France does not rule out nuclear response anymore

[Sandman]

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.

So if al qaeda kills, say, twenty people on the Tube with nerve gas, that should provoke a nuclear response? What if they kill forty people with high explosives?

[Winston]

Massive pig lard response.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Iran violated the NPT by secret enrichment. In order to not be referred to the UNSC for THAT violation, Iran agreed to refrain from ANY enrichment. Which agreement they have now broken.

And for the Iran is being picked on folks, in fact enrichment is NOT considered by all to be necessary for nuclear energy. Mohammed el Baradei has said that enrichment technology is too dangerous, and no non-nuclear weapons states should have it. S Korea and Taiwan have given up enrichment, though both retain extensive nuclear ENERGY establishments. (thank G-d for NPR, or I wouldnt have known this)

And again, the reference was not to Iran being a special case under the terms of the NPT, but to being seen as a special case by the world.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


So if al qaeda kills, say, twenty people on the Tube with nerve gas, that should provoke a nuclear response? What if they kill forty people with high explosives?

You ever hear of "flexible response"?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by 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).

But America has nuked someone already. They win.

[Sprayber]

I think we nuked the wrong island


Note: Not that I actually believe that but it was funny to think about it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You ever hear of "flexible response"?

What are you getting at?

[Dr Strangelove]

So what happens if the next terrorist attack on France comes from some of their own 3 million muslims? I guess they'd have to sail one of their subs out into the mid-Atlantic to get enough distance to fire a nuclear missle at a Paris suburb, or do they have their own version of tactical nukes?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman


So if al qaeda kills, say, twenty people on the Tube with nerve gas, that should provoke a nuclear response? What if they kill forty people with high explosives?

The stated threshhold is the use of WMD. The policy the US and UK have is if a nation uses any WMD then they'll get a nuclear response. Chirac has adopted this policy with a significant change in that France now says that if a terrorist group uses WMD then France will use a nuclear response against the country which arms and supports the terrorist group.

It is a bolder version of the 60 year old US & UK policy though not entirely unreasonable. The goal seems to be that the response to any WMD attack will be so overwelming that no one would dare do it.

[Sandman]

I still think it's ludicrous. You might as well threaten a nuclear response for attacks that take place on weekends, but not weekdays. Casualty count not important.

[Dinner]

Even if you don't support it you must conceed that the policy would make even the most cold hearted terrorist sponsoring nation think twice about allowing terrorist groups to gain WMD.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Iran violated the NPT by secret enrichment. In order to not be referred to the UNSC for THAT violation, Iran agreed to refrain from ANY enrichment. Which agreement they have now broken.

A referal needs to be approved by the whole IAEA. They amde the deal with the Euros so the Euros would not keep pushing. They ended the deal, now the Euros get the right to push for this to go to the UNSC. I see no real problems here,The consequences of actions seem pretty clear.

And for the Iran is being picked on folks, in fact enrichment is NOT considered by all to be necessary for nuclear energy. Mohammed el Baradei has said that enrichment technology is too dangerous, and no non-nuclear weapons states should have it. S Korea and Taiwan have given up enrichment, though both retain extensive nuclear ENERGY establishments. (thank G-d for NPR, or I wouldnt have known this)

And as great as El-Baradei is, tought. What is in the treaty is what matters, not anything else. People's opinion of the law is secondary, if significant at all, to the actual Law.

And again, the reference was not to Iran being a special case under the terms of the NPT, but to being seen as a special case by the world.

The world hardly sees Iran as a "special case"> A few states do, but the world???? I don;t see India and China (hmm, 1/3 of humanity, more than in all of Europe and NOrth America) trully that concerned more about Iran than say NK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The stated threshhold is the use of WMD. The policy the US and UK have is if a nation uses any WMD then they'll get a nuclear response. Chirac has adopted this policy with a significant change in that France now says that if a terrorist group uses WMD then France will use a nuclear response against the country which arms and supports the terrorist group.

It is a bolder version of the 60 year old US & UK policy though not entirely unreasonable. The goal seems to be that the response to any WMD attack will be so overwelming that no one would dare do it.

That is insane.

A response to an attack that killed 30 people that kills 5000 is so beyond the realm of all morality as to be, again, utterly insane.

If some guy used VX in the Paris metro and killed 100 people, I would bet very good money that the response would not be nuclear at all. period.

[PLATO]

I agree that the response would be disproportional to the action....but that is the idea isn't it?

"If you kill 100 of us, we will kill 50000 of you!" That is a powerful statement...and not to be taken litely eithier.

[GePap]

That simply does not work. The threat is outlandish, and inherently unbelievable.

The sacel is too different- one is a crimnal act, the other verges on a crime against humanity. Such an absurd difference does not work.

If this had any logic whatsoever, then states could just as well state that any attack by high explosives that killed anyone would be met by the greatest possible retaliation. The logic fails.