France Threatens to Nuke Terrorist States
 

France said on Thursday it would be ready to launch a targeted nuclear strike against any state that carried out a terrorist attack on French soil.

Is a Nuclear strike against terrorists warranted? When the real nutball Islamofascists are trying to bring about the End Times, isn't this just handing them what they want?

Here's the article:

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism
By Reuters January 19 11:50

In a speech defending France’s costly nuclear deterrent and toughening policy against terrorism, President Jacques Chirac said Paris must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state’s centres of power and its “capacity to act”.

“The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part,” Chirac said during a visit to northwestern France, where France’s nuclear submarines are based.



“This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.”

Chirac said all of France’s nuclear forces had been configured with this strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.

It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack, but he made no mention of any specific threat against France.

“Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation,” he said.

“The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centres of power and its capacity to act.”
© Reuters Limited

This is ridiculous. Clearly he is just sabre rattling at Iran.

The problem is if you were to nuke Tehran, you are going to kill more people who are likely to support you than not. Iran is not teeming with people who want to destroy the world. Many want to return to the democratic state they once enjoyed.

All it would do is prove correct those who say the west wants to destroy the Mulim nations.

i was reading about this during before i saw this thread, so thought i would give an idea of how this is being covered in the france this morning. the links are all to french articles--the rest of the post is early-morning, bleary-eyed plot summary. all this to give a denser context for the op.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-732337,0.html

according to the lead story in this morning's le monde, this speech was primarily aimed at floating a justification for continued expenditures on nuclear weapons in a post coldwar context---i;ve linked the article above, but wont quote it because it is in french---but there is a denser context for this than the op considered---but given that the source is the reuters summary, this is not a surprise, nor is it the poster's fault. basically the main motive is a defense of the approximately 3 billion euros/year that gets diverted into nuclear weaons systems in a situation of intense budgetary pressure...the article says that the president in france is in a curious position and does not often speak publically about nuclear weapons--the official position was outlined in 2001---the 2001 speech outlines the basic nuclear strategy france has adopted, and this latest speech is being seen as an inflection/nuancing/adaptation of the premises of the general policy outline.
so in this speech, chirac apparently has expanded the range of "national interests" threats to which might trigger a nuke response to include energy, and indicated a reconfiguration of the french nuclear weapons capability roughly in line with the notions rumsfeld was floating a couple years ago--the overall strategy is now more oriented toward "precision targetting" rather than "mutually assured destruction".

the speech also links nuclear weapons to the range of possible responses to "terrorism" and takes note of the situation that is unfolding with iran--this dimension is played down in le monde a bit, but more prominent in the summary coverage you see in the center-right paper le figaro:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/perm/afp_depe....p62u919s.html

an editorial from libération (technocrat-left):

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=352373

all for now.

1. I agree. For France to threaten any country is a joke.

2. What "democratic state they once enjoyed" are you talking about?

3. So we shouldnt use military force to resolve problems because it "would prove people right"?

I think the "democratic state they once enjoyed" that Charlatan is talking about is Iran, but I may be mistaken.

There's military force and then there's dropping a nuke on a country, the two are very different things.

I understand that, but clearly he's unaware that Iran was a monarchy before it was a theocracy.

The Iranians had a democratically elected government in the 1950s which was headed by Prime Minister Mossadegh. It was brought about by moderates seeking reform. It was overthrown with much assistance by the CIA who reinstalled the Shah. The Shah and his brutal regime was then overthrown by the fundamentalists led by Khomeni.

Ironically, the fundamentalists gained power because the moderates were deemed too weak in the face of the Shah and his american backers. Additionally, the Shah squashed freedom of speech and dissent except for in the Mosques. Hence the rise of militism and fundamentalism that went on to become one of the greater threats we seem to face today.

1.There is a BIG difference between military force and dropping a nuclear bomb on another nation.

2. Dropping a weapon of mass destruction is not only laden with sick irony but further suggests to the people around the world that perhaps those who say, the West is out to destroy Islam are right. This one action would not only turn most of Islam against the West but would also turn many, MANY people in the west against whichever idiot thought it was OK to drop a nuke.

They had a constitutional monarchy for 4 years. That hardly constitutes a "democratic state they enjoyed". In fact, shortly after their limited elections, Musaddiq ruled with unlimited power, much liken the Shahs had. Thus, the US aided his overthrow for a more pro western leader.

That's an interesting twist of the truth.

Yes, it was a short lived democracy. It was short lived because, Mossadegh and his government decided it was in the interest of their nation to nationalize the Iranian oil. Yes, the Shah was a more pro-Western leader, but most puppets are beholden to their puppet masters, no?

I think most people can see the irony when Bush and his Administration talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East. The cause for democracy was greatly set back the US intervention in the first place.

Toppling of a moderate like Mossadegh (and propping up other regimes like the Sauds) led inexorably to the rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East.

1. If there was anyone twisting the truth, it was you. I'm not the one who implied that the Iranians had enjoyed a long history of democracy which in actuality existed for only 4 years and was over 50 years ago.

2. Irony and hypocrisy in govt has existed since the beginings of govt, even in Canada. Its naive to think that it still doesnt exist everywhere.

3. He was hardly a moderate. That said, I dont necessarily agree with the US intervention to overthrow him back then

I support France's threats against any states that SPONSERS terrorist intending to attack France or any other allies in similar nature to 9/11. It's just another form of deterrent similar to those used by USSR and United States during the cold war

That is worded quite differently from what other news source

States that use terrorist to attack other nations still deserve to be nuked. I wouldn't mind if Canada did the same threat too

NCB: The point is the Iranian people brought about their own organically grown (for lack of a better word) democracy. They didn't have it forced on them. They didn't even go to war for it. They brought it about through the natural course of political growth and maturity.

No it wasn't a long history (I never said, or implied that it was) but that doesn't mean that they didn't enjoy it any less.

And yes, he, and those who worked to bring about the new system of government, were moderate compared to what came after. They were just the sort of people that we see every day running functioning democracies around the world.

Just because he didn't agree with British rule over the oil fields does not make him "hardly a moderate".

A quick read on Mossadegh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh

No threats uttered by a country that owns nuclear weapons - no matter if France, the US or Iran - is a joke. Never.

Yea France's nuclear arsenal is so tiny
They can only destroy the Earth 12 times over
Not like the USSR and the US who can
destroy the world.....what 50 times over?
French Nuclear Arsenal

You really have to admire the sheer arrogance of Chirac. He's a marvellous leader in his way, so contemptous and superior. He is by far the strongest statesman in Europe.

This is the unofficial stance of any and all nuclear countries. If you huke us, we'll nuke you. France just said what everyone else is thinking. Arab Middle Eastern countries, welcome to the MAD club.