Chirac would use nukes, I think he's wacko

[Jersay]

L'Ile-Longue, France — President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack, broadening the terms of French deterrence to adapt to new threats.

The warning came as France works with other Western nations to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power, but officials and experts said Mr. Chirac's comments were not aimed specifically at Iran.

“Nuclear deterrence . . . is not aimed at dissuading fanatic terrorists,” Mr. Chirac said in a speech delivered at a nuclear submarine base in western France.

“Leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and fitting response from us,” he said. “This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature.”

Advertisements




France's nuclear arsenal is considered a purely dissuasive means to protect the nation's vital interests and is not intended for regular combat.

However, in his speech, Mr. Chirac addressed new threats in the post-Cold War world, namely from regional powers. He did not explain what he meant by regional powers. But officials close to the president and experts said he was not singling out Iran, which alarmed Western nations last week by restarting nuclear activity after a 2½-year freeze.

“In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilizations,” he said, adding “odious attacks” could escalate to “other yet more serious forms involving states.”

He said nuclear warheads have been reduced on some missiles on France's four nuclear-armed submarines with the aim of targeting specific power centres rather than risk wholesale destruction in an enemy country.

“Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction,” Mr. Chirac said. “The flexibility and reactiveness of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly on the centres of power.”

Mr. Chirac was speaking at a western base with the 110-strong crew manning The Vigilant — one of the four nuclear-armed vessels. Submarines carry 85 per cent of French nuclear warheads.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060119.wfrance0119/BNStory/International/

Kind of nuts, don't you think.

Even Bush hasn't said he would use nuclear weapons.

 

[#juan]

Jersay wrote:

Kind of nuts, don't you think.

Not as crazy as this:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-06.htm

 

[Jersay]

Which side are we fighting on again?

This is nuts.

 

[the caracal kid]

"Call it "Operation Oblivious Texan," forsaking as it does precise, smart bombs for massively destructive stupid ones, a dumbing-down of Bush's arsenal to match his diplomacy."

When will we learn? Apparently not soon enough?

:wacko:

 

[Jay]

This is all great news.

I love a good deterrent.

I'm happy to see France stand up for world security. They have taken a bad rap for the compromising position they put themselves in over Iraq.

 

[Jersay]

You'll be saying that when all the nukes are flying. Right.

I might suggest a parka or something. :wink:

 

[Finder]

wait a second, who the hell allowed France..... FRANCE to have Nukes!

hmmmmm..... crazy

 

[Blackleaf]

France has nukes because, along with Britain, the US, China and Russia it is one of the world's "Big Five" powers. One of the 5 powers that have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

 

[I think not]

France has nukes because they withdrew from NATO.

 

[Jay]

France is armed to the teeth with nukes because of their neighbor’s reluctance to not make France a frick'n battlefield twice last century. Germany won't be eyeing up France anytime soon if they know what is good for them.

 

[#juan]

France has about four hundred and fifty nuclear weapons

These weapoms are deliverable by supersonic bomber, land based missiles, or submarine based missiles. Second only to Russia in Europe. I would trust France before I would trust many other countries, including Israel.

 

[Colpy]

France has about four hundred and fifty nuclear weapons

These weapoms are deliverable by supersonic bomber, land based missiles, or submarine based missiles. Second only to Russia in Europe. I would trust France before I would trust many other countries, including Israel.

#Juan, that is just silly.

Chirac enabled his buddy Saddam Hussein to create a nuclear program in Iraq, knowing full well his aim was nuclear weapons.

Chirac is out of his mind.

 

[Blackleaf]

France had nukes before she withdrew from NATO, although she didn't acquire them until years after the US and Britain did.

And not only do I not think that Germany would invade France anytime soon, I also don't think that France would invade Germany. Why? Because neither are capable of invading ANYBODY. The ONLY country in the EU with a strong military, and the only EU country able to defend itself if atatcked, is Britain.

 

[Jay]

You crack me up sometimes Blackleaf!!

 

[Blackleaf]

France and Germany and just paper tigers. They spend the majority of their military budget on pay and pensions - whereas America and Britain spend most of it on new military equipment.

Britain has the EU's only military that is worth taking seriously.

 

[Blackleaf]

"Ohh, la la. Saddam - je t'aime. Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?"

Chirac Nuclear Comments Draw Ire in Europe
By JAMEY KEATEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

PARIS (AP) - President Jacques Chirac drew scorching criticism in Europe on Friday for suggesting France would consider a nuclear response to state-sponsored terrorism.

Chirac's headline-grabbing comments in a speech Thursday sent a warning to countries like Iran and sought to nip in the bud domestic debate about whether deeply indebted France still needs its expensive nuclear deterrent in the post-Cold War world.

The French leader, with his second and probably final term nearing its end, laid out an updated doctrine for France's military might for the 21st century amid the threat of terrorism.

In the broad address, Chirac warned unspecified "leaders of states that would use terrorist means against us" that they could face "a firm and fitting response." Analysts and presidential aides said he had no specific country in mind, but newspaper editorialists widely read them to be directed at Iran, and possibly North Korea.

Chirac seemed to draw little initial support abroad for his call for the European Union to pool its deterrent forces "in the perspective of a strong Europe."

The volume of criticism could even set back that hope.

"Jacques Chirac is an idiot," chided Belgian daily De Morgen in an editorial. "He lives in a time where France is no longer a world power, but he's still acting as if prolonging a Napoleonic dynasty."

Spain's El Pais called the speech "radical and dangerous."

Many faulted the timing. France, Britain and Germany have been seeking guarantees that Iran will not develop nukes, and have taken key steps toward possible U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

"Such saber rattling in the face of the current crisis over Iran's atomic weapons program is basically a false signal," said Xanthe Hall of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in Berlin.

If Chirac ends his tenure as president next year, he will have left an indelible mark on France's nuclear deterrent. Shortly after winning the presidency in 1995, he drew international fury by ordering France's final nuclear tests in the South Pacific.

Conservative Milan daily Il Giornale suggested the "pacifist sympathies" for Chirac over his opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq war had worn off.

France's nuclear arsenal, which analysts estimate at some 300 warheads mostly deployed on submarines, is viewed as a deterrent tool and is not intended for a battle situation.

Observers saw a political pitch at home by Chirac: activist groups and even military circles have questioned the euro3 billion-plus ($3.62 billion) annual cost to keep up France's nuclear arsenal.

But at home, too, the speech garnered criticism.

"Another pearl in the words of Chirac - but this one is a bit dramatic and provocative," said Revolutionary Communist League party leader Alain Krivine, a longtime critic of the conservative Chirac, on French TV. "It's a completely irresponsible declaration."

 

[Blackleaf]

Coalition of the Fat & Lazy
France and Germany are victims of the welfare state.



When it came down to it, two of America’s closest Cold War allies — France and Germany — were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren’t there when we, and the world, needed them. Instead, they carped, complained, delayed, and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front. Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

American opinion is divided on whether France and Germany’s failure of will is the result of cowardice or just fecklessness. I am inclined toward the latter. I think the truth is that neither country has the means any longer to wage a serious military campaign and were too proud to admit it. Rather than exhibit their weakness for the entire world to see, they pretended that their objection to military action in Iraq was based on some ill-defined principle. But I don’t think they could have done much of anything militarily in Iraq even if they had stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder.

The sad truth is that France, which once conquered most of Europe under Napoleon, and Germany, whose military prowess in World War II was monumental, have become military weaklings. Neither could fight their way out of a paper bag today.

The reason is that the welfare state has severely weakened both France and Germany to the point where their armed forces are just extensions of it. Their armies, navies, and air forces exist not to fight, but to provide jobs with lifetime security for the otherwise unemployable. Moreover, the welfare state — and the high taxes that go with it — have so weakened them economically and technologically that they couldn’t afford a 21st century military even if it were a matter of national survival.

According to a recent report from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last year the United States spent 3.3% of its gross domestic product on national defense, while France spent 2.5% and Germany spent just 1.5%. At first glance, the difference may not seem that great, but the U.S. spends much more of its defense budget on weaponry and equipment, while France and Germany spend most of theirs on personnel. According to NATO, France and Germany spend over 60% of their defense budgets on pay and benefits, while the U.S. spends only 34.7%. The U.S. also spends 24.9% of its defense budget on equipment, while France and Germany spend just 19.6% and 12.2%, respectively.

According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. “Europe’s military muscle has grown soft,” it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe’s technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.

According to a March 18 report in the New York Times, Germany’s once powerful army has become a “basket case.” It is “one of the worst military laggards” in NATO, it says. Germany’s budget for equipment is so small that it had to lease old planes from Ukraine just to send a few troops to Afghanistan to help out with peacekeeping last year. It spends $1 billion per year on maintaining its aging fleet of trucks, but spends just $40 million buying new ones.

The same is true throughout Europe. Indeed, a spokesman for Belgium’s defense ministry even admitted that its armed forces are a joke. “I’m not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight,” he said. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France’s efforts to block military action in Iraq.

While Europe’s military has grown soft and weak since the collapse of communism, the U.S. has continued to upgrade and modernize its forces. We have the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led military on Earth. Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening. I think that is a key reason why the Germans and French opposed us. They cannot compete and they know it.

If France and Germany want to be fat and lazy welfare states, that is their choice. But if so, they should have the decency to resign from the world stage and not pretend to be major powers any longer.



http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett032403.asp

 

[#juan]

When it came down to it, two of America’s closest Cold War allies — France and Germany — were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren’t there when we, and the world, needed them.

Yeah, the world really needed to kill a hundred thousand Iraqis. The world really needed the U.S. to bombard Iraq with 650 tons of depleted uranium. The invasion of Iraq was a stupid, unneccesary, illegal war.

 

[Jay]

And Saddam could have prevented the entire thing.

 

[#juan]

Blackleaf

France built her own nuclear weapons and has more than twice as many as Britain, who use American built nukes. France probably have a larger military than Britain as well.