I don't think they'd actually do it. How long was France unable to control Muslim rioters after two boys were accidentally killed? France would fall from within if they ever nuked an Islamic country.
Printable View
I don't think they'd actually do it. How long was France unable to control Muslim rioters after two boys were accidentally killed? France would fall from within if they ever nuked an Islamic country.
Come on DD, you can't come into the backroom with a big sign round your neck saying Somebody Please Wind Me Up and not have somebody wind you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
And AII stop being naughty. You are upsetting Dave.
I know Britain has been considering redesigning its nukes to be a bit more practical. Not a lot of call for city-destroyers these days.
I wouldn't put just nuking Mecca and getting it all over with beyond Chirac...
I'm being generous to Adrian by taking his bait. If anything he could atleast show some gratitude and thank me.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
There was a speech by a countries leader not long ago , usual stuff you know , terrorism , rogue states and all that . Followed by something about full military might being brought to bear and all options being on the table .
Now would that full military might and all options include that countries nuclear capability ?
So Dave since your leadership has already said the same what is all this ...
Well, is there any outrage about this or because its not the US this is peachy to everyone?
......about ?
Chirac is a dickhead , just like Bush . Its in the job description .
That's about as likely as Chirac invading Germany, then going on television to tell Bush to 'sack up and get stuck in.'
If it was just blowing stuff up, kicking arse and taking names in Muppetistan I doubt the French would bother with nukes - that's what they have those nuts in the Legion Etrangere for.
I'm guessing Chirac's just trying a publicity stunt for the benefit of his party. Don't they have elections coming fairly soon ?
My God, you Americans are such a bunch of pussified pansies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
It's about time France does what all you bleeding heart liberal countries lack the guts for: we're going to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We're the only country with some balls anymore.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/france.gif
Vive la France, vive la République!
Wow, nuclear weapons against terrorists... This is actually even worse than anything the Bush administration has said lately. If he's serious, this can only be the tragic start of wide usage of nuclear weapons in non-emergency situations, which can only spiral away into full nuclear war in a not too distant future. Is it so difficult to understand that the moment the refusal to use nuclear weapons we've had since ww2 is broken, only a gradual increase of usage, until the total destruction of earth, can follow.
:laugh4: Well it looks like France wins this year's "Ball of Brass" award. Congrats!!!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
I think France is just trying to do the traditional french isolationist thing. Do what you want but leave us alone; no, we are not going to help, we are not going to send troops, we have teh bomb.
It's a disclaimer if you ask me.
So the perception is that threats made by France are nothing but hot air.
It may be hot air, but it will be great propoganda for the Iranian nutjob prez toi use to justify his seeking of nuke technology. I'm being serious for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartaq
Sorry I read a little more careful now - Chirac says "in the event of enemies using weapons of mass destruction against France". In that case it's a form of eye for eye, which is slightly better than what I first thought it was. But still not a good idea, because the terrorists aren't the same as their nation. If only Bush senior hadn't been a coward in the Gulf War and Bush junior hadn't handled the communication before the Iraq war so carelessly it would have been possible to carry out a strategy of forcing some kind of democratic system on all not yet democratic countries, and be successful with it, if their leaders carry out something inappropriate. Unfortunately the carelessness is starting to remove that possibility and worse and worse possibilities are left...
France isn't the first nuclear-capable country that says it can and will use nukes when and if it wants to. IIRC both Russia and the US keep the option open, it's just been a while since they needed to measure dicks on that scale.
It's partly what AdrianII said, a common sense re-evaluation of the goals of France's nuclear deterrent: "He also indicates that France's nuclear strategy has been redirected to reflect other than old-fashioned, major military threats to the nation.
Looks like common sense to me."
And a bit of what Watchman said: "I'm guessing Chirac's just trying a publicity stunt for the benefit of his party. Don't they have elections coming fairly soon?"
Yes, it's traditional Sabre-rattling in the best Gaullist tradition. (Chirac is the current leader of the Gaullist party). The next presidential elections are in 2007.
And a whole lot of what El_slappersaid: "Damn he's really too old now" :embarassed:
It's meant for a domestic audience, not as a threat or an announcement of any major shift in foreign policy.
Here's Chirac's full speech. Sorry, but understandably, it's in French.
An atomic bomb on a islamic country would be demographic suicide for France.
The ramblings of an old man that had too much wine.
An atomic bomb on a islamic country would be demographic suicide for France.
Why ? Have you invented some new demographics ?
So, if I understand what the French President said, is if France is attack by a STATE, through terrorist attack, France will defend herself with all her strength, and won’t exclude the use of Nuclear weapons, which goes from Intercontinental Missiles to Nuclear tactical Missiles (Ades, Goddess? of Death in Greek Mythology?).
Well, I supposed let’s say, if a Country despatch few pills of whatever product in the water supply of Paris, killing 2,000,000 inhabitants, I supposed that this country won’t be surprise to have her main towns vaporised. That is the Mutual Assured Destruction theorem. Before to start something, be aware of the consequences and be sure you want the consequences…
It didn’t say that France will retaliate immediately by nuclear weapons…
Now, less Bushism, more Marxism, if you don’t mind. The French riots weren’t a shock of civilisation, a Muslim up-rising and all this kind of crap. The rioters burned indifferently churches and mosque. I know it was not publish so much; it should have obliged the news to re-thing. And journalists like simple explanations for simple audience: Us.
France possesses Nuclear weapons from the 60’ or something like that. 10 years ago, the GIA, an Algerian Extremist Muslim Organisation put some bombs in sub-ways, transports and other public places. For what I know, Alger is still intact. Even better, when the Algerian President is sick, he goes in France to recover, in the Hopital Militaire, Military Hospital, for those of as who don’t speak or read, at least, two languages (rare).:inquisitive:
“Paris today suffered the perils of international terrorism as terrorists invaded a small coffee shop and called the owners 'stinky poo poo head christian zealots'.”
That did happened, and the blood and suffering of the victims is more than enough to bring shame of what you wrote.:furious3:
I don’t make joke about yours victims, don’t with mine.
Yeah, well, if I'm not mistaken the GIA and the Algerian gov't are in an open armed conflict (and a pretty ugly one at that), so slamming the latter for something the former did would've been kinda stupid.
And back in the day De Gaulle pretty much told the Americans to go stuff it and France went and developed their own nuclear arsenal. *shrug* Seems to be a bit of a tradition. Then again, even Sweden had a secret crash-course nuke program tucked away for a rainy day around those times...
Exactly, that is why all this fuss is about a STATE attacking France, not about a small group of terrorists.~D
Speaking of misleading and inflammatory thread titles...
~:rolleyes:
There is a big difference between a nation's leader making a direct, specific threat of using weapons of mass destruction (as the thread title implies) and a nation's leader saying:
Which is pretty much the standard policy of every nation that has nuke capability.Quote:
"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
If Bush were to make that same statement I would also find it to be reasonable, given the context.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure you would.:coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Read again, guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
Adapted response -- nothing alarming there, and certainly nothing remotely suggestive of what you wrote above.
Just like the thread on Chavez' supposed anti-semitism, this one is another big carfuffle about nothing.
True, but 'France threatens terrorists with nuclear strike' is what a lot of foreign press releases picked up on, from what a quick google revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The title of the link DD provided reads: 'France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism'.
It's not untrue, but the real issue is: 'Chirac defends nuclear force to French voters'. That was the object of his speech.
The Soviet Union has collapsed ages ago and the cold war is over. The OTAN is desparately struggling to find new enemies. There is no foreign military force at the moment either bend on or cpable of subjugating western-Europe.
So what justification is there for spending 10% of France's already very high defense budget on nuclear deterrence? When we have a huge budget deficit already? We spend more money annually on polishing useless missiles than we manage to prise out of the EU through the CAP. :wall:
The Force de Frappe - France's nuclear arms, has a very symbolic meaning to Chirac's small-hung Gaullist electorate who need nuclear phallic symbols to bolster their manhood. He started his presidency with nuking Mururoa, and ends it with showing that under his leadership all the missiles still stand erect.
The right-wing craves a large nuclear force, ever since De Gaulle started one in 1964, it has symbolised French independence and strenght for them. Today, speaking at a naval base, Chirac provided a renewed justification for it. Though neither a very shocking, nor a very original nor a very convincing one.
Not very shocking, because a nuclear force is always an implicit threat to those threatening vital interests. Like, he means until yesterday he wouldn't have retaliated with all our might against a major attack? The only thing new is that, contrary to French tradition, the threat of retaliation is now explicit.
Not very original, because ever since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 the only foreign threats have been understood to be rogue states, or states supporting terrorists.
Not very convincing, because I don't think the war on terror is a military struggle. I still fail to see why we should need more than a dozen or so nuclear warheads combined with a state-of-the-art scientific nuclear programme. A bit like the Israeli's.
It's an ongoing waste of tax-money. :no:
I did read it - you conveniently only put those parts in bold that make this indeed look like a "normal" statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
For the second part (weapons of mass destruction) it would indeed be a "normal" response (it would not even really be a change in policy) - it's the second part (terrorist means) that constitutes a change in policy.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree if you think that even considering "unconventional" responses as a means of retaliation after a terrorist attack (and as he mentions weapons of mass destruction separately, we have to assume that these "terrorist means" do not include the use of WMDs) is normal and common sense policy
That will really help us in the talks with Iran :2thumbsup:
You guys seriously need to learn how to read properly. Chirac never said "We're going to wipe out anyone who attack us, especially Iran, cause we don't like them". He said that if France is hitten by a large scall terrorist or WMD-based attack (which will never happen), we'll retaliate and hammer-vaporize-back-to-the-stone-age a whole country if needed (which will never happen aswell).
That sounds to be what you could expect from any State leader in the world.
Louis IV wins the award for the funniest reply ever.
It's not as if French and German diplomats just said this morning that Iran will never negociate and is just trying to get some times before the west reacts.Quote:
That will really help us in the talks with Iran
So 20 years ago could Paris have been nuked because of the French Terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior?
Which is still one of the few modern cases of a government directly being found to be using terrorist attacks.
The exact phrase I use is "sheet of glass".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Sheet damn you, sheet!