“Nuclear deterrence has made it possible to limit the risk of total war”

The war imposed for more than a year by Russia on Ukraine has reminded the world of the reality of atomic fear, regularly brandished by the Kremlin, at the risk of a formidable escalation. Each time that Moscow has waved the red rag of the bomb, it is necessary to emphasize on the contrary the mastery of the endowed powers that are the United States, France and the United Kingdom, not responding to Russian threats.

In the Muscovite agitation, it was indeed the principle of deterrence that worked as it had been conceived since the 1950s, since the Russian leaders did not dare to go beyond these round effects, the forcing each time to backtrack, despite the apocalyptic roars pronounced on their television sets predicting the total destruction of London and Paris.

The security provided by NATO

In the same way, it is the reality of deterrence that prevents Moscow from broadening its field of action in Europe, knowing very well that the risk is too great to want to attack the countries of Eastern Europe , because of article 5 of NATO and membership of the European Union. This double security is indeed ultimately supported by nuclear weapons.

In fact, the aggression of a non-equipped country by a country with nuclear weapons risks accelerating proliferation. Indeed, in the absence of such a weapon, a State may feel threatened and therefore will seek to remedy this strategic imbalance. This is the case of North Korea, which already has this capability, and Iran, whose military program is progressing inexorably. But this is also what China is doing by building new ballistic missile silos that could strike other continents.

It should also be noted that, for several years, it is indeed the balance of power and the expression of imperial ambitions that have shaped international relations with the questioning of the principles of law patiently built up over decades. What is a UN resolution worth today? At best it appears as a form of international opinion poll. Moscow knows this perfectly well and plays it fully.

The Role of Christians

So what role for Christians in the face of this risk of nuclear Armageddon? Should the Church of France abstain from participating in this debate? Should we sheath the sword and turn our cheek? First of all, and contrary to what was written in the column published on March 13, the Conference of Bishops of France updated its thinking on this subject in 2018-2019 with in-depth work in which I personally participated, associating notably Pax Christi and Justice and Peace, and which already took into account a clear hardening of international tensions. Since then, the CEF has continued to be kept informed and to dialogue at the best level on this issue, which is more complex and sensitive than ever.

My observation at the time, as today, is that disarmament is certainly the ultimate and desirable goal, but that, in the current state of things, renouncing deterrence would have no effect, except is to weaken our own collective security.

The immoral nuclear?

Of course, it would be so easy to join mainstream thinking around nuclear disarmament with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Tian). And thus give yourself a good conscience at a good price: nuclear power is immoral. After that ? Suggest that France be the good student by renouncing the weapon in the hope that it will be a school? Our democracies are spontaneously sensitive to the sirens of disarmament: less money for the bomb, more money for the hospitals. However, note that Moscow has never refrained from bombing Syrian or Ukrainian hospitals…

Let’s be aware of the seriousness of the period. How not to mention in a text on military nuclear the States which openly display ambitions of conquest and threats? But it is true that it is much easier to demonstrate in front of Balard (headquarters of the Ministry of the Armed Forces) than to protest in Moscow, Tehran or Pyongyang, which do not care about their public opinion. Should nuclear weapons be left only to totalitarian states?

It is not a question of giving up. Quite the contrary, it is a question of continuing or rather of trying to resume discussions on the limitation of arms, of putting in place control mechanisms. In this regard, the churches have a facilitating role to play. But by remaining realistic and firm in the face of those who “play” with the bomb. Let us not take the wrong fight: today and tomorrow too, honesty is to recognize that – despite its amoral dimension – deterrence has made it possible to limit the risk of total war, including in Europe, as currently illustrated by the war of aggression waged by Russia against Ukraine.

---

Source

---