• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

France threatening nuclear response if attacked by state sponsored terrorists...

Armymatters

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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."

He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an event.

France has had an independent nuclear deterrent since 1960, after an arms programme ordered by Charles de Gaulle.

'Odious attacks'

The BBC's Alistair Sandford in Paris says this is the first time that Mr Chirac has so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

On a visit to L'Ile-Longue base in Brittany, Mr Chirac said leaders of states who would "use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and adapted response from us".

The president spoke of new threats in a post-Cold War world, without mentioning any specific threat against France.

"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilisations," he said, adding that "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states".

Following the end of the Cold War, France scaled down its nuclear deterrent, scrapping a number of missile systems.

It is believed to have a current arsenal of around 350 nuclear weapons.

Anyone freaked out by this statement? Possible nuclear response to a state-sponsored terrorist attack on France? And I thought France wasn't the trigger happy ones. :eek:
 
Seeing as in how any nuclear attack from France would be directed at states supporting terrorism, does anyone think that countries, mainly the  US, would support their decision to respond to a terrorist attack in such an extreme way? Or do you think it will create a problem between France, and other countries around the world?

Mike
 
I believe this has been official French policy for a number of years, so there's really no surprise going here.

The problem is raised of course, as to WHERE exactly these weapons would be directed towards.
 
Armymatters said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

Anyone freaked out by this statement?

Yeah, that's rather freaky! Imagine those words in Bush's mouth now!

Firestorm to come in France and wait for the wave spreading worldwide, let me tell you.

Now, the question is, if you don't prove your allegations, there's nothing left to interrogate...
 
"Anyone freaked out by this statement? Possible nuclear response to a state-sponsored terrorist attack on France? And I thought France wasn't the trigger happy ones. "

This is actually progress.  Allow me to explain.

1.  French nuclear policy 1960-1990:  Use nukes to kill Russian as they rapidly advance West across German soil: a "win-win" situation, as far as France is concerned.

2. French nuclear policy 1990+: Use nukes to kill savages (who directed terrorist attacks against your citizens) as they hide in 'safe' cities in 'safe' countries - none of which are in Europe - that have been pissing you off all along anyway.

...And the world is unfolding as it should.

Tom
 
TCBF said:
2. French nuclear policy 1990+: Use nukes to kill savages (who directed terrorist attacks against your citizens) as they hide in 'safe' cities in 'safe' countries - none of which are in Europe - that have been pissing you off all along anyway.

Ah, yes, John Travolta's "Swordfish" style of foreign policy.


"If they blow up one of our churches, we blow up 10 of their's. If they down an airplane, we tactically nuke a city. What terrorist would dare to attack the US France when they realize the consequences of what I'll do."
 
There is a lot to be said for peace through superior firepower.  If you are prepared to do something completely raw, without any moral justification apart from over the top revenge...ONCE, as an object lesson, it tends to quiet the natives.  Until they revolt.  But revolutions and wars aren't the problem, it's terrorism that's the problem.  Revolutions and wars are man's natural state of affairs.

I'm reminded of a story I heard somewhere, probably apocryphal, of terrorists in Soviet Russia kidnapping someone and sending in one of their fingers as proof they had them...they then threatened to kill them unless prisoners were released, etc....The kidnappers apparently received a package with the fingers of their close relatives / the prisoners they wanted released inside.  Brinksmanship.  They backed down and released their hostage.

I should probably mention that in general, I'm against killing the innocent as a lesson to sub-human slimebags.
 
Adding to TCBF
France in recent years may have politically finally got there act together. Vis via terrorism they have had particulary good successes most of which has not made the front page of the BBC. Another sign they may have gotten there act together. Forget the missile, France prefer the rapier, back pack or arty shell. In addition how much stronger of a warning " if you mess with us...................." maybe some finanical backers of terrorist think twice now.
 
Gunnar said:
I'm reminded of a story I heard somewhere, probably apocryphal, of terrorists in Soviet Russia kidnapping someone and sending in one of their fingers as proof they had them...they then threatened to kill them unless prisoners were released, etc....The kidnappers apparently received a package with the fingers of their close relatives / the prisoners they wanted released inside.  Brinksmanship.  They backed down and released their hostage.

Wrong, incident you refer to happened in Beirut. Soviet embassy staff got grabbed by mistake the same time CIA station chief was kidnapped. Soviets got their people back in one piece. CIA killed and I believe he was skinned
 
The point is clear, even if the story is not.  I never pretended to know the whole facts of the case....just said I heard it somewhere, and that it probably wasn't true....
 
When people think nukes, they think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the 1950s era multi-megaton city busters of "Dr. Strangelove", "Fail Safe", "On the Beach", "The Day After", etc.

Me?  I think of the mini-nukes from the 'Davy Crocket' launcher: a 57 pound warhead.  A suitcase nuke.  The yield is very sub-kt, and unless you have witnesses on the ground who say the flash was white and not yellow, and who happen to have radiac meters handy to record the minimal transient radiation, it could get reported as just another truck bomb.

A truck bomb in a briefcase.  A lot handier than 'Fat Man' or 'Little Boy'.  Nowadays, anyway.

Tom
 
3rd Herd said:
Wrong, incident you refer to happened in Beirut. Soviet embassy staff got grabbed by mistake the same time CIA station chief was kidnapped. Soviets got their people back in one piece. CIA killed and I believe he was skinned

The Beirut CIA station chief was murdered by hanging. He wasn't skinned. The story of the Soviets was that they assassinated some key Hezbolla figures in retaliation for the kidnapping of their citizen(s) and the effect achieved the desired result.
 
48Highlander said:
Ah, yes, John Travolta's "Swordfish" style of foreign policy.


"If they blow up one of our churches, we blow up 10 of their's. If they down an airplane, we tactically nuke a city. What terrorist would dare to attack the US France when they realize the consequences of what I'll do."

{best english accent} "he pulls out a knife, you pull out a gun.  If he sends one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue"
 
TCBF said:
Me?  I think of the mini-nukes from the 'Davy Crocket' launcher: a 57 pound warhead.  A suitcase nuke.  The yield is very sub-kt

I don't think Chirac was thinking about a suitcase nuke, but more about deterrence. Now, if he would really launch a nuke is another thing. I think there's some sort of taboo about lunching a nuclear ICBM aimed at a strategic position. Well, maybe not in the military community, or less... It's just that the perspective of possible total anihilation of millions of people in one instant is unbearable for me, it's just totally insane and unhuman.

Now, threatening a hijacker/kidnapper is something, they want either cash or people unjailed, they want to live through their action. Not suicide bombers or Al-Quaeda members. How do you threathen someone who blow himself up to kill people? I just hope Bin Laden just think his life if worth something and don't wanna die, this would  have some deterrence. Otherwise, it's similar to the death penalty with killers. Most of them don't even think about facing death penalty before acting. The no-deterrence effect of the death penalty is proven by many studies and has been for a long time now.

So, I really don't know where this could lead us. I just know there's something behind that. Don't know what, yet. How could nuclear bomb be more effective than many thousand soldiers with the same aim to destroy terrorist camps? Or for the matter, many thousand SOF operators?

State-sponsored terrorism? Are they gonna nuke Egypt??

Deterrence, don't know what else. Response to Bin Laden's 'cease-fire'? Maybe.
 
"I don't think Chirac was thinking about a suitcase nuke, but more about deterrence."

- The great thing about deterence is it's generality.  You discount nothing.  Use correct tools correctly.  City busters are obsolete except in extreme circumstances.  A small nuke - sub kt even- at the end of a cruise missle into a well dug in trg camp or cave complex will send a very good message.

And: the only people who know they caught a Nuke will be the ones at ground zero, and those countries with the right equip to detect the shock waves and properly interpret them, and they ain't talking.  Get it?

Tom
 
I'm not trying to steer this thread off course by any means, but a little sidenote that could be of interest:  What if EMP's were used as weapons of mass destruction, rather than nukes?  Instead of 'nuking' a state that sponsors terrorism, inevitably killing thousands upon thousands of people, while also producing amazing environmental damage - why not just use an airborne detonated EMP to knock out an entire country's electronics?  Phones, computers, cars, even wrist-watches - DONE.  Without the huge loss of life, or environmental impact.

Back to the more immediate topic though, that is quite freaky.  Deterrence only works if people take you seriously about it, and that only happens when you flex some muscle and demonstrate your resolve.  I don't think they could possibly get away with nuking any one country - you think the oil supply crisis is bad now?  Go ahead, nuke some middle-eastern country and see how screwed we are afterwards.  All talk on France's part, hopefully.  :-\
 
Deterrence only works if you can make a credible threat. Nuking Tehran or Damascus (or Pyongyang for that matter) might knock out the terrorist support network, and might make the sponsoring states think twice, but these threats won't deterr OBL and coy.  Similarly, EMP weapons will cripple any modern infrastructure, but really now, who has the modern infrastructure to threaten.....oops. France may be warning the sponsoring nations in an effort to cut the logistical spine of the Jihadis, although I am sure they have stockpiled enough money, documents and equipment, and dispersed widely enough to run on their own for quite a while even without a sheltering state (and who is to say Venezuela won't take up the torch for the jihadis?).

Finally, nuclear weaponry of any sort leaves a very distinct signature, acoustic, thermal, seismic, electronic, etc., and a wide array of sesors both open and secret exist throughout the world and in space for the express purpose of monitoring for nuclear events. The energy release of a nuclear weapon is concentrated enough that it will also trip many other types of sensors which are not primarally designed to record nuclear events. Below a certain size, there may be difficulty in extracting the event from background "noise", but collating several different signatures will remove any questions (how many earthquakes come with ionizing radiation and an EMP pulse, for example?)
 
" ... other types of sensors which are not primarally designed to record nuclear events. Below a certain size, there may be difficulty in extracting the event from background "noise", but collating several different signatures will remove any questions (how many earthquakes come with ionizing radiation and an EMP pulse, for example?)"

Exactly my point.  To be effective, it only has to have it's desired effect at ground zero - the detectionof it's use by other countries is an added bonus:  they now know how serious you are.

As above: forget city busters.  We will not even know when or if these are (or have been) used.  At sub kt level, it wil be reported as a truck or a/c bomb.  Nothing else.

Tom
 
As I stated earlier I belive France is just puting out a far warning. The same as they have done before. The result if you choose not to listen action will be taken. To wit, New Zealand and a certain ship that just happened to sink to the botom of their harbour. a_majoor as to the use of nuclear weapons etc on civilians President Clinton  in 1974 declassified some very interesting US government documents. I just checked the main site and it has a very interesting notice why the records are no longer available.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dodhre/index.html
http://www.raven1.net/achradex.htm
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/
http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/atomic.html


 
Q - How do you spot the French military vehicle?

A - It's the tiny 4X4 with a big f***-off gun mounted on it.  ;D

I'm with the French on this one-and I'm not surprised by their firm response.  Keep in mind that we are dealing with a country that was conquered by the Krauts not-so-long ago.  The French have a strong military and foreign policy that is geared to ensure that France will never be subjugated in any way-ever again.

Of course, being French myself, I suppose I'm not exactly impartial on this issue.  :dontpanic:
 
Back
Top