France does not rule out nuclear response anymore

[Dinner]

It is entirely sane and reasonable. The idea is that the use of WMD is a red line which cannot be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. If any nation, or their intermediaries, crosses that line then no holds are barred and we will utterly destroy you. Such a clear and compelling policy is the only way to insure that WMD are treated with the gravity they deserve.

It removes the shades of gray and insures no miscalculations occur. Meaning no dictator can say "well, we can likely get away with gassing a few thousand people on the tube without them nuking us in return" or what not. It has worked for 60 years and the French have just added a small corollary to the policy specifically dealing with terrorist organizations and the nations which sponsor them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It is entirely sane and reasonable. The idea is that the use of WMD is a red line which cannot be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. If any nation, or their intermediaries, crosses that line then no holds are barred and we will utterly destroy you. Such a clear and compelling policy is the only way to insure that WMD are treated with the gravity they deserve.

It removes the shades of gray and insures no miscalculations occur. Meaning no dictator can say "well, we can likely get away with gassing a few thousand people on the tube without them nuking us in return" or what not. It has worked for 60 years and the French have just added a small corollary to the policy specifically dealing with terrorist organizations and the nations which sponsor them.

Bull.

You can;t remove shades of gray anymore than you can order the sun not to come up tommorrow.

WMD is an utterly irrelevant and inane term. The severity of an attack is judged by the damage it does, not just by the weapon used. Chemical weapons are rather incorrectly and without much logic placed in the "WMD" category, when in fact they are no more damaging than their fellow weapons based on chemistry, explosives.

To state that all "WMD attacks" are equal because of those three little letters is a sane as saying that ALL war crimes are equal and that they should all the punished by summary execution. That may sound "reasonable" until you stop and think for a second, because what you are saying is that photographing a prisoner of war and publishing his photo must be punished with the same severity as ordering the wholesale slaughter of a village.
By the rationale you are trying to paint as "reasonable" and "removing gray", you are basically making this statement.

Or for another example, you are essentially claiming that the 1995 Tokyo attack which killed 11 people is somehow more heinous than even 9/11, in which almost 3000 people died, because one used a chemical weapons, while the other used no WMD's. Nuclear retaliation was not judged a viable option by even rather bellicose statesmen, and here you sit claiming that it makes sense to say that the Tokyo subway attack would have.....

Am I the only one who sees the utter insanity of that statement? Please, lord, tell me I am not.

[notyoueither]

Drink the water, GePap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Drink the water, GePap.

Why? judging from your post, it obviously leads to deficiencies.

[notyoueither]

Have fun chasing parked cars.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I actually viewed these comments from Chirac as being directed towards Israel. Something of a warning that if Israel did any type of attack for Frances support of the middle east or Iran, then France would nuke Israel.

[Dr Strangelove]

Errrr................I think it's directed at Iran. Israel has never thrown anything more lethal than words at France.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I actually viewed these comments from Chirac as being directed towards Israel. Something of a warning that if Israel did any type of attack for , then France would nuke Israel.

You seriously don't have a clue, do you...

Frances support of the middle east or Iran

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




You seriously don't have a clue, do you...

Frances support of the middle east or Iran

The fact that you bought that hook line and sinker further illustrates that you need to pull your head out of your TV knowledge gathering.

[atomant]

I guess, looking at France's historical response to crisis situations, the nuclear option (over reaction) is only slightly different from the usual two responses to emergencies: 1) Surrender and 2) Collarborate. There is an unspoken alternative option, that being ask the Amercians...

[polarnomad]

Whom of course the French aided in their fight for independence from the British... but that has been forgotten, I suppose.

[Winston]

Which was purely in their own self-interest, so yes, it's been largely forgotten.

atomant makes a good observation I think.

[polarnomad]

So then, had they not provided aid, regardless the reasons, would the outcome have been the same? Hard to say... best not forget. Of course the extent of selfishness that you imply is itself debatable.

Altruism and war don't really mix too well IMO anways.

EDIT: Not Pekka...

[Winston]

Right, I meant atomant, thanks. It was the avatar that confused me.

[Spiffor]

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. And it would be more a matter of national "pride" to them than anything else.

Sorry, I generally agree with you in this thread (Chirac is being a major ass, nothing new here), but that is a flawless gem of ignorance