France does not rule out nuclear response anymore

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Alas, Denmark will never be significant enough so that people care about boycotting it. Nice try in supposing that the people here give a **** about you being unwilling to appreciate French wines to their just value, though.

Hell, Denmark is a great place. I make a point of buying a Danish canned ham every once in a while just because.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think LOTM is right.

Wasn't the US making a similar (although not specifically about a nuclear strike - IIRC) statement shortly before the Gulf war 91?

Actually it was UK PM John Major who originally said it. He said that if Saddam used WMD then the UK would "incinerate" Iraq. The obvious threat was that the UK would nuke Iraq. Bush Sr. then picked up on Major's stance and threatened to do the same thing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Thorn
France nuking someone hahaha....!!!

that'll be the day....

like when the free world thinks its a good idea to give Germany nuclear weapons..... (yes even now)

If the Germans or Japanese or South Koreans or Taiwanese or Polish or Spanish or Italians or Turks or Brazilians or Argentines or South Africans or just about any other country in Europe wanted a nuke they could have one with in a year (more likely with in 6 months).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman

Because a nuclear response to nerve gas is plainly ludicrous?

Official UK policy says otherwise. As with the US the UK has an official stated policy that any WMD attack upon it means an unlimited response. France has just stated they have the same policy though they've included that if you support or arm terrorist groups then you'll be held responisble for their actions.

A sensible policy in way you look at it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Official UK policy says otherwise. As with the US the UK has an official stated policy that any WMD attack upon it means an unlimited response. France has just stated they have the same policy though they've included that if you support or arm terrorist groups then you'll be held responisble for their actions.

A sensible policy in way you look at it.

No its not- Chemical attacks are utterly in a different magnitude from nuclearl attacks. The classification of chemical weapons as WMD's is utterly stupid. A chemical weapon is on the same league as other chemical agents like high explosives- you would need the BEST possible conditions for a chemical attack to bring about "destruction" on a mass level.

There is no possible resiprosity in such a response, and that is even BEFORE considering the fact that nuclear wepaons have long term after effects utterly missing from chemical attacks.

Oh, and negative to what has been said, there are NO "special cases" when it comes to adherence to the NPT. eithet you adhere or you don't. Europes's problem is that Irans pledge to stop uranium enrichment was a voluntary agreement made by Iran and the Europeans. There are no restrictions on Iran enriching uranium for reactor level as long as those activities are monitored by the IAEA.

[KrazyHorse]

It's a threat.

Not necessarily to be carried through. The thought is that if you bark loud enough you won't have to bite.

[Drake Tungsten]

Chirac

I'm not sure they have the balls to actually do such a thing, but it's always smart to at least make it look like you would.

[KrazyHorse]

France would nuke somebody quicker than the US would.

In fact, out of all the countries which have nuclear weapons, I'd say that France would be the first to use (given similar levels of provocation).

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree. America likes to talk tough and act like we don't really care what other countries think, but we do deep down. France, OTOH, doesn't give a **** about anyone but France.

[Ted Striker]

France = America



I'm gonna go put on my headscarf now

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Thorn
France nuking someone hahaha....!!!

that'll be the day....

like when the free world thinks its a good idea to give Germany nuclear weapons..... (yes even now)

"Once the Germans were warlike and mean,
But this is now and that was then.
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
And they've hardly bothered us since then.

Why shouldn't they have nuclear warheads?
Britain says no, but they all are soreheads.
I say a bygone should be a bygone.
Let's make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon."

...Tom Lehrer in MLF.

[Winston]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

In fact, out of all the countries which have nuclear weapons, I'd say that France would be the first to use (given similar levels of provocation).

I also believe this to be true.

In fact, if any 75-100 of their "military advisors" in a former colony found themselves in sufficiently deep trouble somewhere, I could easily visualize France contemplating a strategic response using these weapons. And it would be more a matter of national "pride" to them than anything else.

When it comes to nukes, France is really the special case here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Winston
In fact, if any 75-100 of their "military advisors" in a former colony found themselves in sufficiently deep trouble somewhere, I could easily visualize France contemplating a strategic response using these weapons.

That's pushing things a bit far, Winston.

[Winston]

Yes well, never trust a Frenchman with a nuke is my motto.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Actually it was UK PM John Major who originally said it. He said that if Saddam used WMD then the UK would "incinerate" Iraq. The obvious threat was that the UK would nuke Iraq. Bush Sr. then picked up on Major's stance and threatened to do the same thing.

Ahh, thx, I forgot the details