France to launch new "SNLE" submarine before 2005.

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
the best supersonic striker in the world

that is su-34

oops hehe forgot Russia

Also Ukraine Kazahkstan Belorus and i think another former Soviet Republic (i bet i spelled that wrong) inherited nukes from the Soviet Union but turned them all over to Russia

Also, all the major industrialized nations with nuclear power could field nuclear weapons relatively quickly, the reason i only put Japan in that category is because they are the ones that could do it fastest, they have large stockpiles of weapons grade Plutonium, they have ready made launchers (their space program rockets were actually designed so that they could be easily converted into ICBM's) and they have one of the best high technology sectors and Nuclear Power sectors in the world

Originally posted by REASON
great.....


so i guess the french can go ahead with their stated

"force de fraup" nuclear weapons policy.

if anyone anywhere in the world uses a nuk on another country the "force de fraup" drops nuks on all countries capitols!!

Thank the devil for the french!!

isn't that a wonderful policy...

looks like the US navy will be hard at work trailing this sub to killl it if say pakistan or India has a nuclear exchange so we don't get nuked by the french.

Are you drunk ? What are you talking about ? France will use his nuclear & thermo-nuclear weapons ONLY if she's under a nuclear attack !!!

France still use the old Cold War policy policy. No nuclear pre-emptive attacks. Also, France did NOT plan to nuke all the capitols in the world if one country use the " bomb " against another one. What you wrote does NOT make ANY sense.

Anyway, seekerof is right. It's a submarine thread.

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by ultra_phoenix]

I can understand France wanting security based upon their history but what is the use of having a lot of hardware if nobody is going to fight with it?

sorta what im thinkin. maybe theyre planning something, and this whole 'antiwar' stance is just a fa�ade. itd make them more interesting.

It's quite alarming for me sitting here reading what the Americans of this thread are able to produce of arguments to support #1: their nation's groundless attack on Iraq and #2: the idea that NATO ally France should somehow pose a threat to the USA. That together with the usual my dad is stronger than your dad sandbox retorics and "I can destroy the world any day" type of argumentation, makes me sick to my stumac.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Iraq was a war of strategic benefit on many levels.

France can't be trusted by anyone because it has never really stood for anything.

Originally posted by THENEO
Iraq was a war of strategic benefit on many levels.

France can't be trusted by anyone because it has never really stood for anything.

truer words were never spoken.
iraq - ousted a terrible, terrible leader, and since when is that wrong? freed an entire nation, set an example, set a standard, and yeah, it freed up some oil.
france - no need to mention it, my good man neo said it perfectly

THIS is the class of vessel that Nans has mentioned:

"Le Triomphant SNLE"
www.fas.org...

Excerpt:

"As of 1996 the schedule for the third, Le Vigilant, had slipped until 2001 and the service date for the fourth SSBN was approximately 2005. The admission with the active service of Vigilant, ordered in May 1993, was delayed, first by six months, and a second time in 1996 by two years. In the 1998 budget the Vigilant was delayed one year, which involved the corresponding prolongation of a SNLE in service. It will enter active service in July 2004 (a four and a half year delay). Construction of the third unit, Le Vigilant, continued in 1999. This submarine should be commissioned in 2004. The order for the fourth unit, planned initially for 1996 was deferred into 2000 for an admission to the active service in July 2008 (four years and eight month of delay), requiring the maintenance in service of l�Inflexible until that time. SNLE NG n�4 was finally ordered by the Commission de la d�fense de l�Assembl�e nationale on 15 September 1999."




Nice boat, will add to the value of the EU, but one wonders if it will oneday amount to SeaWolf prey.
(kidding)


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Great, the French with a new toy. That's just what everyone in the world needs. It will be great to see Unified Europe with more weapons, not!!! I guess since we got a bunch of em then one or two of their lowsy (educated guess based on some of their other plans) models will be ok. So they actually think their navy would even try to fight instead of surrender? Maybe they should paint them all white.

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]

Originally posted by THENEO
The nuclear list is even longer because there are several countries that could produce weapons very fast if they wanted to, one being surprise surprise: Canada.

Canada a nuclear power?

Canada is soon going to give up their army so US defends them!

Out,
Russian

Russian,

LOL! that is true, our armed forces are not that impressive.

But we have been in the nuclear game since the beginning and we are also a natural producer of uranium ore too. We could build a bomb relatively fast but I see no desire to do that. There have been rumours that there are in fact nuke warheads here but nobody has confirmed that yet.

If you include Canada then Australia would also have to be considered a potential nuclear power as well...
yes?

no offense meant, but i gather u no this already.
canada is like the france of the western hemisphere. toronto gets off tho, cuz they play baseball with us and are more american.

Nuclear missile bearing submarines are developed solely for use as a second strike, MAD safeguard (why would you use what amounts to a hidden missile site on a first strike? Subs ensure that, even if a country is caught defenseless, that its attackers will suffer)... So I don't see how anyone can interpret the launching of this class as an aggressive move.

I would like to note, however, that the above logic doesn't hold for subs that are designed to launch their nukes atop cruise as opposed to ballistic missiles... and that are deployed from countries that could possibly benefit from surprise nuclear attacks on poor countries. that is to say, Israel's nuclear armed subs could be intended for use as a first strike weapon.

The french in a way are the only "rogue" nuclear power out of the so called first nuke powers, such as GB, the US China, and Russia. When signing non-proliferation treatys weren't they the only ones in europe that refused any limits/restrictions on their nuclear programs??

Yeah...to the Iraq comment. Yeah, sure, they may have been right, but..lol...they didn't want to go to war with Iraq, fine with the U.S., but stay out of it. They didn't. After the U.S. took control of Iraq, France wanted LAND. Yes, it is true. They wanted ACRES and ACRES of LAND in IRAQ. lol damn frenchies...I'm sure this "cutting-edge technology" won't be much of a threat.

No, I don't hate France that much, but I just don't like their ignorance to the world..and after the stunt they pulled in Iraq? Yeah...

-wD

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by THENEO
The nuclear list is even longer because there are several countries that could produce weapons very fast if they wanted to, one being surprise surprise: Canada.

Canada a nuclear power?

Canada is soon going to give up their army so US defends them!

Out,
Russian

Canada is one of the biggest players in the uranium mining industry, maybe the biggest.

Its rather interesting these comments being made towards france and canada, mainly by americans....
Did france not help BUILD and DEFEND america when it was in its infancy?
Does canada not have the worlds largest undefended borders?

No offence to any americans and the numerous qoutes by them about france being ignorant of the world but frankly your the ones who are ignorant...
France is the strongest military power in the EU, closely followed by the UK. Their navy has much more force protection than any in the EU and does not require the US to stage its forces.

Also I noticed the comments about thier equipment.....does no one remember how effect the french missiles where in the falklands?

Does no one remember the suez conflict? Franch, the UK and isreal all opearated very effectively in that conflict.
Korea?
Gulf war 1?

For the yanks of the world, if you measure courage by those who are prepared to wage war on another then surely america is the most courages country in the world. They have waged war on every continent of the world and for such a young country continue to do so, yet france being older who has also fought on every continent seems reluctant to fight....why is that?
Maybe because frankly america has not had its country become a battle ground, has not been occupied and has not fought a defensive war. But never mind, after all its france right? That weak little country with no forces? Who is the me arogant? Those who are stubburn or those who just ignorant.