Now Why Is This Not A Topic Yet

[JP226]

France has declared it would use nukes against anyone who committed a terrorist attack in their country. We all know how many threads there would be if the US blatantly came out declaring to do this, but not a single one when france does it? No the TWC community isn't biased, not in the least.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...ms_france_dc_2

[Rhah]

Hadnt even heard anything about this (damn that pro-french media!), but if its true then the french are being pretty stupid.
Also, i find it strange that they are unwilling to use Nukes in a conventional conflict (its against their "official policy" apparently) but would be willing to use them against "any state" that sponsored a WMD terrorist attack on them. I'd hope they have some pretty good intelligence before they start shooting off nuclear weapons.

I dont even think the US would actually nuke a state sponsor of WMD terrorism, or at least i dont remember them officially stating they would.
bloody french

[Ecclesiastes]

France has declared it would use nukes against anyone who committed a terrorist attack in their country. We all know how many threads there would be if the US blatantly came out declaring to do this, but not a single one when france does it? No the TWC community isn't biased, not in the least.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...ms_france_dc_2

I think it is meant to scare terrorists of which won't work. Don't believe they would really do it because the whole world would be ****** at them. What does raises a couple of questions in my mind is that why is France allowed to have nuclear missiles if they act like this. And why is the USA allowed to have nuclear missiles? If Iran can't have them then why USA can? Nobody should have them.

Quotation removed, continuity deletion.

- Torment

[Darth Wong]

You people are aware that the US has always maintained its right to use nuclear weapons as a first-strike weapon at its own disgression, right? Simply saying that you reserve the right for yourself to use a weapon doesn't mean you're actually planning to do it.

[Rhah]

You people are aware that the US has always maintained its right to use nuclear weapons as a first-strike weapon at its own disgression, right? Simply saying that you reserve the right for yourself to use a weapon doesn't mean you're actually planning to do it.

True enough, but why then do the French openly state that they would not use their nuclear weapons in a conventional war? Surely that negates the point of having nukes as a deterrent?
Or is it pointless trying to find logic in anything that involves nuclear weapons? (and/or the french)

[danzig]

I think it is meant to scare terrorists of which won't work. Don't believe they would really do it because the whole world would be ****** at them. What does raises a couple of questions in my mind is that why is France allowed to have nuclear missiles if they act like this. And why is the USA allowed to have nuclear missiles? If Iran can't have them then why USA can? Nobody should have them.

See prime example, this thread is about France and someone just HAS to bring the US into the thread. There isnt an overall bias on the forums but there appears to be some people who sit at keyboard just waiting for news from US to post about meanwhile stuff like French story not so much. This isnt about whether US has maintained first strike rights (it has) this has to do with France threatening nuclear action on terrorst states.

Part of quotation removed, continuity deletion.

- Torment

[The White Knight]

France has declared it would use nukes against anyone who committed a terrorist attack in their country. We all know how many threads there would be if the US blatantly came out declaring to do this, but not a single one when france does it? No the TWC community isn't biased, not in the least.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...ms_france_dc_2

Ugh. They have been seduced by condi!

[CaptainCernick]

I wonder why every thread only slightly involving the French attracts stupid, stereotypical spam posts.

[Rhah]

Eat crap cheese, and eat "freedom fries" probably

[Lord Tomyris]

Eat crap cheese, and eat "freedom fries" probably

Hmm, I'll just settle for some fish and chips. This move by the French does seem a bit drastic now what if every Western country declared this?

[sephodwyrm]

The fact is that the French do own nuclear weapons...

But the other fact is that the French has not really practiced interventionist or unilateralist diplomacy for the past decade...and France is not the police state of the world.

You have a community. Some rich guy decides: "Hey, I'm going to use my shotgun on anyone that tries to harm my family." I don't think the whole community would care much.

The community would care if the police say: "Hey, I'm going to use my shotgun on anyone that tries to harm my family." (well, at least to my knowledge most societies would care what the Police would do and not what some rich guys would do).

[Erik]

France has declared it would use nukes against anyone who committed a terrorist attack in their country.

Ehh... No they didn't.

They said they WOULD NOT RULE OUT a nuclear strike, they didn't say they would automatically nuke a country that attacked them.

It would be very strange if they did completely rule out a nuclear strike against a certain enemy.
And I don't think any country with nuclear weapons rules out the use of nuclear weapons againt terrorists.

We all know how many threads there would be if the US blatantly came out declaring to do this, but not a single one when france does it? No the TWC community isn't biased, not in the least.

I think you are biased.
You (tried to) make us beleive the story said something shocking about France, while it is realy an irrelevant story about military spending.

PEOPLE PLEASE READ THE LINK, or just ignore this thread.

[Rhah]

You have a community. Some rich guy decides: "Hey, I'm going to use my shotgun on anyone that tries to harm my family." I don't think the whole community would care much.

The community would care if the police say: "Hey, I'm going to use my shotgun on anyone that tries to harm my family." (well, at least to my knowledge most societies would care what the Police would do and not what some rich guys would do).
__________________

Isnt that one of the point of the police though? to protect the public with their "shotguns"?
it would be more of a concern if the "police" werent using their "shotguns" to protect anyone, except their own interests.
I see what your saying though

[Torment]

Ok, I've deleted some offensive remarks (and the responses to it) and warnings have been issued. Now, stay on topic or the same will happen to you.

[Masquerade]

You've completely and utterly warped the article.

[Alcibiades of Athens]

What's wrong with you people ?

France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent

And as it says: a reaffirmation, there has been no change in the deterrence strategy, unlike ,mmmhm, let's say a proposal to develop and use "mini-nukes"...

[Tiwaz]

What's wrong with you people ?



And as it says: a reaffirmation, there has been no change in the deterrence strategy, unlike ,mmmhm, let's say a proposal to develop and use "mini-nukes"...

That, I believe after reading the report, is conclusion drawn by journalist writing the article.
Chirac apparently did not say anything like that or he would have been quoted on that.

What he apparently DID say is:

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."

[Alcibiades of Athens]

Tiwaz

That, I believe after reading the report, is conclusion drawn by journalist writing the article.

Yes, but as this thread's main point was based on the article's conclusion I saw no need to quote the original wording, as the article itself doesn't back the pov of the thread starter.

What he apparently DID say is:

That he may respond to any attack or threat thereof involving WMD's perpetrated by any state, regardless of the means by nuclear retaliation.Still there is nothing new to it, other than that terrorist are explicitly named as potential medium for such an attack.

Big War Bird

I think is a sign of the times that Chirac had to make a point of this. Thr EU and the USA are gradually moving toword a serious confrontation wiht Iran, a proud terrorist statewith nukes on their minds. Just perhaps this a was subtle warning to Iran that france was willing to go to the mat against their nuke program.

For the use of the word "subtle" in context of potential nuclear retaliation you have to be an american... Might be true though.I do wonder however, what the statement is pointed at other than his compatriots, it seems a bit early to discourage Iran from any such follies,as it is not even sure if there will be any military escalation, nor if France would participate and then, what better advertisement for nuclear arms could one possibly make ?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

He never sais he's going to use nukes against countries of whom residents comit terrorist acts on French soil.

second, Chirac has been criticised a lot during those riots I guess he only wants to show that he is not the weak president he's made out to be.

by the way, the article also said:

He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

meaning, claiming France would use nukes is an interpretation of the hollow words of a politician by a journalist

I'd like to apologise if annything I said sounded weird or inconsistent, I'm on havy medication because of some bacteria

[Kanaric]

rofl, people with their anti-french propoganda. It would help if they actually read now they just made themselves look REALLY ill informed and completely biased.

Seems people are desperate just to find a reason to attack other people countries on this board. I see this kind of BS every day and its really upsetting and annoying. I would say more but I dont want to be warned.