time “homeland security” together. Therefore, in the White Paper, designed as an emerging since that date, the document’s full formal strategic priority; or the recognition of cyber name has been: “The White Paper on threats and development of cyber defence Defence and National Security”. capabilities), and finally, strongly reaffirms the concept of defence. The pillar of nuclear In July 2012, President Hollande (elected in deterrence is a perfect example: May) established a committee to write a new version of the White Paper. Normally, • “Nuclear deterrence aims to protect us it should have been validated in December from any aggression against our vital 2012. Nevertheless, it was published in interests emanating from a State, wherever April 29, 2013, four months behind Nuclear Policy Paper No. 15 - Collin – NATO in the French White Paper page 2 it may come from and whatever form it joining NATO’s integrated military may take”. viii command structures, France intended to take • “The navy will contribute to nuclear back its rightful place in the functioning of deterrence with the naval aviation nuclear an organisation of which it is one of the force and through permanent nuclear- founding members".xiv powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarine patrols.” ix Moreover, Frances’ return to NATO’s • “The air force will continue to ensure military command is highlighted with the permanent deployment of the air "award to a French general officer the post component of the mission of deterrence”.x of Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) allows France to However, it is necessary to keep in mind participate actively in the process of that the Committee in charge of writing this renovating the Alliance’s means of new White Paper was not assigned to work action."xv Admittedly, the appointment of on nuclear deterrence. In the engagement General Jean-Paul Palomerosxvi is very letter, addressed to the President of the important as great proof of NATO’s (or White Paper Committee (13 July 2012), rather the United States’) confidence President Hollande was very clear: "I have towards France, because for the first time already confirmed the maintenance of our since 1949, the Atlantic Alliance entrusts strategy of nuclear deterrence”.xi one of its two strategic commands to a non- American. White Paper on NATO nuclear policy Like in the previous White Paper from One month after the publication of the 2008xvii, France displays with great clarity White Paper, NATO Secretary General that its nuclear force is completely Anders Fogh Rasmussen, showed the independent: "The independent strategic importance that NATO assigned to this nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and document by writing a long article in Le France, which have their own deterrent, Mondexii: contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies".xviii A logical policy “The publication of the new White continuum follows: even if France has fully Paper on security and defence is an reintegrated into NATO, it is still not a important event for France. It is member of the Nuclear Planning Group - equally important for the Atlantic NATO's decision-making authority with Alliance. [...] Our Alliance of regard to the issues of nuclear policy. The sovereign countries based on French deterrent strategy remains faithful to solidarity of the Musketeers is so its political line and continues to rely on the dear to the French: "One for all and Ottawa Declaration of 1974 and the 1999 all for one!" President François Strategic Concept. Hollande has just reaffirmed how much France needed a strong White Paper and Tactical Nuclear defence. I can say from my point of Weapons view how NATO needs a strong and driving French defence.” Only the 1994 White Paper indicated twice the existence of tactical nuclear weapons. It This kindness reflects the status given to acknowledged that the Strategic Arms NATO in this White Paper. The document Reduction Treaty II (START II) agreement expresses clearly that "[o]ur defence and would have a positive impact on the national security strategy cannot be reduction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The French White Paper on Defence and National Security (2008) 3
    FRENCH DEFENCE 2009 Texts and exercises by Philippe Rostaing : 1. French Defence Organization 2. French Defence Policy : the French White Paper on Defence and National Security (2008) 3. The French Army 4. The French Air Force 5. The French Navy 6. The French Gendarmerie 7. Intelligence and the French Intelligence Community Update : March 2009 1 1. French Defence Organization Read this text carefully. You will then be able to do the following exercises : President of the French Republic Prime Minister Defence Minister Armed Forces Chief of Staff Army Chief Air Force Navy Chief Gendarmerie of Staff Chief of of Staff Director- Staff General 1. The Constitution of October 4th,1958, gives the President of the French Republic the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Article 15). In his capacity as guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and treaty compliance (Article 5), he alone may decide to commit nuclear forces. Within specific councils under his authority (the Council of Ministers, the Defence Council), the President defines national defence policies and makes decisions in defence matters. He is responsible for appointing senior civilian and military officials (Article 13). 2. The French government determines and executes national policies and thus may use armed force (Article 20). The Prime Minister has responsibility for national defence. He implements the decisions made by the President and is supported by the General Secretariat for National Defence (SGDN) in charge of interdepartmental defence coordination. 3. The Defence Minister has authority over the Ministry of Defence and executes military defence policies. He reports directly to the Prime Minister.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailored Deterrence - a French Perspective
    50 TAILORED DETERRENCE - A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE Bruno TERTRAIS France is not at the forefront of the debate within NATO on the future of deterrence and retains a fairly conservative nuclear policy. However, the evolution of the French nuclear deterrent has been largely in tune with US and UK policies. Nuclear Deterrence With Smaller Arsenals Nuclear weapons will remain the ultimate guarantee of a nation’s survival for the foreseeable future. There is no alternative means of defense on the horizon which may threaten in a credible way the complete destruction of a State as a coherent entity, in just a few minutes. Conventional weapons could conveivably do the job, but only through repeated and multiple raids and with a lesser guarantee of success. Moreover, conventional weapons cannot instill in the adversary’s mind the very peculiar fear induced by nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are arguably as scary as nuclear ones - and perhaps even more so, in particu- lar for public opinion. But their use can be controlled only with difficulty. More importantly, they are not able to physically destroy government buildings, factories, command posts and arsenals. Unless perhaps deployed in space in very large numbers, strategic defenses will not be effective against a large number of missiles equipped with decoys and multiple warheads. Finally, threatening some particular hardened targets will continue to be possible only by nuclear means. But future deterrence will be ensured with smaller nuclear arse- nals. In the coming twenty years, Western nuclear stockpiles will continue *Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, France. 51 to be reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Warheads
    OObservatoire des armes nucléaires françaises The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons looks forward to the elimination of nuclear weapons in conformity with the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To that end, the Observatory disseminates follow-ups of information in the forms of pamphlets and entries on the World Wide Web: • on the evolution of French nuclear forces; • on the on-going dismantling of nuclear sites, weapons, production facilities, and research; • on waste management and environmental rehabilitation of sites; • on French policy regarding non-proliferation; • on international cooperation (NGO’s, international organizations, nations), toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; • on the evolution of the other nuclear powers’ arsenals. The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons was created at the beginning of the year 2000 within the Center for Documentation and Research on Peace and Conflicts (CDRPC). It has received support from the W. Alton Jones Foundation and the Ploughshares Fund. C/o CDRPC, 187 montée de Choulans, F-69005 Lyon Tél. 04 78 36 93 03 • Fax 04 78 36 36 83 • e-mail : [email protected] Site Internet : www.obsarm.org Dépôt légal : mai 2001 - 1ère édition • édition anglaise : novembre 2001 ISBN 2-913374-12-3 © CDRPC/Observatoire des armes nucléaires françaises 187, montée de Choulans, 69005 Lyon (France) Table of contents The break-down of nuclear disarmament ....................................................................................................................................... 5 The
    [Show full text]
  • Vito Marcantonio Part 3 of 25
    1;:__%_43_.v__V?L_1___5__'q,_M92J__"gmi__4__"____!_*_!_EI,_~A___:_____"I?__y___:_92____1_ f,_¢V_I1L W ___Vk§__92?_H3_?_H__ld__ _v'_ 3 v __ vA_LV LQ:__ I___W!_3qr_Jf LA?__V!V___x&M,,_____ TIAF H J__7]_4,_Mr_J.hA_v" I1_a__"$__________J'1f _im'___F;V.JV__2:__'kME CF ___f_R3_y_92_hr_v_92_N_;,___m__wmiA;kr__'_I-K____,___!292__I__V, _ _MT 92 WJ_G/_'__4___92_r*2 __W:_______i A___§'___:_#F; JJM_Ak_yS1w::__!_,__u __lg!$_i__!m;_______v,QgN H _ ___>___PM_{J_Vk_Jq_~_Uvv_H,R__.':'__|1hrv V1HR ,5.'!*92H.I]r92 _'W _ _L_*kMT:_!_an_______v._'in__xyr t~ _ _ if1|__~__;___!___?__>_4_H_._ __hr_wHNUy?_ivh;_H_m_ M 7 ¢_W :K___&_____l21_/R >3_"___;%_h__n___'_v__V»v_tr___'V J ___i______>MtL_,Jx _{IL____:__r__!_ K_ ____V'__y___rE'"__ J; WC,___}wr~ __H: _ WWzfi~_F¬_;_Y_v____A1___'_5V"lmy_____,q_lV___W_'_Y___KMF__%""__H_v____92__>__,_____ W _ __F_WW4*_WE 1_____w_M___W__?__L|5; _ LJP?r___M_M_Evvi$m?v_wn?_§¥Ma 7{whm___iA_R_I 1: H/~@_YaTh___H_"I_{n_7F_____n92_1,___._*!Hb_iIa_m%y_,"_w__'__#_¢_,_.92_L__L__;__1II A92IK{IVS Il!_i'|___&h__ _ av*__W!_P__!___,_r_&ux_,___J_iKn______:'__"H,H_£_r_'_____ _92C}_ 4 hNh!_§¬p}Ex_A_N%g.:5%}! y ,,___A:3__L,r_"_ . V i_A__.7M_wv_:_1'__N_HIifmmi_gM.§_'__;__gin!r_%__W_"_qhhw_WW_H___mj__H ~WbiA_ W__H__Ik__A_aAm%fmrx$5m_w'_H!|LN&_UArm_w?Wm_92__u_w!___T IW iifH>_H__x____#M_Mq 1 __K61_ i Ihi_My___'ivé éN_%_M_J_~__,__,___r_4{__FJ-R5___if__f_92__,_4'1._____4_S92___TI_v_V_6Mn?ty+iihi$3Em%%E¥av%%*£3x!_Jw_§;92_;W§i_¢'__r}__h__M1i_£3q;A¢jHhM__H_nuNM4mv__f%1%?W/pg92_'7.
    [Show full text]
  • 60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 - 2018 Part 4: Europe & Canada Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 4: Europe & Canada. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2A: United States - Submarines Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction
    Nuclear futures: Western European options for nuclear risk reduction Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer & Stephen Young British American Security Information Council and the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), December 1998 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Chapter One: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Policy in Western Europe Chapter Two: The United Kingdom Chapter Three: France Chapter Four: Nuclear Co-operation Chapter Five: NATO Europe Chapter Six: Nuclear Risk Reduction in Western Europe Endnotes About the authors Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non-governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASIC’s Washington office. Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC. Previously, he worked for 20/20 Vision and for ACCESS: A Security Information Service. He has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a BA from Carleton College. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many people who pro-vided help of various kinds during the writing of this report. They include: Nicola Butler, for her inestimable assistance; Ambassador James Leonard, for his helpful comments on the report’s recommendations; Professors Paul Rogers and Patricia Chilton, for their comments on early drafts; Daniel Plesch, for his comments on the entire report; and Camille Grand, for his guidance and support in compiling the section on France. Special thanks to Lucy Amis and Tanya Padberg for excellent proofing and copy-editing work, and to Christine Kucia and Kate Joseph for advice and assistance on the layout and design of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States
    Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States Ian Kearns Discussion Paper 1 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy Published by British American Security Information Council (BASIC) November 2011 BASIC in London BASIC in Washington The Grayston Centre 110 Maryland Avenue NE 28 Charles Square Suite 205 London N1 6HT Washington DC 20002 Tel: +44 (0) 207 324 4680 Tel: +1 (0) 202 546 8055 Acknowledgements Author BASIC and the BASIC Trident Commission are grateful to Dr Ian Kearns is the Chief Executive of the European the Ploughshares Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Leadership Network (ELN), a member of the BASIC Trident the Polden Puckham Charitable Trust and the Nuclear Commission, and works as a consultant to the Commission Information Trust for their financial support of the work of and to RUSI on nuclear issues. Previously Ian was Acting the Commission. We would also like to thank all those who Director and Deputy Director of the Institute for Public have contributed to the work of the Commission by Policy Research (IPPR) in the United Kingdom and Deputy submitting evidence and otherwise engaging in our activities. Chair of the IPPR’s independent All-Party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, serving under co-chairs, BASIC would also like to thank the BASIC Trident Lord George Robertson and Lord Paddy Ashdown. He also Commissioners for their unpaid involvement in this enterprise. served in 2010 as a Specialist Adviser to the Joint House of Commons/House of Lords Committee on National Security.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
    Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons in Europe: British and French Deterrence Forces in a European Context Has Come to the Fore in Recent Years
    Questions about the meaning, role and utility of nuclear deterrence forces deterrence and French British in Europe: weapons Nuclear in a European context has come to the fore in recent years. Russia has reemphasized the role of a full-spectrum nuclear arsenal. This includes increased reliance on substrategic nuclear weapons for battlefield use, to compensate for its perceived inferiority in conventional armaments. In Europe, the main multilateral and intergovernmental institutions and cooperation have been put under strain as a result of several negative developments. As a consequence the UK and France, Europe’s two nuclear powers, are debating the role and composition of their respective deterrent forces. Multiple, complex security dilemmas, and the possibility that established alliances and partnerships might not be sufficiently reliable, inform the choices that have to be made. The study concludes that while the current arsenals will remain fundamental to national security, their long term futures are far from certain. Budgetary constraints, domestic politics, and strategic perceptions informed by national nuclear mentalities are the main factors determining the outcome and composition of French and British arsenals beyond 2030. Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Niklas Granholm, John Rydqvist FOI-R--4587--SE ISSN1650-1942 www.foi.se April 2018 Niklas Granholm John Rydqvist Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Bild/Cover: HMS Victorious returning to Clyde. Photo UK MoD. FOI-R--4587--SE Titel Kärnvapen I Europa: Storbritanniens och Frankrikes kärnvapenarsenaler Title Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Rapportnr/Report no FOI-R--4587--SE Månad/Month April Utgivningsår/Year 2018 Antal sidor/Pages 79 ISSN 1650-1942 Kund/Customer Försvarsdepartementet Forskningsområde 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Background Further Details on MBDA And
    [Unofficial English translation] Introduction The exclusion of EADS from the investment universe of the Government Pension Fund – Global has been reviewed. There is no longer a basis for exclusion of the company from investments related to involvement in the production of cluster munitions. The recommendation to exclude the company is however upheld because the company is involved in production of key components to nuclear weapons. Background On 16 June 2005, the Advisory Council on Ethics for the Government Petroleum Fund submitted its recommendation on exclusion of companies that are involved in the production of cluster munitions.1 The company EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) was among the companies that were recommended for exclusion. The basis for the exclusion of EADS was that the company in a letter to Norges Bank dated June 8, 2005, stated that the company owned the company TDA in a joint venture with the company Thales S.A. Moreover, EADS stated that TDA produced the mortar ammunition PR Cargo, which the Council considered to be cluster ammunition according to the Fund’s ethical guidelines. In a new letter to Norges Bank, dated 21 March, 2006, EADS stated that the company no longer is an owner of TDA and, thus, that there is no longer a basis for exclusion of the company from investments related to involvement in production of cluster munitions. On 19 September 2005, the Council submitted its recommendation on exclusion of companies that develop and produce nuclear weapons.2 EADS is mentioned in this recommendation because of its ownership in the company MBDA and its involvement in the development of the nuclear missile M51.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Innovation for Defence and Security Defence and Security Businesses and Organisations in Bretagne Defence and Security, Bretagne at the Forefront
    Defence & Security TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION for defence and security DEFENCE AND SECURITY BUSINESSES AND ORGANISATIONS IN BRETAGNE DEFENCE AND SECURITY, Bretagne at the forefront Morlaixixix Lannion Saint-Malo As France’s 5th industrial region, Brestt Guingamp DEFENCE AND SECURITY Bretagne has always been IN BRETAGNE: Saint-Brieuc prominent on the nation’s Chateaulin Dinan Fougères A COMPREHENSIVE Presqu'île maritime and military scene. This INDUSTRY de Crozon Loudéac Rennes is truer today than ever before since the region is making Quimper • DGA (government defence procurement Pontivy significant headway in the leading agency), Marine Nationale (French Navy) hi-tech sectors, drawing on the • 2 large groups - Thales and DCNS businesses that make it a key • 383 businesses (50% services Lorient player in defending France’s and research, 50% industry) Redon sovereignty. • The Pôle National d’Excellence Chateaubriant Vannes Cyber (national cyber area) • 7 innovation clusters • 11 grandes écoles and university Ancenis Saint-Nazaire establishments Nantes • 7 resource centres, platforms and technical centres TYPE OF ORGANISATION • 47 research teams Centre for technological innovation Source: CTCI Défense & Sécurité – May 2014 The CTCI Defence & Security is a an informal technical Business consultative body managed by Bretagne Développement Innovation. Its membership includes: IEF AERO, Bretagne Pôle Research team Naval, Direccte Bretagne, Pôle Mer Bretagne Atlantique, Images & Réseaux, Meito, Photonics Bretagne, the Chambre de Commerce Training
    [Show full text]
  • L'importance De La Dissuasion Nucleaire Pour Le Tissu Industriel De
    L’IMPORTANCE DE LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE POUR LE TISSU INDUSTRIEL DE DEFENSE FRANÇAIS1 COMITÉ : Comité Industrie de Défense – ANAJ-IHEDN Introduction Le 7 mars 1966, le Général de Gaulle annonçait la sortie de la France du commandement intégré de l’OTAN. Pour l’opinion publique, la surprise est totale. Le journal l’Aurore parle d’un « coup de poignard dans le dos » porté à nos alliés Américains, alors que le mécontentement de la population civile gronde également, déclenchant plusieurs manifestations sur le territoire français. En cause, plus de 50 000 emplois directs liés à la présence des bases américaines sur notre territoire. Néanmoins, la décision du Général est intimement liée à sa volonté de doter la France d’une force de frappe nucléaire indépendante et autonome à l’heure où le pays est encore doté d’ogives américaines dans le cadre de l’OTAN. Ainsi, si le premier essai nucléaire français – nom de code Gerboise bleue - a eu lieu en 1960, les dépenses en matière de dissuasion nucléaire vont peu à peu s’intensifier dans le but de doter le pays d’une arme fiable et efficace, en constante amélioration. 1967 sera l’année de tous les records, puisque la France consacre 1,2% de son PIB à l’arme atomique et aux moyens qui lui sont associés [1]. Les efforts budgétaires consentis paient rapidement. Le 24 août 1968, la première bombe H expérimentale française, Canopus, explose au-dessus de l’atoll de Fangataufa. La France expose au monde entier les progrès scientifiques de ses meilleurs atomistes. Au fil des années, c’est une véritable industrie qui s’érige ainsi sur le territoire afin de produire les éléments que nécessite la conception de cette force.
    [Show full text]