France threatens nuclear response to terrorist attack

mmarsh

mmarsh

Active member
No you didnt misunderstand...

France has threatened nuclear weapons retailation toward any nation (hint, hint, Iran) that uses state sponsored terrorism against French national security.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/20/france.chirac.nuclear.ap/index.html

I must say, thats a very bold statement, very unusual for Chirac to say the least. I would have expected that kind of statement from Bush, but Chirac? I wonder what Irans response will be?

As the ancient Gauls used to say "The sky is falling on our heads".
 
mmarsh said:
No you didnt misunderstand...

France has threatened nuclear weapons retailation toward any nation (hint, hint, Iran) that uses state sponsored terrorism against French national security.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/20/france.chirac.nuclear.ap/index.html

I must say, thats a very bold statement, very unusual for Chirac to say the least. I would have expected that kind of statement from Bush, but Chirac? I wonder what Irans response will be?

As the ancient Gauls used to say "The sky is falling on our heads".
Click to expand...

Not much chance that statement would have come from Bush, it is not generic enough for one of his. The key difference is the use of the term "State sponsered terrorism" that clearly separates the likes OBL from Iran.
 
phoenix80 said:
France, Military Response?
You gotta be kidding..
Click to expand...


Not to be rude, offensive or flame like in any way, but what are they gonna do? I didn't think the french had nukes. They gonna call Bush up and say nuke'em?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Peace out
Nachos
 
I was surprised to hear this.

If Americans talk about their nuke arsenal, they are warmongers and bad but if the frogs talk of their nuke arsenal they are humane and good?
 
Nachos said:
Not to be rude, offensive or flame like in any way, but what are they gonna do? I didn't think the french had nukes. They gonna call Bush up and say nuke'em?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Peace out
Nachos
Click to expand...
No, France has maintained a nuclear arsenal for a very long time. A tad longer than China I believe. Under Charles DeGaulle, the French tried very hard to put themselves forward as "the Third Superpower" but for lack of population, size and resources, they cannot possibly fill that role, but the development of a nuclear arsenal was seems as an essential ingredient in the attempt.

Wikipedia said:
France is said to have an arsenal of 350 nuclear weapons stockpiled as of 2002 [1]. The weapons are part of the national Force de frappe. France is one of the five "Nuclear Weapons States" (NWS) under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which France ratified in 1992.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The other four nations exempted by the NPT were the USA, USSR/Russia, China, and the UK.
 
Last edited:
France does have nukes yes..

But that statement is quite ..."big"... , its either nothing or its either a nuke, heh, hmm..
Also, that might bring unwanted trouble. But I do hope Chirac was careful saying this.

And btw, Gauls lived in France for a long time, but most were kicked by the Germanic tribes that moved there. One star is Charles Martel and later Charlemagne.. :)
 
Charles Martel and Charlemagne were both Franks, which was a Germanic tribe, but the Gauls had not held sway in the region where France is now since they were conquered by Julius Caesar. They certainly were a majority of the population under Roman rule, but they didn't control anything.
 
Last edited:
MightyMacbeth said:
France does have nukes yes..

But that statement is quite ..."big"... , its either nothing or its either a nuke, heh, hmm..
Also, that might bring unwanted trouble. But I do hope Chirac was careful saying this.

And btw, Gauls lived in France for a long time, but most were kicked by the Germanic tribes that moved there. One star is Charles Martel and later Charlemagne.. :)
Click to expand...

There is nothing big and it is not nothing or nuke the statement was:

L'ILE-LONGUE, France (AP) -- President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons to a state-sponsored terrorist attack,
Click to expand...

phoenix80 said:
If Americans talk about their nuke arsenal, they are warmongers and bad but if the frogs talk of their nuke arsenal they are humane and good?
Click to expand...

Once again I would suggest reading his statement.
"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 fitting response from us," he said. "This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."
Click to expand...

Or to make it a bit more direct "use a WMD on us and we can respond in kind" it is nothing more than a reitteration of how MAD works and I would expect the same statement from any nation with the capacity to do so (yes even the USA).
 
Godofthunder

You are mistaken to say the French tried to be a superpower, France had no illusion that it couldnt be a superpower. Just looking at the globe can tell you that. The French accepted that fact, they just didnt like it. France created a Nuclear arm because it was evident that the US wouldnt help Europe against Soviet attack. The United States used ICBMS in the strategic role. Its missiles carried multiple warheads designed to take out cites in a tit for tat with the USSR. France on the other hand had a different strategy. While the SuperPowers used their ICBMS to create spheres of influance, The French devoloped their nuclear arm as a deterent against Soviet ground invasion.

Wikipedia got a good article on this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe

Chirac must really be worried if hes threatening using nukes...
 
mmarsh said:
Godofthunder

You are mistaken to say the French tried to be a superpower, France had no illusion that it couldnt be a superpower. Just looking at the globe can tell you that. The French accepted that fact, they just didnt like it. France created a Nuclear arm because it was evident that the US wouldnt help Europe against Soviet attack. The United States used ICBMS in the strategic role. Its missiles carried multiple warheads designed to take out cites in a tit for tat with the USSR. France on the other hand had a different strategy. While the SuperPowers used their ICBMS to create spheres of influance, The French devoloped their nuclear arm as a deterent against Soviet ground invasion.

Wikipedia got a good article on this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe

Chirac must really be worried if hes threatening using nukes...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where the French got the notion that the USA was going to be an intentional nonparticipant in the event of a Soviet invasion. The USA was always setup to do its utmost to rapidly deploy to Western Europe for the purpose of repelling or at least slowing the Soviets.

You are welcome to explain what DeGaulle had in mind, but did he not withdraw France from full NATO membership and push for closer ties to the USSR??

Agreed on the point about Chirac. That's an uncommonly bold nuke-related statement by Chirac and it's hard to know how one ought to react to it.
 
Last edited:
France created a Nuclear arm because it was evident that the US wouldnt help Europe against Soviet attack. The United States used ICBMS in the strategic role.
Click to expand...

HUH?

So just what were all those SRBM's, IRBM's, tanks, planes, support elements, and troops doing there? Are you so young that you don't remember how words like "Pershing" and "REFORGER" used to send all the "can't we all just get along" gang into the streets protesting the evil United States?

If you have a link to something about a US military doctrine that allowed the Warsaw pact to just roll over Europe, I'd sure like to see it.
 
mmarsh said:
France created a Nuclear arm because it was evident that the US wouldnt help Europe against Soviet attack
Click to expand...

I would say France created a nuclear arm because De Gaulle wanted to play the big regional power in Europe and made the French believe the US would not intervene in Europe after a Soviet Attack. That's different.
 
Forest Gump + all

I'm sorry, My fault, I was alittle too vague. Let me clarify something, when I meant the US wouldnt help I didnt mean that it would be indifferent, I meant it wouldnt be ABLE to help as because it was streching itself thin across the world. I do not think the US would have passive sat by and let the Soviets drive on through, they did that in 1940 and the lesson was learned.

In the 1960s, the US was downsizing its forces in Western Europe, the Korean war and actions that led to the Vietnam war meant that the US redeployed its forces to southasia. Therefore France (and much of Western Europe) got nervous and decided that it would be best to leave its defence to itself.

Back to topic, Chiracs statements are very surprising as threats of nuclear attack is not in the usual French vocabulary. The last time I can remember anything was DeGaulle threatening to Nuke Moscow if they tried to invade...
 
Last edited:
Makes more sense now.
It's still good that Chirac said he can use nuclear technology against States that sponsor terrorist attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top