ABSTRACT
The official emphasis on nuclear weapons as the guarantors of France's sovereignty and security has been articulated in uncompromising terms. Criticisms of the FAR proposal demonstrate how even modest force improvements oriented to possible conventional cooperation with allies can be perceived as risking decoupling nuclear from conventional weapons and drawing France into a forward battle in which freedom of decision and independence might be lost. The stress on assured deterrence through nuclear weapons obscures practical and political problems associated with possible contributions in conventional contingencies in Central Europe. The dominant French policy elites oppose conceding readily the contingency of limited war in Europe as harmful to deterrence and in contradiction to the nuclear-based French logic of nonwar, nonbattle, and nonuse that upholds France's independent security posture. The official NATO strategy of flexible response has been viewed with suspicion in France for over twenty years, ever since the United States began advocating the concept in 1961.
