Frances Threat

[zero]

I read an article today http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum....ages&tid=111652

That Chirac had mentioned something along the lines of using tactical nuclear weapons on terrorist friendly nations.... How do all of you feel about that.?
I am decidedly against the idea.

[goyincognito]

Such rhetoric is not as uncommon as one would think; the United States has long employed threats of tactical nuclear strikes as part of their overall policy of deterence. The United States threatened to use nuclear weapons on any state that provided terrorists with nuclear weapons for use against American interests in the days following 9/11. France, being one of the strongest of the nuclear powers and itself having interests that have always been their own and not necessarily on the same page as the rest of the Western powers, have no reason not to employ such rhetoric as well.

As to whether or not they would be willing to use nukes...France has done some pretty screwed up things in its history in furtherance of its own national interest (Algeria, anyone?), but I would only imagine a nation under NATO would utilize nuclear weapons as a countermeasure if nuclear weapons were launched against them first. And technically, under NATO treaties, if anyone used nuclear weapons against France, not only would France be obliged to respond with nukes, but the rest of NATO would too!

Detente is probably still going to work...Mutually Assured Destruction is as potent now as it was during the Cold War, only now there's just many more than 2 actors involved. No state wants to be caught launching a first strike with nukes and thus essentially signing their own warrant to become a radioactive glass parking lot at the hands of the rest of the world.

So the answer is definitely no - I highly doubt they would follow through on that unless a real nuclear attack was attempted on French soil.

[expatben]

I agree with Goy, its just blowing smoke. I doubt France, or anyother majour nation will use a nuc. Heck if every government made good on every threat we would have all be incinerted by now!

[Joker]

France is one of the view Western countries that has violated the bans against nuclear testing, FYI.

They also, as Goy said quite clearly, have an agenda typically not in line with any other Western countries.

This being said:

I seriously doubt its more than sabre-rattling. Chirac wouldn't want to upset the already tenuous situation that exists with the Muslim population in his own country should he decide to pull the trigger...

[chelseafc05]

goy's covered it..

[Tadpole]

France isnt refering to useing full blown out nukes but much much smaller ones. A fraction of the size of hiroshima.

But im still confused. I didnt know the French military actually had weapons...

[goyincognito]

Originally posted by Tadpole@Jan 23 2006, 06:35 PM
France isnt refering to useing* full blown out nukes but much much smaller ones.* A fraction of the size of hiroshima.

So...hold on a second bro...are you saying that using so-called "tactical" nukes which have a smaller blast radius than a full hydrogen bomb is somehow better? Just think about that for a second - "tactical" nuclear weapons have the same fallout effect, the same political reprecussions, the same inevitable nuclear reprisals (which definitely WOULDN'T be tactical), the same unpredictability (as to the direction of the fallout effect and the total number of casualties), etc. Of these, only the fallout would be on a smaller scale.

In fact, there is absolutely no difference except the size of the blast and the final number of dead from incineration or radiation poisoning. 200,000 dead as opposed to 2,000,000.

Great!

[nemesis331]

france wouldn't do shit..in my opinion they could get nuked and still wouldnt react with force. they always get bailed out by other countries and then never return the favor.

they might as well spend their money on something they will actually use

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by nemesis331@Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM
france wouldn't do shit..in my opinion they could get nuked and still wouldnt react with force.* they always get bailed out by other countries and then never return the favor.*

they might as well spend their money on something they will actually use

[snapback]99655[/snapback]

dude that was over half a century ago..im priddy sure that they would use force

[Tadpole]

"Mini-Nukes

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area."

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.html

[Joker]

the question of whether or not France would or wouldn't use a full on ICBM-styled "mutual assured destruction" nuclear device, or a "briefcase bomb" type is not the issue.

What is the issue is the sabre rattling the French govnerment is doing here. The history in only the past several years of its lack of willingness to support the US in pursuit of terrorist countries/regimes and its own inability to deal with internal terrorism (remember the 20 or so days of rioting last fall?) as well as the Cote d'Azur issues makes any claim it renders regarding to world affairs moot.

Unfortunately, (and this will bring 'em outta the woodwork here) France is faced with the ongoing dilemma of being marginalized on the world stage. What was one an empire, a power to be reckoned with, has been reduced to a sniveling limp noodle that attempts to make grand claims to garner attention. Yes, they have tactical nuclear weapons. But so do the Israelis. And the Brits. And several other NATO involved countries. Them stating something as rediculous as this is again, sabre rattling. The rest of the NATO countries simply need to pat France on the head, say, "That's nice, dear." and go about their business.

[LiveFreeorDie]

France must be one of the most schizophrenic countries I have ever seen. They have some of the most restrictive internal social policies with respect to the assimilation of foregin cultures (remember the head scarf law?). Also, apparently, they have one of the most highly developed anti-terrorist intelligence organizations in the world. Yet, when it comes to supporting military actions against potential sponsors of terrorism (or anyone else for that matter, including Hitler at the time) they curl up into a ball.

Then, Chirac issues a statement like this? Wild. I suspect perhaps France is finally wiseing up to the fact that in spite of their terrorist friendly foreign policy, they are still a target and thus wanted to make a firm statement as to their options in the event of an attack. Whatever. France is generally all talk all the time, just like NPR. I would give about as much consideration to comments Chirac makes as I do to any purported 'facts' that come out of Bush's mouth at this point.