TERRORISM: France Defends Right To Nuclear Reply To Terrorism

French President Jacques Chirac said on Thursday Frances response to any terrorist attack on French soil would be a targeted nuclear strike on the hostile state's centers of power. The comments come as France is defending its costly nuclear programs and toughening their policy against terrorism.




I think comments like these are what get a lot of people worked up and escalate things more then they need to be. As things are already escalating in Iran this cant be good for anyone. As soon as the US gets on board with the same policy I can see things going bad real quick.

Reuters Article

BBC Article-France 'would use nuclear arms'




[edit on 19-1-2006 by North Rider]

[edit on 19-1-2006 by North Rider]

This is kind of hard to believe, isn't it? the country that stood against us on our Iraq policy now threatening nuclear strikes if their country just happens to be hit?????

ya it's a different story when it's HIS country!!

Looks like the Irainian pres. threats have made jack scared.

Funny how when it is threatened, it is more than willing to play the "N" card.

Originally posted by dawnstar

This is kind of hard to believe, isn't it? the country that stood against us on our Iraq policy now threatening nuclear strikes if their country just happens to be hit?????

ya it's a different story when it's HIS country!!

Not surprising at all, this has always been the French modus operandi. Whatever they do is fine, because it is for France, but whatever any other country does to protect itself lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

perhaps some intel has determined that france is being targeted.

oddly enough, past history dictates that france, rather than take a tough stance, will surrender to the terrorists, quite possibly in advance of any actual attack.

Nuclear deterence only works when the enemy believes that you would use nuclear weapons. In the last few decades -- ever since the 40's actually -- one phrase has been heard over and over again, "nuclear weapons are a weapon that can never be used. If one's enemy hears this, over and over, and comes to believe it, then the enemy is reassured that a military response would not be nuclear.

France has made it very clear that it would retaliate with nuclear weapons should they ever be attacked themselves. My only concern is that when dealing with a pseudo state....a terrorist organization -- that has demonstrated a willingness to commit suicide attacks, they might not be put off by the concept of mutual assured destruction.

This is kind of hard to believe, isn't it? the country that stood against us on our Iraq policy now threatening nuclear strikes if their country just happens to be hit?????

ya it's a different story when it's HIS country!!

Different story? What story? What does Iraq have to do with anything? When did they attack us? Your comment makes no sense.

Afghanistan attacked us, and French troops went there to help fight the Taliban after 9/11. In fact, they were the second largest force, after Germany, if I remember correctly. The US should help them if they are ever attacked as well to return the favor.

Now, if France attacks a creates a war of choice, we are under no obligation to help them, just as they chose not to help us in Iraq.

How many years has it been now since we invaded Afghanistan? Has history been rewritten that quickly, or do people not really care what happened? Is Iraq all that matters? How can people forget the tragedy of 9/11 so quickly!?
Being a New Yorker, I can't believe that Iraq has made everyone forget who helped us get the guys that attacked us.

Curme, it's easier to ignore the facts when their aim is to attack France no matter what. Hell, America has had this policy for decades: the United States will respond against any WMD attack on its soil (nuclear, chemical or biological) with its nuclear arsenal. How is that any different to the French policy?

Now where you can actually fire criticism at this French announcement is that they will fire their nukes in retaliation for something a group of people did. How can they hold a whole nation responsible for the acts of a criminal gang with in it? There is no guilt attached to the capital cities of a nation because of the action of a terrorist group. I wonder how France would of liked it if New Zealand had launched an attack on Paris for sinking the Rainbow Warrior? Even that wouldn't of been justifiable and that WAS supported by the French government!

Originally posted by dawnstar

the country that stood against us on our Iraq policy now threatening nuclear strikes if their country just happens to be hit?????

Terrorist attacks don't "just" happen. France is well within its rights to issue such a warning, even if it does seem a bit out of character for the French.

Also remember that when most of us think of nuclear weapons we think of very large scale weapons, which France might or might not choose to use, but there are smaller tactical weapons that can send a very definite message without massive destruction or massive radioactive effects.

Afghanistan didn't attack us, their bank did---Bin Laden and his gang!!!

unfortunately, when talking about Bin Laden and his gang of terrorists, it could extend far and wide, into just about any country. and this was true before 9/11.......umm...where should we strike, just where should we strike.

I really have no problem with what we did in afghanistan...the place was hell on earth anyways, no matter what we did, it could only be an improvement. and well, Bin Laden and his bank had alot to do with the rulers of that country maintaining their power to terrorize it's citizens.

Iran, I kind of have more of a problem justifying. I think this was just Bush's personal desire or something.

but in neither case did we nuke the country!!!

so, if France gets hit, wonder just what country Chirac will get his personal joy from attacking? and what the radiation effects will have on the surrounding countries??? Hey, maybe it's that little nest of terrorists in Detroit, or Montreal that are responsible.....

for the record, afghanistan didn't attack us. rather, a group of terrorists attacked us and they were answering to a higher group of terrorists who were hiding in afghanistan and that nation's "government" chose not to help us arrest/detain/kill those involved in the attacks.

if the taliban gave us the power to go in and get bin laden, we wouldn't have had the same type of military involvment

Originally posted by Crakeur
oddly enough, past history dictates that france, rather than take a tough stance, will surrender to the terrorists, quite possibly in advance of any actual attack.

Nonsense

Originally posted by Crakeur
for the record, afghanistan didn't attack us. rather, a group of terrorists attacked us and they were answering to a higher group of terrorists who were hiding in afghanistan and that nation's "government" chose not to help us arrest/detain/kill those involved in the attacks.

if the taliban gave us the power to go in and get bin laden, we wouldn't have had the same type of military involvment

would you turn fort knox (if there was actually anything of value left in it) and the fed over to another country for whatever reason!!! it was Bin Laden and his gang that had the money that was keeping the country going as far as it was going, which wasn't that danged far!!!

it was a joke bandit but I will, once again, refer those reading this to google.

type in french military vitories and hit "feeling lucky"

or, for the lazy,

Did you mean: french military defeats




No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - french military victories - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.


www.albinoblacksheep.com...

Ok France...
First off: thank you very much for reclaiming your label of most hated nation in the civilized world... we were tired of carrying that trophy, and we know you missed it...

this just goes to show how damn arrogant you are.
If Israel, Russia, USA, and about every other Nuclear power (even including the evil regime of the troll doll) did what you (france) just did, then the world would already be a nuke wasteland unsuitable for life... gee thanks for being so selfish...

now in reality. the threat was no more than what the US said, but when Bush made the statement, he qualified the response much more specifically... thus lending evidence that he had at least thought about his comments carefully rather than make a butt of himself.

Thanks again, for taking the pressure off...
good luck with that "dont piss us off, we are the french" comment... you just made the rest of the world safer...

Originally posted by Crakeur


www.albinoblacksheep.com...

Simplistic nonsense...

Back on topic now.

Chirac was talking about STATE SPONSOREDterrorism.

Of course France reserves the right to use nuclear weapons upon states who sponsor terrorism. As does the United States and other nations, in fact it was only last year that the US altered it's nuclear doctrine to allow the use of weapons of mass destruction in a first strike against foreign Governments. If anyone upped the ante it was them.

Terrorists using weapons of mass destruction will be met with weapons of mass destruction. Chirac was merely defending his countries appropriation of nuclear weapons by saying how they are relevant to todays society.

So lazarus, please dismount from your high horse.

What do you mean IF the US adopts a similar policy? We already have...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Nothing like hearing Neocons use preemptive and nuclear in the same press release, but it seems a bit hypocritical to demonize France for this when we have already beat them to it by over a year's time.

I am speculating................................

Certain recent diplomatic moves by France have prompted another country to quietly threaten to unleash its state sponsored terrorists with-in France or against French interests.

Why else would someone like Chirac say something along these lines out of the blue and I must add very out of character for this politician.

Now I know the report says this comment was not pertaining to Iran.........one has to wonder though.

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by Crakeur
oddly enough, past history dictates that france, rather than take a tough stance, will surrender to the terrorists, quite possibly in advance of any actual attack.

Nonsense

True!!!
Read about the French "military successes" stuffucanuse.com...

War and the french excert ... Algerian Rebellion
Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French."

This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux


Apart from that just who is France going to nuke?

Terrorists who live in their own Arab suburbs?

Maybe the odrinary Iranians who are just as much victims of the pathological leadership as the rest of the world?

Otherwise I am all for it, good on chirac for raising the stakes.


[edit on 19-1-2006 by Netchicken]

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Netchicken]