France threatens Nuclear response at terrorists.

[singo]

President Chirac has said that France will respond with "appropriate" force against any state found sponsoring an act of terrorism carried on french soil, hinting rather unsubtly (and then flat out stating) that such a response may carry a large amount of destructive power with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html

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


Well then, what do you lot think of a nuclear response to a large scale terrorist attack using strategic nuclear weapons.

Now, I am going to assume that he means a terrorist attack that involved a Nuclear, Biological or Chemical warhead or bomb as the means for a terrorist strike. And that such can be clearly demonstrated to be the direct cause of another state. Now then it mioght be possible to make a case for such a response onder the generally accepted conditions for Nuclear warfare (the commencement of) and that such a state could be said to have made the first attack.

A bit of a tenuous argument and flatly made redundant by the following statement



The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction.

Thus A) Defeating the point of having a Nuclear deterrent and
B) Effectively saying it could be done with conventional munitions.


Ah, the war on terror goes Nuclear......

[Ragnarox]

How does he expect to stop terrorist attacks against France by targeting specific locations with nuclear armaments? Are all terrorists lying in wait at these specific locations? I think not, conventional forces would be much more efficent and far less dangerous.

[GenocideAlive]

Yeah, there was a great pic accompanying one of those articles where General Frenchie was showing Chirac some sophisticated monitoring equipment that was obviously generically military in nature. There were some great one-liners I could have stuck in word balloons there, but I decided to pass because I figured that ML could use a little less "News Spam" typed articles.

In regard to nukes, yeah, the French are pussies. Have you ever seen a French soldier? You're in as much danger from bullets as you are ear damage from their high-pitched screams. Of course they're going to use nukes--it saves them time, trouble, and getting their feet dirty. Eek!

[singo]

Mr GenocideAlive raises a point I wish to adress.

Can we all stop (at least for the purposes of this discussion) insulting the french for surrendering in WW2, I am reasonably sure they do actually have a professional well trained army that does not run away screaming at the slightest provocation.

I am all for insulting the french, but lets not do it in the IR eh?

[Ragnarox]

Can we all stop (at least for the purposes of this discussion) insulting the french for surrendering in WW2

Is that really the reason why people are angry at them? Seriously? Thats insane, if everybody is pissed at French for surrendering in WWII, then why are we not isulting the Belgians, the Polish, the Romanians and what not. I thought people were angry about their veto on the armed conflict in Iraq.

[GenocideAlive]

Mr GenocideAlive raises a point I wish to adress.

Can we all stop (at least for the purposes of this discussion) insulting the french for surrendering in WW2, I am reasonably sure they do actually have a professional well trained army that does not run away screaming at the slightest provocation.
Yeah, I pretty much despise French as a rule of thumb. Not only did they surrender in every major military conflict they were involved in for the past century, but they're all-around hypocritical pillow-biters. Seriously. Fuck the French. I hate Chirac, I hate his pussy little country, I hate the way the French treat/behave towards Americans, and I hate just about everything that comes out of there.

To that end, I've heard unconfirmed reports that their army does shoulder exercises so they can raise their hands to surrender faster. Not to mention that they were doing research into different shades of white to determine which sends the "I give up" message fastest. And that they gave out hair gel as part of their standard issue G.I. package. Unconfirmed, as I said--but extremely compelling.

If there's a well-informed, meat-eating unbiased French person out there that I haven't met, then they're excluded. Otherwise, I think I'll stand by my generalization that the French are total losers. France is just about the only country that could fuck up the colors red, white, and blue on their flag.

[singo]

Yeah, I pretty much despise French as a rule of thumb. Not only did they surrender in every major military conflict they were involved in for the past century, but they're all-around hypocritical pillow-biters. Seriously. Fuck the French. I hate Chirac, I hate his pussy little country, I hate the way the French treat/behave towards Americans, and I hate just about everything that comes out of there.

Well, just a few minor points. they did not surrender in WW1, and fought a lot more than the US did. But then WW1 was more of a european embarrassment that got blown up all out of scale.

Oh, and please do not Generalise like that in the IR. Please? You are making me defend the french...I dont like doing that, I am British, franch-bashing is a compulsary part of that.

So "All around hypocritical......" and suchlike is definately not true, and I would probably say not even true for a majority. Also, lets look on the bright side. It has some nice architecture and their bread is nice.




And that they gave out hair gel as part of their standard issue G.I. package. Unconfirmed, as I said--but extremely compelling.

Hmm, that one might be true actually.



If there's a well-informed, meat-eating unbiased French person out there that I haven't met, then they're excluded. Otherwise, I think I'll stand by my generalization that the French are total losers. France is just about the only country that could fuck up the colors red, white, and blue on their flag.

How many french people have you met? Come on. And if you want to meet lots of well informed, unbiased people then move out of the states.

Also, the flag of anywhere is not important, getting worked up about a flag shows a sad lack of identity.


Lets get back on topic and rant about silly foreign policy decisions eh?

[GenocideAlive]

And if you want to meet lots of well informed, unbiased people then move out of the states.
Gee, is that why almost all of Europe and Asia are shipping their intellectual hopefuls stateside? Fuck you. DON'T GENERALIZE THE FRENCH PEOPLE NEGATIVELY! NOW I'M GOING TO DOG & GENERALIZE AMERICANS! Thanks for your hypocritical condescending bullshit. Whatever you want to say about me, at least I'm honest and not trying to put up a bunch of weakass limp dicked pretenses.
Well, just a few minor points. they did not surrender in WW1, and fought a lot more than the US did. But then WW1 was more of a european embarrassment that got blown up all out of scale.
Yeah, WWI barely fell within that "century" mark, but I contend that it was a generalization. Additionally, I think it probable that all the brave, useful French guys died in this war.
So "All around hypocritical......" and suchlike is definately not true, and I would probably say not even true for a majority. Also, lets look on the bright side. It has some nice architecture and their bread is nice.
Any basis you have for saying it's true I could pull out a basis for saying it is true. Your compulsion to defend the French is your own, but I will contend that they suck eggs and are total has-beens. I wouldn't be too quick to defend them, if I were you. The French don't think too highly of Brits, I assure you. I could show you a few posters in a scientists office where your country is labeled "the 51st US State".
How many french people have you met? Come on.
7? 8? 1 out of those 8 was a reasonable, thinking person. The rest had some pretty vicious, dickheaded things to say about America and its people. I liked that one, but I consider her a renegade member of French resistance.

[singo]

Gee, is that why almost all of Europe and Asia are shipping their intellectual hopefuls stateside? Fuck you. DON'T GENERALIZE THE FRENCH PEOPLE NEGATIVELY! NOW I'M GOING TO DOG & GENERALIZE AMERICANS! Thanks for your hypocritical condescending bullshit. Whatever you want to say about me, at least I'm honest and not trying to put up a bunch of weakass limp dicked pretenses.

Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make. That is - Dont make generalisations if you will get offended by ones that include you.




I wouldn't be too quick to defend them, if I were you. The French don't think too highly of Brits, I assure you. I could show you a few posters in a scientists office where your country is labeled "the 51st US State".

I know I could show you posters taking the piss out of the french, Like I said, I am not overly fond of the french, but we have a thousand years of fighting each other and making insults to back up our tirades against each other. Do you really think the Entente Cordiale would still be in force if both of us were not Nuclear Powers?


7? 8? 1 out of those 8 was a reasonable, thinking person.

I find one in eight is a roughly average for just about any group of people anywhere.

[GenocideAlive]

Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make. That is - Dont make generalisations if you will get offended by ones that include you.
Don't make me laugh. As though that was part of some master plan of yours for an elegant coup de grace (in French for irony). More like you just blundered badly and you need a quick cop out. Spare me.

[frazz]

stop making spam GA. That was a well thought out irony by singo. One that you didn't see.
Anyway.... The US should take a more aggresive stance. At least France isn't being a politicaly correct sissy. And the French are probably saying the same junk aobut us. There is no nation to say who is right and who is wrong. The US is wrong a whole lot to.

[singo]

More like you just blundered badly and you need a quick cop out.

Feel free to believe that if you really want to, also feel free to believe whatever you like about everyone else. No-one will ever take you seriously if you do though.

Now, back on topic.

I still think that Nuclear Weapons are not the appropriate weapon for combating terrorism. Something needs to be done about Nations that sponsor terrorism, but nuking the frig out of their cities probably isnt the way to go.

[GenocideAlive]

Feel free to believe that if you really want to, also feel free to believe whatever you like about everyone else. No-one will ever take you seriously if you do though.
Feel free to make actual points for what you're saying instead of trying to imply that by aquiescing someone their opinion that you're doing them a favor. GG.
I still think that Nuclear Weapons are not the appropriate weapon for combating terrorism. Something needs to be done about Nations that sponsor terrorism, but nuking the frig out of their cities probably isnt the way to go.
I think that somebody needs to get serious with these jackasses and the countries that harbor them. It's getting to the point that it's borderlined state-sponsored terrorism (Syria comes to mind), and it's working out that because they're not wearing uniforms with a clear directive from their government, that they're immune to reprisal. We (as a world) need to start seriously clamping down on this bullshit and putting the hurt on this kind of bullshit.

But that's not to say that the US' involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East wasn't a long time coming. It really worked out to be some fucking hardcore Kharma with us funding the terrorists to work against Soviets.

[singo]

I think that somebody needs to get serious with these jackasses and the countries that harbor them. It's getting to the point that it's borderlined state-sponsored terrorism (Syria comes to mind), and it's working out that because they're not wearing uniforms with a clear directive from their government, that they're immune to reprisal. We (as a world) need to start seriously clamping down on this bullshit and putting the hurt on this kind of bullshit.


Agreed there, but what is wrong with flying a conventionally armed cruise missile in through their leaders window?

[Neo]

I love hearing from people who denounce the French right off the bat while they obviously know very little about them. Didn't they lose something like 7.5 million people in World War 1? I think after 6 million I would probably start considering surrender as well.

What an odd thing to do though, threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons. How does that work exactly? Blow up the middle east? lol.

Though I suppose if France starts threatening all those countries who support terrorism in some form or another might find themselves lacking a safe place to hide.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

I love hearing from people who denounce the French right off the bat while they obviously know very little about them. Didn't they lose something like 7.5 million people in World War 1? I think after 6 million I would probably start considering surrender as well.
I love hearing from people that didn't read the posts to this point, but skimmed a few things, made assumptions, and immediately start throwing irrelevant material and incomplete sentences on the table.
What an odd thing to do though, threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons. How does that work exactly? Blow up the middle east? lol.
Um, yeah. NOT IR MATERIAL. Did you even read the article? The discussion to this point?
Though I suppose if France starts threatening all those countries whoM support terrorism in some form or anotherINSERTCOMMA SUBJECTGOESHERE might find themselves lacking a safe place to hide.
F- REDO.

[Neo]

I love hearing from people that didn't read the posts to this point, but skimmed a few things, made assumptions, and immediately start throwing irrelevant material and incomplete sentences on the table.

Um, yeah. NOT IR MATERIAL. Did you even read the article? The discussion to this point?

F- REDO.

Cronoss is the only one allowed to be a grammar and spelling nazi. And you are a farcry from Cronoss.

My post was more of a response to yours. You make sweeping generalizations about the French (regardless if the deserve most of them or not) and then continue to provoke singo with posts that basically amount to nothing. You've so far offered nothing of substance to this topic, even less then I have (since personally I don't altogether care what the french do) but while I have posted only once, you've posted what, 4, 5 times?

And of those, only perhaps 1 sentance was evne in response to the articles linked to. The rest was generalized bullshit.

And then, my favorite post thus far, singo calls you on generalizations, only proving his point, and that just going way over your head.

On topic, or at least kind of:

Personally I think France's stance now on Terrorism is interesting. If he actually carries through on any threat, it will either cause World War III, or stop terrorists in thier tracks. If a group commits acts of terrorism on French soil, and the French link it back to a specific country (ie: Syria or otherwise) and nuke them -- suddenly, Syria is going to be just a little less likely to support terrorists in the future.

Though the whole thing just smacks of attention whorism more then anything. I have a hard time believing the France would follow through on it.

I do find it hard to believe that they would be targets simply becuase of thier intelligence ties to us and other countries. You'd think terrorists could have a better reason to attack them then that =P

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

regardless if the deserve most of them or not
I got this far and stopped reading. If you can't construct sentences, you sure as hell shouldn't be talking to me.

[SHISHKABOB]

Hey GA these are forums, and the internet. I dont come here to write totally grammatical and spelling correct sentences, I get enough of that at school.

On topic: Yeah I would think that's a bit of overkill because nuking a whole country because a few shady governmental officials, or the whole government, doesn't mean you should slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. Nukes shouldn't be used until we get off the Earth and colonize enough worlds that incinerating one of them won't be that big of a hurt.

[singo]

On topic: Yeah I would think that's a bit of overkill because nuking a whole country because a few shady governmental officials, or the whole government,

I think you might be overestimating the power of nuclear weaponry (Okay, admittedly there is no theoretical limit on thermonuclear yield ) No one is talking about taking out a whole country. Just everything within a few miles of the government buildings. But it is still overkill. Cruise missiles are more accurate and tend not to give cancer to everyone living in the city for the next few decades.



I do find it hard to believe that they would be targets simply becuase of thier intelligence ties to us and other countries. You'd think terrorists could have a better reason to attack them then that

I wouldnt bet on it. As far as I can tell terrorism is a bit lacking in sane reasons to do anything.

[GenocideAlive]

Okay, admittedly there is no theoretical limit on thermonuclear yield
Fact Patrol: While there is no theoretical limit on thermonuclear yield, there is indeed a point at which most of the percussive force of the blast travels upward away from the Earth as opposed to outward parallel to its surface. Those that construct and drop the bombs would prefer much more outward motion, but after at around 450kt(?) it has been found that you're losing a lot of blast force and not really worth amping up much higher.

Thus they invented the "Peacekeeper M-X" which is basically a big ICBM with 10 warheads on it to disperse them, covering more area. Remember, the aim is to 1. kill people 2. destroy buildings 3. strike fast.

Fact Patrol Out.

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I hate the way the French treat/behave towards Americans
It's pointless to say that, since a lot of other countries think the same towards the Americans too. :concern:

For nuking terrorists, I think it’s a much better idea than waiting for another suicide attack from terrorists. If they want to explode themselves so bad why not luanch a nuclear missile and do that for them? Everybody is happy. :)

[singo]

Fact Patrol: While there is no theoretical limit on thermonuclear yield, there is indeed a point at which most of the percussive force of the blast travels upward away from the Earth as opposed to outward parallel to its surface. Those that construct and drop the bombs would prefer much more outward motion, but after at around 450kt(?) it has been found that you're losing a lot of blast force and not really worth amping up much higher.


I know. Just because it is inefficient does not mean it cannot be done.

[BlackDefiler]

Is there realy a singel person here who actually believes that a nuclear war on ANY scale would not have a global effect.

Eighter as soon as the satellites spot the nuclear missile everyone panics and Pakistan and India fires back (because they're a bit too close) then England see the coming nukes, so they shoot, then Russia then America, just cause the Russians did too, and hell, America hates if the Russians do something before them, this makes China a bit angry too, so they shoot as well and... whoa look! The earth is no more then a ball of 10000C° glass. And if you think it wouldn't happen, well think again. As soon as anyone spots a nuclear missile in flight they are gona crap their pants bigtime.

Other thing is, the nuclear cloud has this neat ability to fly. The wind can sort of carry it around, so even if they shoot just one missile to just a single target, the world is in for a few bad decades. When the Chernobyl reactor exploded, the radioactive particles were already picked up in Finland the next morning. And the Chernobyl meltdown was nowhere compared to a tactical nuke, not to mention a strategic yield.

Just my 2 cents though.

[BlackDefiler]

Yess.. shooting it down above a neighdoring country can do wonders on the grounds of diplomacy. Not to mention being destroyed high above ground will make the radioactive dust scatter all around the Earth thanks to the much faster winds above.

And this is the second thread to be misteriously brought back to life after years... Strange....

[Prozerran]

It seems highly out of character for France to escalate this conflict any further. It's more likely that the French are simply looking after their own by suggesting this kind of retaliation. As if it's possible to 'scare' terrorists away from bombing the shit out of them. Whatever.

[uberfoop]

Yess.. shooting it down above a neighdoring country can do wonders on the grounds of diplomacy. Not to mention being destroyed high above ground will make the radioactive dust scatter all around the Earth thanks to the much faster winds above.

The costs of bribing a nation to pretend that you didn't do it are usually lower than the costs of getting completely blown up.

As if it's possible to 'scare' terrorists away from bombing the shit out of them.
Seriously.
These Jihadis don't get intimidated by force.
They're like bloody hydras. You kill one, two more people get angry and grab an AK.

If they were afraid to get blown up, suicide bombing wouldn't be one of their primary strategies.

[Prozerran]

These Jihadis don't get intimidated by force.
They're like bloody hydras. You kill one, two more people get angry and grab an AK.

If they were afraid to get blown up, suicide bombing wouldn't be one of their primary strategies.

I guess you didn't note my sarcasm. Oh well... I'm right there with you... hence, escalation.

[BlackDefiler]

As long as the world keeps buying oil from these regions the terrorists will always get enough money to buy weapons.

Hop on a bike and stop terrorism!

[Skullflower]

Eighter as soon as the satellites spot the nuclear missile everyone panics and Pakistan and India fires back (because they're a bit too close) then England see the coming nukes, so they shoot, then Russia then America, just cause the Russians did too, and hell, America hates if the Russians do something before them, this makes Japan a bit angry too, so they shoot as well and... whoa look! The earth is no more then a ball of 10000C° glass. And if you think it wouldn't happen, well think again. As soon as anyone spots a nuclear missile in flight they are gona crap their pants bigtime.


I dont know why but that reminded me of this: End Of Ze World (http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm)

Besides, I dont think Japan has nuclear weapons.

[BlackDefiler]

I dont think Japan has nuclear weapons
Yep, sorry China does not Japan.

[ChimTheGrim21]

I find it ironic that we're even having a discussion about France using nukes. Anyone?

[xCYDx]

My messages have been deleted. Weird. As a French i thought I could bring a interesting point of view to this whole discussion but ... so be it.

[Thedutchjelle]

Other thing is, the nuclear cloud has this neat ability to fly. The wind can sort of carry it around, so even if they shoot just one missile to just a single target, the world is in for a few bad decades. When the Chernobyl reactor exploded, the radioactive particles were already picked up in Finland the next morning. And the Chernobyl meltdown was nowhere compared to a tactical nuke, not to mention a strategic yield.

Chernobyl released 100 times more radiation than Hiroshime, according to Wikipedia.

Anyway, i don't think nuking terrorist is going to do much good. High change of killing innocent people, pissing politicians off, etc.

[Galiant]

Maybe this should answer your questions...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

[Magmaniac]

Oh boy. What a horrible idea to announce this. It almost guarantees an attack on France from a radical muslim group at some point.
I forget where I heard this, but an extremist muslim suicide bomber who was in custody somewhere was asked in regards to the bombing "What if we retaliated?" and he said "We expect your retaliation. It is what unites us and divides you."
Now that france has announced it could retaliate with nukes, the gears are probably already turning in the terrorist circles, someone somewhere is planning an attack on french soil, hoping for a nuclear retaliation.

*sigh*

Why can't everyone just be friends and pick flowers and be happy?

[Neo]

You guys, there seems to be a lack of IR discussion in here as of late. This forum requires that you put some thought behind your posts, at the very least, and generate good responses.

These linking to end of the world scenarios, albinoblacksheep, etc... isn't really conducive to IR discussions.

Just a PSA here, could you knock it off and go back on topic?

I lied. This topic is a necro topic... Seriously guys.

-Neo