The lack of international news coverage about this story is enlightening, IMHO!

 

Chirac: Nuclear Response to Terrorism Is Possible

 

"PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism..."

 

It's a lengthy article, so I won't post it all here. First, what do y'all think about it? Is it a bluff? Is it a threat?

 

And most interesting of all, do you think the world stage would be this quiet about such a threat/bluff if it was George W. Bush making it?

Whether it's intended to be or not, it's quite obviously a threat.

Whether it's intended to be or not, it's quite obviously a threat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you think such a threat is appropriate and why?

Dunno. Firstly his statement is really quite vague. Secondly what the hell is a "tactical strike"? Even the smallest of nuclear bombs will devestate an entire city.

Well well well...

 

The French are getting ballsy.

Well, it's not like France could launch a ground war...and if it did, chances are they'd lose.

 

Nukes are about the only card they have.

 

I find it strange they'd make this announcement now though.

Darque, exactly. The timing is... interesting. France, Great Britain and Germany are, after all, at the forefront of negotiations with Iran about its own nuclear ambitions.

 

From the article: ""The timing doesn't look absolutely great," said Francois Heisbourg, a defense analyst who heads the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research. "It's not a speech you give if you're trying to convince people not to acquire nuclear weapons."

 

That said, I can't say that I am particularly horrified by Chirac's threat, just annoyed by his hypocrisy. Then again, I've never seen a politician that wasn't a hypocrite, and Bush annoys me a hell of a lot more than Chirac does.

 

I was just taken aback by such a blatant statement from a self-proclaimed pacifist nation... AND stunned that it was greeted pretty much by silence from the rest of the world. Wondered what y'all thought.

Dunno. Firstly his statement is really quite vague. Secondly what the hell is a "tactical strike"? Even the smallest of nuclear bombs will devestate an entire city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it was vague. And a bit perplexing. This quote, for example: ""The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit."

 

What the heck does that mean, that all of their nuclear forces were previously configured to avoid centers of power? *shrug* The whole thing is odd to me.

I've always felt that displaying and stroking one's nuke in public is rude and just a tad obscene.

No one ever seems to cover the crazy stuff france gets up to.

Its nice to see France do a little sabre rattling.....right before they surrender.

Sounds like fun.

in answer to your first question, a definitive no, di, the world would not react the same way to bush as they have done with chirac.

 

even in this thread nobody seems to point out the hypocrisy other than you. very telling. had it been bush, all the usual suspects would be in here screaming for his head. but alas, there is silence.

 

as it turns out, bush ain't the only leader in the world concerned about terrorists. he's also not the only one that thinks they cannot be bargained with, and the failure of the big three to convince iran to back down is certainly no surprise if you believe the latter statement true.

 

but the rest of the world and their media cohorts are prevented from making note of these global facts as they have to protect their "USA bad" ideology at all costs.

 

taks

Is it a bluff?  Is it a threat? 

It's probably intended for domestic consumption, as the article suggests, so we have to rely on those knowledgable about French politics to help us understand it. On the other hand, that's not an excuse. Everyone said the Iranian President's comment about wiping Israel off the map was for a domestic audience, and that was not seen as acceptable.

 

This is a very worrying statement. In the past, the doctrine (to my understanding) was that nuclear weapons were there to respond to (and hopefully deter) a nuclear attack. Not every nation has put a no first-strike policy on the record, but I thought there was a general understanding that it was the case.

And most interesting of all, do you think the world stage would be this quiet about such a threat/bluff if it was George W. Bush making it? 

No, it wouldn't, and this is a very fair point. I hope this story grows in the coming days.

... a self-proclaimed pacifist nation...

Chirac is concerned because he has a large, angry, and disenfranchised Muslim population in his country. Many of whom were behind the riots that plagued the country several months ago. I think by issuing a warning to Iran he's really talking to people within his own country... His message being if you participate in terrorism in this country Muslims abroad will suffer for it. Much the same way people feel that although most of Bin Laden's message was directed toward the West the sub-text was aimed at the people of Afganistan and the Middle East and saying, "I'm in charge and making decisions for Al Qaida despite you what you may have heard"

ah, finally, another reasoned response... and from suspect i would not have expected! there's always hope.

 

taks

ah, finally, another reasoned response... and from suspect i would not have expected!  there's always hope.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just read your response in the "truce possible" Thread and it sounded as if we're looking at these events in much the same way. Unless of course that's a faint smell of sarcasm I'm picking up.

Edited January 20, 200620 yr by Stewdawg24

stevethaibin and i have some fundamentally different ideological viewpoints (though we've never had any "hate" debates... just differing views). so when i offer him a compliment about a reasoned response, it's likely not sarcastic. there are a few, however, that get my full sarcastic wrath, but it is usually not faint, nor hard to pick up.

 

so yeah, probably similar viewpoints between you and i...

 

taks

...even in this thread nobody seems to point out the hypocrisy other than you.  very telling.  had it been bush, all the usual suspects would be in here screaming for his head.  but alas, there is silence...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I figured I could get away with it because despite the fact that I obviously love my country, I've made no bones about the fact that I dispise the Bush adminstration. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, after all.

 

@SteveThaiBinh: I thought France prided itself (and look, rightly so) as being a pacifist nation, preferring diplomacy over force if at all possible. Am I mistaken? No insult was intended in that statement, certainly.

Jean Reno would pwn any threats France might have. I think this just Chirac

??? Janet Reno has been retired and tending her Florida garden for the past, oh, 5-6 years. Whatever you are smoking, please share.

 

Jean Reno. Awesome man... In totally hetero sexual way. Actor.

Jean Reno - French actor. Usually plays a tough guy who plays by his own rules.

 

 

 

Kirottu is being "funny"

I thought this thread needed some "unseriousness"... :">

Oh, I see. You don't like the topic, so you're going to "unserious" it until Fionavar locks it for me!

 

Bad kirottu, bad, bad kirottu. *picture frowny face*

 

Edit: 'Tis a shame I cannot read, though. Jean, Janet, all the same to my tired old eyes.

Edited January 20, 200620 yr by ~Di

No no, I just made a lighter post in mist of all this seriousness. Please carry on with your discussion.