It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chirac Warns of Nuclear Response to Any Attack by State-Sponsored Terrorists

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   


France's Chirac Issues Nuclear Warning
President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack, broadening the terms of French deterrence to adapt to new threats.

The warning came as France works with other Western nations to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power, but officials and experts said Chirac's comments were not aimed specifically at Iran.

"Leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and fitting response from us," he said. "This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."

France's nuclear arsenal is considered a purely dissuasive means to protect the nation's vital interests and is not intended for regular combat.

However, in his speech, Chirac addressed new threats in the post-Cold War world, namely from regional powers. He did not explain what he meant by regional powers. But officials close to the president and experts said he was not singling out Iran, which alarmed Western nations last week by restarting nuclear activity after a 2 1/2-year freeze.

Where the hell is this world going? Nuclear retaliation for a terrorist attack?

[edit on 19/1/2006 by SwearBear]




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Where the hell is this world going? Nuclear retaliation for a terrorist attack?


No my good friend, a state-sponsored terrorist attack, there is a difference. The thing that's got me scratching my head though is the fact that Jacques Chirac is the one saying this, I suppose its just talk, but then again who knows.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Where the hell is this world going? Nuclear retaliation for a terrorist attack?


No my good friend, a state-sponsored terrorist attack, there is a difference. The thing that's got me scratching my head though is the fact that Jacques Chirac is the one saying this, I suppose its just talk, but then again who knows.

The terrorist attacks will be state-sponsored when Chirac and his goons want them to be, and they will hand-pick the state that they think sponsored these attacks.
And even if future terrorist attacks in France were actually in reality state-sponsored, I assume this also includes the CIA and MI6, don't you think NUCLEAR retaliation is A BIT harsh?

[edit on 19/1/2006 by SwearBear]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
One can ponder the reasons for timing of a statement like this but does anyone really see it as anything other than a statement of the obvious?

Every country armed with WMDs would retaliate in a terrible and devastating manner - ie absolutely in kind, if not deliberately far harsher - against those responsible if attacked in that way themselves.

Anyone who imagines different is kidding themselves.

Maybe he felt it needed spelling out loud and clear, who knows?

But even so; once one leaves behind the ridiculous fantasies about a direct missile strike from a suicidal 'rogue nation' to another country - whether one is talking about nuclear, chemical or biological weapons - every one of them leaves a trail (or 'signature') that would point out those involved (so ideas that a 'terrorist group' could be supplied and act as another countries' proxy are far-fetched).



[edit on 19-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

And even if future terrorist attacks in France were actually in reality state-sponsored, I assume this also includes the CIA and MI6, don't you think NUCLEAR retaliation is A BIT harsh?


That’s not for me to say so, the government of that specific country has to decide what’s appropriate. I wouldn’t want some foreign country telling the US how to respond to a terror attack, so I’m not going to criticize France for this.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Thank God!!!

Maybe France is waking up....FINALLY!!!

Perhaps the French see the writing-on-the-wall and this statement is a line drawn in the sand as a warning to Iran and Syria.

Maximu§



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Thank God!!!

Maybe France is waking up....FINALLY!!!


- In what way Max?

In what possible and plausibe reality have things ever been different?

This is surely simply a statement of the obvious.

(......and if he really had meant to warn "Iran and Syria" as you seem to imagine how come he didn't either just tell them directly or name them?)



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   
so when do you think Saudi Arabia will be vitrified then ?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
So, if let's say Saudi Al-Qaeda Operatives attack France - would Chiraq Nuke Saudi Arabia?

Guess not.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- In what way Max?


Look, I don't think Chirac woke up and outta the blue decided he was gonna threaten terrorist sponsers with nuclear retaliation......something happened and perhaps he was givin new information on the recent riots in France by Islamic "youths" and maybe they found a connection between the Iranians and the rioting.

I think Chirac and the French are starting to see the writing on the wall and understand what this fight is all about....its about the survival of their culture.

Maximu§



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
OMG, Chirac wants to nuke US



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Chiraq's statements were in light of recent information from The French Intel service. What that information was I have no idea. I heard this mentioned on a few talk shows on the east coast USA today, and yes its nothing tangible at this point.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

So, if let's say Saudi Al-Qaeda Operatives attack France - would Chiraq Nuke Saudi Arabia?

Guess not.


No, if someone who happens to be Saudi attacks France on the behalf of Al-Qaeda, that means nothing.
Now if the Saudi government knowingly financed or in any way supplied/helped this operative then the answer is yes.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I highly doubt that message was meant for Saudi Arabia, I think it's a clear warning to Iran, and any of their allies in the upcoming showdown that may decide to fund or provide support for an attack by terrorists using WMD's. He made it pretty clear he didn't mean a carbomb. Saudi Arabia, as well as other arab states do not want Iran to have nukes. Chirac seems intent on France continuing to push hard on the Iran issue, they have been more vocal than the U.S., we almost seem to be on the bench cheering the EU3 on right now. I'm sure that will change if it escalates to military action, but we'll have to see. I heard a military analyst last night on some channel saying that if it goes to military action, the Saudis and maybe the Jordanians may participate, so it wouldn't seem like a unilateral "white-guy" action against muslims.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by 27jd]




top topics



 
0

log in

join