Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

[Harovan]

Leopard 2A6 to be more precise.

[lord of the mark]

1. he says Iran having one, or perhaps a second bomb is not dangerous. This would seem to imply that Iran having a larger nuclear arsenal WOULD be dangerous. That would NOT be consistent with absolutist versions of MAD theory

2. He says that there is a risk of regional proliferation. If he were an absolutist believer in MAD, why would he fear proliferation?


3. He says later that Irans nuke could be destroyed in the air. IE his view is based not just on MAD, but on his belief in Strategic Defense. Of course if hes referring to stuff thats secret, this really was a big bloop.

"He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb from ever reaching its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” Mr. Chirac said. “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.”

Note he says third countries - which in English at least, implies NOT Israel. Does he mean the US? Note he says "we" - does France have such means?




4. To BP - its also a bloop cause thats NOT France's official position. Both Sarkozy and Royal restated France's position, and Royal had, IIUC, some choice words about Chirac.

[KrazyHorse]

Royal's not one to criticise Chirac for making a gaffe...

[Arrian]

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

MAD applies. I agree.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

"He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb from ever reaching its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” Mr. Chirac said. “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.”

Is France about to join the American SDI?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. He says that there is a risk of regional proliferation. If he were an absolutist believer in MAD, why would he fear proliferation?

Probably because MAD applies only to countries as nuclear powers, not e.g. to terrorist organizations. Who very well could get hold onto nuclear weapons, but likely don't give a damn about a retaliation strike, or even would use it as a mean of propaganda.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If one assumes rational agents MAD works.

The assumption lies with rational agents.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


MAD applies. I agree.

-Arrian

game it out. Youre the PM of Israel. Tel Aviv has been nuked, and hundreds of thousands are dead or dying. However you still have several cities left that are potentical targets.

Oh, but wait, theyre not potential targets. Cause under the scen M. Chirac specified, Iran only has ONE bomb. Or maybe two. So Iran CANT follow up your second strike on Teheran with anything (in the one bomb scenario) or anything but a repeat one time of the first attack (in the second scenario) well, yeah, in these scenarios Id say even a MAD skeptic would have to admit MAD works. I mean the only rationale for the first strike then would be if whoever controls the button in Teheran (and yeah, i know some people say ahmadinajad aint it) wants to like bring the 12th Imam by forcing the end of history. And will the 12th Imam be satisfied with just a couple of hundred thousand Jews? An attack Israeli might be able to recover from?

That would seem to explain why M Chirac phrased it EXACTLY the way he did. One bomb, or maybe two. NOT a large arsenal, which complicates the dynamic.
And that has real world implications. It will take Iran longer to get a large arsenal than to get one bomb, which gives us that much more time for peaceful approaches like sanctions to work.

Its good to see that the French are still precise.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

"He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb from ever reaching its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” Mr. Chirac said. “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.”

Is France about to join the American SDI?

Is SDI about to actually work?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Probably because MAD applies only to countries as nuclear powers, not e.g. to terrorist organizations. Who very well could get hold onto nuclear weapons, but likely don't give a damn about a retaliation strike, or even would use it as a mean of propaganda.

so we assume that Iran could hold onto its arsenal just fine, but KSA or Egypt could not?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Is SDI about to actually work?

already does, if you believe M Chirac, grand strategist.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

"He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb from ever reaching its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” Mr. Chirac said. “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.”

Is France about to join the American SDI?

When I first read it I thought it said third world countries, not third countries.

I imagine any number of negotiations aimed at the inbound bomb would halt it in its tracks.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Is SDI about to actually work?

I dunno. Just curious what that quote refers to.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not. Sounds like typical Chirac hot air.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so we assume that Iran could hold onto its arsenal just fine, but KSA or Egypt could not?

Do you mean their arsenal of strawmen?

Besides, I don't know what you assume, but I suppose both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have enough to lose to keep MAD intact even if they had nuclear weapons.