France 'would use nuclear arms'

[Mycroft]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

France 'would use nuclear arms'

French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.

Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Um, when does a state launch a terrorist act? States commit acts of war, not terrorism.

 

[Grammatron]

Unlike US, France doesn't **** around, I guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

Um, when does a state launch a terrorist act? States commit acts of war, not terrorism.

States sometimes use terrorists to commit acts of war. They are often not labeled as acts of war, but only called terrorism. I'd be happy if everyone called a spade a spade, but since that doesn't happen, I don't have any quibble with Chirac's use of the term "terrorism" here. I don't find his threat terribly credible, though, since I doubt they'd be willing to do anything serious in response to a terrorist attack if the links to a state sponsor weren't obvious, and they usually aren't.

 

[Manny]

Now go away, or I shall nuke you a second time-a!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

States sometimes use terrorists to commit acts of war. They are often not labeled as acts of war, but only called terrorism. I'd be happy if everyone called a spade a spade, but since that doesn't happen, I don't have any quibble with Chirac's use of the term "terrorism" here. I don't find his threat terribly credible, though, since I doubt they'd be willing to do anything serious in response to a terrorist attack if the links to a state sponsor weren't obvious, and they usually aren't.

Oh, but it would be alright to lob nukes if they were? If Terrorististan (a country I made up, not a real one I'm eluding to ) were to hire terrorists to use a dirty bomb on the French, Chirac would lob nukes at Terroristisan?

MAD, MAD indeed.

 

[Ralph]

Oh, but it would be alright to lob nukes if they were? If Terrorististan (a country I made up, not a real one I'm eluding to ) were to hire terrorists to use a dirty bomb on the French, Chirac would lob nukes at Terroristisan?

MAD, MAD indeed.

So if NY,Paris or London were to suffer a major terrorist attack--thousands dead--and we had reasonable proof it was done with the full knowledge & support of another sovereign state (say Iran for example)....

what do you think an appropriate response would be?

 

[Grammatron]

So if NY,Paris or London were to suffer a major terrorist attack--thousands dead--and we had reasonable proof it was done with the full knowledge & support of another sovereign state (say Iran for example)....

what do you think an appropriate response would be?

Abduct the leaders of (say Iran in your example) and then deal with them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, but it would be alright to lob nukes if they were?

Well, I'm not sure the word "alright" is appropriate here, since things are already not alright in this hypothetical. But would it be an appropriate response? Maybe. But more to the point, at least right now, it would be foolish to preclude the possibility of such a response beforehand.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So if NY,Paris or London were to suffer a major terrorist attack--thousands dead--and we had reasonable proof it was done with the full knowledge & support of another sovereign state (say Iran for example)....

what do you think an appropriate response would be?

The only military response to that should be a conventional one. The leaders, and the ennactors of that plot should be held responsible, the government of Terrorististan should be held accountable, but that doesn't justify killing the population of Terrorististan.

Let it not be said of us what Tacitus said of the Roman campaign against Carthage, "They made a desert, and called it peace."

 

[Just thinking]

... at least right now, it would be foolish to preclude the possibility of such a response beforehand.

Exactly. Alluding to anything less plays right into the enemy's hands, as it gives them one more piece of military information they can do without. Why do you think there were 2 strikes on the World Trade Towers? Because after the first one in the 1990's it was obvious (at least to the terrorists) that again the US would do little in retaliation. Whether you inform them with words or action (or inaction) it gives them more tools to work with against us.

 

[Ralph]

The only military response to that should be a conventional one. The leaders, and the ennactors of that plot should be held responsible, the government of Terrorististan should be held accountable, but that doesn't justify killing the population of Terrorististan.

Let it not be said of us what Tacitus said of the Roman campaign against Carthage, "They made a desert, and called it peace."

So the leaders of a nation deliberately sent out a team of individuals who took the lives of thousands of innocent citizens. I see no reason why an action such as this shouldn't be considered to be an act of war.

Why kind of conventional response should be mounted that would only selectively punish the leaders and not the innocent citizens?

Firebombing a few dozen cities is a conventional response. It would also kill as many people as a nukes would.

I'm sure if we send in a sniper team that could selectively target the leaders we would---but that's not reality.

Is it realistic to think that innocent civilans won't be killed during a war?

 

[Ziggurat]

The only military response to that should be a conventional one. The leaders, and the ennactors of that plot should be held responsible, the government of Terrorististan should be held accountable, but that doesn't justify killing the population of Terrorististan.

I would agree that in most cases, you probably wouldn't want to respond with a nuclear strike. But if there is a Terroristan (there used to be, it was called Afghanistan) you can bet that the population is already suffering and will take casualties regardless of what you do. If a nuclear strike makes for a shorter war, it could concievably lead to less deaths, not more. And if, like France, you don't HAVE much of a military option other than a nuclear strike, that might still be better in the long run than sitting back and taking the beating. But as I stated, even if the likelyhood of using it is small, you don't take ANY options off the table beforehand.

Let it not be said of us what Tacitus said of the Roman campaign against Carthage, "They made a desert, and called it peace."

Ten-to-one odds Terroristan is already a desert

 

[Ed]

Let it not be said of us what Tacitus said of the Roman campaign against Carthage, "They made a desert, and called it peace."

The quote (which is a good one and a personal fave) is from The Agricola and quotes a Briton Chieftain: "They create a desolation and call it peace". That is the Mattingly translation and it sounds better to my ear.

Carry on. Anyone who quotes Tacitus gets 17 Cyberpoints.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I would agree that in most cases, you probably wouldn't want to respond with a nuclear strike. But if there is a Terroristan (there used to be, it was called Afghanistan) you can bet that the population is already suffering and will take casualties regardless of what you do. If a nuclear strike makes for a shorter war, it could concievably lead to less deaths, not more. And if, like France, you don't HAVE much of a military option other than a nuclear strike, that might still be better in the long run than sitting back and taking the beating. But as I stated, even if the likelyhood of using it is small, you don't take ANY options off the table beforehand.



Ten-to-one odds Terroristan is already a desert

Just because there is no perfect solution, doesn't refute my point. I hate war, and If I were in charge, I'd use force as seldom as possible, but I would assume that any military would involve some civilian deaths. That doesn't excuse them. Even if everything you say is true, nuclear weapons prduce fallout, and fallout kills people in neighboring countries, and causes deaths and deformations of people yet to be born. Nuclear weapons are much worse than even a very irresponsible conventional military action. It takes a lot of deliberate cruelty or a tremendous scale to make convetional warfare worse than nukes.

P.S. Thanks Ed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Carry on. Anyone who quotes Tacitus gets 17 Cyberpoints.

"Oops, I did it again." --Tacitus.

"Hit me baby one more time." --Tacitus

 

[Ed]

"Oops, I did it again." --Tacitus.

"Hit me baby one more time." --Tacitus

Misquoteing or misattributing Tacitus quotes warrents a good spanking, Zoot.

Hmmm ... knowing this crowd that promise could result in another thread that wouldn't die.

 

[DanishDynamite]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

What's up with the jaw-dropping smilies?

The US attacked and occupied two countries, killing 10's of thousands of innocents in the process, on the basis of a single terrorist bombing,

The use of nukes is currently openly discussed in the US warmup for the next attack.

So, what's up with the smilies? A naive incredulity that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" suddenly grew a pair that wasn't there before?

 

[Ed]

What's up with the jaw-dropping smilies?

The US attacked and occupied two countries, killing 10's of thousands of innocents in the process, on the basis of a single terrorist bombing,

The use of nukes is currently openly discussed in the US warmup for the next attack.

So, what's up with the smilies? A naive incredulity that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" suddenly grew a pair that wasn't there before?

No. That there might be enough time between labor strikes to actually launch a nuclear strike.

 

[Mycroft]

So, what's up with the smilies? A naive incredulity that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" suddenly grew a pair that wasn't there before?

I think even suggesting a nuclear strike in response to a terrorist attack, even a 9/11 style terrorist attack, is absurdly disproportionate. I'm shocked France would even suggest such a thing.