French political scientist Bruno Tertrais, deputy director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, is one of the leading Western experts on nuclear deterrence. Did you just post Pax atomica? Theory, practice and limits of deterrence (Odile Jacob). Tertrais spoke to La Vanguardia about the validity of the atomic weapon and the fear of using it in Ukraine.
What did you think of the film Oppenheimer?
I didn’t think it was Christopher Nolan’s best film, but it does show quite well the question of the responsibility of scientists in the face of a major political decision. I don’t think that the most interesting thing about the Project from a historical point of view is the film Manhattan, except for the part about the Oppenheimer process, which reminds us how paranoid the United States was at that time.
Do you think that, despite moral and ethical reservations, the world is safer with nuclear weapons?
Yes, this is the crux of the problem. It can be thought that the atomic bomb raises serious ethical problems and, at the same time, that it has made it possible to contain large-scale political violence between the major powers. The nuclear weapon does not ensure world peace, but it considerably limits the risks of a major military confrontation.
Recently, the British, for the second time, failed to test a missile. Can we be sure that nuclear weapons stored for decades would actually work?
The main thing is that the opponent believes that they would work. This is the particularity of deterrence. It is a psychological process that takes place in the head of the opponent. There are no major nuclear tests today, but it would be quite unreasonable for an adversary to bet on the weapons not working. About the British case, it is very strange that there are two failures in test launches. It is a US missile that has proven its reliability. These accidents are due, perhaps, to the lack of investment in London in its deterrence, but it is too early to know what went well. It is quite possible that it was a problem with the submarine and not the missile.
In his book he says that nuclear deterrence assumes a minimum of rationality. How is this rationality guaranteed?
Rationality is shared by most political actors. The issue is not so much rationality but reason. Mr. Putin is rational, but he is not unreasonable. Deterrence is based on the idea that two adversaries can understand each other a little better. It is true that it is based on some conditions. You cannot be sure that they will always be respected.
Do you think that the fear of a nuclear escalation in the war in Ukraine is not justified?
I think it’s excessive but understandable. Excessive because I do not believe at all that Vladimir Putin is tempted to use a nuclear weapon, but at the same time it is understandable because a Western head of state or government has an essential responsibility: not to be at war with a nuclear power .
And wouldn’t you use it even if Ukraine regained all the territory occupied today?
If Ukraine were to recover all the territory, the issue could indeed be raised in Moscow, but that would not mean that we were on the brink of a nuclear war. The use of nuclear weapons was considered dozens of times during the cold war and no one used them.
A former KGB spy, Sergei Zhirnov, once told me that Putin wanted to be the second man in history, after Truman, to use a nuclear weapon to show the world that Russia is strong and capable of anything. what do you think
I don’t think Jirnov knows anything about nuclear weapons. In any case, we can be concerned by the reference made by Putin, in September 2022, when he announced the annexation of the Ukrainian regions. He spoke of the precedent of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions. In my book I say that the heads of state or government that used nuclear weapons today would be, in a way, equal to the United States. I therefore understand the reasoning, but this does not bring us any closer to the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.
Speaking of NATO’s nuclear deterrence, and therefore of France, the only EU country with this capability, one wonders if the West, NATO, the United States, France, would be willing to die for Riga, for a republic baltic Would it go as far as the nuclear option in the event of a Russian attack?
The essential thing, once again, is what goes through Putin’s head, not mine or his. The question is whether Putin would think that we, the French, the Europeans, would be willing to die for Riga. I personally think that it is perhaps more believable that France would die for a European country than that the United States would die for a European country.
Simply because it is closer and the threat is more direct?
Exactly.
Where are we in the case of Iran and its nuclear program?
For a year already, if not a year ago, Iran has the technical ability to produce in a few days, if it decides to, enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. But that doesn’t mean you can have the gun in a few days. It would take months of work to manufacture the artifact. The question is whether Iran will one day decide to overcome this threshold. Right now nothing suggests it, but it would be unwise to bet that it never will.
Will the US and Israel tolerate it reaching the bomb?
I have always thought that the threshold of what is intolerable for the United States and Israel would be the manufacture of an operational widget.
But was it tolerated in North Korea?
It is a very different situation on the legal and strategic level.
Because China is behind, I imagine…
No, that’s not why. First, North Korea announced the withdrawal of the non-proliferation treaty, while Iran intends to respect this treaty. Secondly, Iran does not recognize the existence of Israel, so it poses a relevant problem to that country. The third point is that the risk of a wave of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would be greater than in East Asia, where several countries, such as South Korea and Japan, are protected by the United States’ nuclear deterrent. This is not the case in Saudi Arabia.
