France 'would use nuclear arms'

ImaginalDisc said:
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."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, this lets the leaders know that their own population, under very real and grave threat -- graver than the dictator's own murderous regime -- will possibly cause uncontrollable uprisings.

The bigger picture of all this is that the US has shown it will invade and hold leaders accountable. The old ways of using state sovereignity to harbor terrorists has been soundly rejected, sadly, after push came to shove, an inconceivable thing pre-9/11.

Already Libya has backed down.

Furthermore, the US has stated to other nuclear powers that, should one of their weapons get loose and be used in the US, it will hold that nation accountable...and all cards are on the table. And why shouldn't they be? If the nation cannot control its own stockpile, and the US cities are gonna be nuked anyway..."Well, y'alls better help us track your stuff. 's'all we're sayin'."

France is just making the same declaration.
 
Ralph said:
I'm sure if we send in a sniper team that could selectively target the leaders we would---but that's not reality.
Click to expand...

That's the national equivalent of the armchair policeman pacifist who suggests cops should always shoot to wound. It sounds good -- in movies. In reality, you miss and are killed yourself.

And, as far as statecraft goes, taking out the leaders might be the worst thing to do since it I'm willing to bet other politicians would be more than willing to use the old "US is trying to tell us what kind of govermnent to have" crap and sway the masses.

Sadly, because of human psychology, the masses might find it more acceptable for the military to plow through their dead bodies to get at the leaders, rather than to just surgically strike at the leaders. Don't know, but a possibility (probability?)
 
Why people are surprised I don't know. Perhaps people have started to believe the jokes about them. France has always acted (in my opinion) with disproportionate force, when it could.

Look into France's history of military intervention in many of its colonies right into the last half of the 20th century if you want examples - they make the British look like pacifists!
 
I think that Western leaders have got to be afraid of Islam, from racial memories if nothing else. If that is so I suspect that for all of their pandering to the leftists in their own countries, they harbor some gratitude to the US for drawing some lines in the sand ... which now, thankfully, France appears to be emulating.
 
DanishDynamite said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, not exactly.

Yeah, the US did those things. And all during that time, we were told, over and over again, that France was wunnerful, and France was great, and France was noble, and France was righteous, and France was the Bestest of Everything! And the US was bad and evil, and imperialist, and did I mention bad and evil, and the US is also bad and evil for never promising that it would never use a nuclear first strike ever. OK, France had a sweetheart deal with Saddam Hussein, but there were some US companies that participated, so France's involvement is nugatory.

And so France has had some riots, which burned some cars and, as we are reminded over and over again, did not result in very many fatalities, and all of a sudden, France, the good and true and righteous, is waving its nuclear dick.

It's a very, very sick and twisted kind of comedy, but it is comedy on some level.
 
Another point, of course, is that it is not clear that France has very much between nothing and nukes. That requires an army and the logistics to send it places.
 
Ed said:
Another point, of course, is that it is not clear that France has very much between nothing and nukes. That requires an army and the logistics to send it places.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think that if Iran can be a threat with nuclear weapons it hasn't quite developed to a radius of 2000 miles it is not unreasonable to believe that a country which has had nuclear weapons for 40 years or so could at least manage the same... ;)

ETA: France does seem to have some weapons capability and expertise: http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/mons05c.htm
 
I don't really consider it a viable threat. It's more like MAD (mutually assured destruction) where we made it known if the soviets launched one nuke at us we would respond with a full scale attack. Yeah, it's completely out of wack as far as retaliation goes but, they can't know for certain whether you would or wouldn't. This could cause them to take pause. I seriously doubt they would unilaterally do such a thing and they would never get a concensus.
 
DanishDynamite said:
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,
Click to expand...
That's a stupid thing to say.

Ed said:
Another point, of course, is that it is not clear that France has very much between nothing and nukes. That requires an army and the logistics to send it places.
Click to expand...
Well, if they're ever attacked by an army of sentient cars, it looks like they're got that covered.

Darat said:
Somehow I think that if Iran can be a threat with nuclear weapons it hasn't quite developed to a radius of 2000 miles it is not unreasonable to believe that a country which has had nuclear weapons for 40 years or so could at least manage the same... ;)
Click to expand...
Obviously, if France wanted to invade a country, it could do so. The question is whether it would be able to invade the particular country which attacked it.
 
Heard in a newsroom somewhere:

Gee, not much happening today. It sure is quiet, nothing really to report.

Wait a second, I got a good idea. Let's go interview a French politician ....

Charlie (j'aime les Francias) Monoxide
 
Art Vandelay said:
Well, if they're ever attacked by an army of sentient cars, it looks like they're got that covered.
Click to expand...
I'll kick their cheese-eating asses!


kitt_animated.gif
 
Come on folks - you are confusing a popular *joke* with the reality. France is willing to do whatever it believes to be in its own best interest and its recent history shows this.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Obviously, if France wanted to invade a country, it could do so. The question is whether it would be able to invade the particular country which attacked it.
Click to expand...

It is unclear that they have either the forces or the means to project them. I am not sure that they have an alternative to nukes.
 
Didn't France recently destroy the entire air force of a West African nation? I forget which one, but I do remember that they managed to hit every plane while still on the tarmac. Maybe France couldn't take on the US or Russia or China, but there are other countries that couldn't win a fight with them.
 
Ed said:
It is unclear that they have either the forces or the means to project them. I am not sure that they have an alternative to nukes.
Click to expand...
In case my position isn't sufficiently clear, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that France can conquer any nation that launches a terroirst attack against them.

As long as the only nation that launches a terrorist attack them is Andorra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom