Since 1990, the scenarios of crises involving nuclear weapons have excluded nuclear war between major powers, that image of mutually assured destruction (MAD) which dominated strategic thinking during the Cold War. Over the past twenty years this has given place to scenarios of a major regional conflict involving the possible use of nuclear weapons, or acts of terror using nuclear or radiological weapons.

The nuclear weapon is thus no longer synonymous of apocalypse or the disappearance of humanity. But because it is an instrument whose effects are both terrifying and persistent (owing to radiation contamination), it still remains a factor for peace in the hands of the five major powers which possess it. War is no longer an option: a relatively small number of nuclear weapons are enough to destroy the essence of any nation, a fact demonstrated conclusively with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945.⁽¹⁾ This approach to deterrence remains pertinent, since it illustrates the fate of a state which might take the suicidal risk of using a nuclear weapon when facing another possessing a second strike capability. 

Ever since the appearance of this weapon, the debate about its abolition has never stopped. Surely it is now the time to try to escape from the black and white debate between two distinct positions: that which advocates complete disarmament (whether immediate or progressive), and its opposite, which defends the maintenance of colossal weapon stocks by (for instance) the United States and Russia? In this little club we can also put India and China, who are both pursuing the development and diversification of their arsenals. In this field France has perhaps shown the way to be followed in disarmament and nuclear strategy for its military nuclear strategy has multiple dimensions of strict self-sufficiency and strong operational credibility. One thing is certain: in nuclear affairs both pragmatism and realism are essential.