Fiche du document
22 avril 2021
- handle: 10670/1.qauuhv
- hal: hal-03384731
- doi: 10.1080/09662839.2020.1855147
- SCIENCESPO: 2441/15rsmaqnlq994plblqcecn8vuo
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/09662839.2020.1855147
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/hdl/2441/15rsmaqnlq994plblqcecn8vuo
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement//841764/EU/Strategic Narrative of Nuclear Order/SNNO
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
European security nuclear deterrence democracy reversification survey data conflicts of interestSujets proches
CaseCiter ce document
Kjolv Egeland et al., « European nuclear weapons? Zombie debates and nuclear realities », Archive ouverte de Sciences Po (SPIRE), ID : 10.1080/09662839.2020.1855147
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
In February 2020, French president Emmanuel Macron invited all interested European states to a “strategic dialogue” on the supposed contribution of France’s nuclear arsenal to European collective security. While certain media commentators relayed Macron’s intervention with approbation and excitement, framing the proposal as an exciting new idea that, if implemented, might boost Europe’s clout on the world stage, the dominant reaction was one of ennui. After all, the argument for Euro-nukes is far from new. In fact, several (mostly French) actors have unsuccessfully attempted to persuade European policymakers of the necessity of European nuclear weapons cooperation for more than half a century. In this article, we investigate the history, merits, and longevity of the case for European nuclear arms. Drawing on secondary literature, policymakers’ writings, and two hitherto untapped surveys of European public opinion conducted by one of the authors, we argue that the case for Euro-nukes is critically flawed with respect to security, strategic autonomy, futurity, and democratic good governance. We maintain that the continuous resurfacing of the “zombie” case for Euro-nukes is made possible by powerful organisational interests, as well as conceptual reversification resulting in enduring contradictions between nuclear vulnerabilities and claims of protection and autonomy.