TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Chirac said WHAT?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chirac said WHAT?

post #1 of 31
1/19/06 at 6:58pm
Thread Starter 
I'm just going to quote the 3 paragraphs in this article... I am STUNNED

President Jacques Chirac has dropped a political bombshell by threatening to retaliate with nuclear strikes against any state found to be responsible for a large-scale terrorist attack on France.

In the biggest shift in French nuclear doctrine for 40 years, M. Chirac revealed that the force de frappe - the French nuclear deterrent - had already been reconfigured to allow it to destroy the "power centres" of any state which sponsored a terrorist assault.

He also raised once again an idea that he first floated in 1995 that the British and French nuclear deterrents should be rededicated to the defence of the entire European Union. In future, he said, France should regard its allies and its sources of strategic supplies - in other words oil - as covered by its nuclear umbrella.

Holy Mother of God! You people thought Bush was bad with the Saber rattling! WOW!
Reply
post #2 of 31
1/19/06 at 7:22pm
Im no fan of France or Chirac, but I think he is right on the money.
Reply
post #3 of 31
1/19/06 at 7:23pm
Wow.

"May you live in interesting times."
Reply
post #4 of 31
1/19/06 at 10:23pm
I hope they have better luck against the terrorists than they did against Hitler.
Reply
post #5 of 31
1/20/06 at 12:45pm
wha!!!1
Reply
post #6 of 31
1/20/06 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
wha!!!1
That's my reaction, too. Is it posturing? Is it going to strengthen Iran's apparent resolve to become a nuclear power? How do you use nuclear weapons against terrorists, without wiping out whole parts of a country?
Reply
post #7 of 31
1/20/06 at 3:23pm
If humanity held all members of each nation accountable for the existence of terrorist fringe groups within its borders and retaliated against those nations with nuclear weapons, I wonder how many of us would get through life without at least radiation burns.
Reply
post #8 of 31
1/20/06 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
That's my reaction, too. Is it posturing? Is it going to strengthen Iran's apparent resolve to become a nuclear power? How do you use nuclear weapons against terrorists, without wiping out whole parts of a country?
Maybe posturing, maybe not. But think about this for a minute: We got hit on 9-11. Consequently we wiped out the Taliban, and with a bit of a nervous trigger finger, right or wrong, we removed Saddam. Libya then unilaterally disarmed from WMD's simply because the US, a sleeping military giant, was getting nervous, and might not act so predictably rational anymore. Libya did not want to take any chances that we would look their way. Now France makes this statement on use of nuke weapons. So ask yourself, if you are the leader of a radical regime, are you really that anxious anymore to allow al queda to set up a base of operations in your country???? I would say no. Savage and uncivilized actors like al queda sometimes use our own restraint against us. However, if the "Western" countries start acting a bit more unrestrained as we have, and as France has threatened that it would, perhaps they will not be so anxious to hit us again. At the very least it will make their setting up a base of operations quite a bit more difficult, and therefore isolate them further. I am all for what Chirac said. My only regret is that Pres Bush didnt say it first. The way I look at it, al queda prsents an existential threat to us, and the rest of the West. So it is refreshing to FINALLY hear a European leader make a statement that indicates that he appreciates the true nature and magnitude of the al queda threat. I hope that others follow suit.
Reply
post #9 of 31
1/20/06 at 5:52pm
Sounds as though Chirac grew his cojones back.
Reply
post #10 of 31
1/20/06 at 6:38pm
Quote:
The way I look at it, al queda prsents an existential threat to us, and the rest of the West.
Nuclear weapons present an existential threat to the entire world.
So what now: if your from the same country as terrorists, you deserve to fry with them?
And FYI, radiation doesn't respect geopolitical boundaries.
What the French should do with their nuclear weapons is shove them up their a$$es and blow themselves up for a change. They've already inflicted terrible damage on the South Pacific with all their testing. And now with typical disregard for other countries affected, they threaten to actually use a nuclear weapon against another country.
Just when you think all the nuclear worries of the Cold War were something of the past.
Reply
post #11 of 31
1/20/06 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pushylady
Nuclear weapons present an existential threat to the entire world.
So what now: if your from the same country as terrorists, you deserve to fry with them?
And FYI, radiation doesn't respect geopolitical boundaries.
What the French should do with their nuclear weapons is shove them up their a$$es and blow themselves up for a change. They've already inflicted terrible damage on the South Pacific with all their testing. And now with typical disregard for other countries affected, they threaten to actually use a nuclear weapon against another country.
Just when you think all the nuclear worries of the Cold War were something of the past.
There is a theory called "peace through strength" that is nothing more than common sense. You create a fear in an enemy that if they attack you, they will be annihilated. This is why today or in the recent past, China, the US, India, Russia etc all stay out of each other's way militarily, because of that strength. In a perfect world there would be no need for WMD's at all. But the world is not perfect. Can you imagine al queda getting hold of a nuclear device? Or an unstable regime such as Iran? We may not like these weapons, but these weapons may be the only thing between you and a foreign invader with a WMD on American soil. This is not pleasant, but it is most definitly reality.
Reply
post #12 of 31
1/21/06 at 2:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbw999
There is a theory called "peace through strength" that is nothing more than common sense. You create a fear in an enemy that if they attack you, they will be annihilated. This is why today or in the recent past, China, the US, India, Russia etc all stay out of each other's way militarily, because of that strength. In a perfect world there would be no need for WMD's at all. But the world is not perfect. Can you imagine al queda getting hold of a nuclear device? Or an unstable regime such as Iran? We may not like these weapons, but these weapons may be the only thing between you and a foreign invader with a WMD on American soil. This is not pleasant, but it is most definitly reality.

I could not have said it better myself.
Reply
post #13 of 31
1/21/06 at 2:33am
not to make a joke but i cant help myself..does this mean i can call them FRENCH fries again
Reply
post #14 of 31
1/21/06 at 8:48am
Quote:
In a perfect world there would be no need for WMD's at all. But the world is not perfect. Can you imagine al queda getting hold of a nuclear device? Or an unstable regime such as Iran? We may not like these weapons, but these weapons may be the only thing between you and a foreign invader with a WMD on American soil. This is not pleasant, but it is most definitly reality
I think that's a very fallacious argument. WMDs make the world a more dangerous place. Especially when those weapons are at the control of men of such doubtful competency and as Bush and Chirac.
As for your question what if Al Queda getting a hold of them, what makes you so sure they won't? Just the fact that we already have them? Are you serious! And if they use them then we retaliate, the whole world will suffer the consequences. That was the point I was trying to make. Everyone, regardless of politics, race, nationality, etc will be affected and our world will suffer huge irrepairable environmental damage.
Reply
post #15 of 31
1/21/06 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pushylady
I think that's a very fallacious argument. WMDs make the world a more dangerous place. Especially when those weapons are at the control of men of such doubtful competency and as Bush and Chirac.
As for your question what if Al Queda getting a hold of them, what makes you so sure they won't? Just the fact that we already have them? Are you serious! And if they use them then we retaliate, the whole world will suffer the consequences. That was the point I was trying to make. Everyone, regardless of politics, race, nationality, etc will be affected and our world will suffer huge irrepairable environmental damage.
You can thank 2 atomic bombs for the fact that there are at least one million less WW2 casualties, and maybe the fact that you dont speak Japanese now. And I trust nukes in the hands of Bush and Chirac, a billion times more than I trust them in the hands of Hamas or Iran's nutty Mullahs. The fact that some democracies possess nukes makes it unlikely that those countries would ever be attacked. The fact that Israel has nukes has meant their very existence since they are surrounded by countries that would obliterate them otherwise. The fact that you equate the wisdom of Bush or Chirac or any other civilized leader of a modern day democracy with the fanatics of al queda
is the fallacy here. With all the nukes in the world, none have been used in warfare since the end of WW2. There is a reason for that, and deterrence is it. How long do you think it would take for that streak to be broken if Iran, or Syria, or Libya, or al queda came into possession of them?
Reply
post #16 of 31
1/21/06 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
not to make a joke but i cant help myself..does this mean i can call them FRENCH fries again
I never stopped anyway. How about "freedom kissing" too????
Reply
post #17 of 31
1/21/06 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbw999
You can thank 2 atomic bombs for the fact that there are at least one million less WW2 casualties, and maybe the fact that you dont speak Japanese now. And I trust nukes in the hands of Bush and Chirac, a billion times more than I trust them in the hands of Hamas or Iran's nutty Mullahs. The fact that some democracies possess nukes makes it unlikely that those countries would ever be attacked. The fact that Israel has nukes has meant their very existence since they are surrounded by countries that would obliterate them otherwise. The fact that you equate the wisdom of Bush or Chirac or any other civilized leader of a modern day democracy with the fanatics of al queda
is the fallacy here. With all the nukes in the world, none have been used in warfare since the end of WW2. There is a reason for that, and deterrence is it. How long do you think it would take for that streak to be broken if Iran, or Syria, or Libya, or al queda came into possession of them?
I think part of her point was that you seem to be assuming that a terrorist group will not use nuclear weapons out of fear of ours, and that isn't a reasonable assumption. Firstly, because terrorist groups are based in many countries, not just one, so where would we counterstrike, exactly? Two, because they've already shown their members are perfectly willing to die as long as they got us good first. If a terrorist group got a nuclear warhead, I don't think our having nuclear weapons as well would deter them in the slightest. And, let's not get into the discussion about whether or not the 2 nukes you speak of were necessary or whether we would have won without them, because that's a separate thread entirely. Just know that the necessity of those bombs is still hotly in dispute by respected historians on both sides of the argument, so it isn't necessarily going to be considered a definitive example to everyone here.

Edit to add: yes, nuclear weapons are an existential threat. Definition: could cause our extinction or destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life. Which goes back to her other point. Their existence isn't just a threat to some, it's a threat to all life.
Reply
post #18 of 31
1/21/06 at 11:06am
Thank you, Obi. You put that so much more succintly than I seem able to.
Reply
post #19 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:10pm
Thread Starter 
Btw, if there is any doubt on the authenticity on the article, the BBC has reported the same thing. What really surprised me is the fact that France has an estimated 350 nuclear weapons, combination of land sea and air. Here is another statement I found interesting that was said by him back in 1996:

"We must take advantage of the respite offered by the current strategic situation to rethink our nuclear posture. The choice of our means must be based on the principles of sufficiency and credibility which have, moreover, always been ours ."
Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic at the Ecole militaire, Paris, 23 February 1996

I'll say this being and ex-missilier (Minuteman III and Peacekeeper) for the USAF: We used our ICBM's as a deterrence which worked very well against the Soviet Union. Our Nuclear forces, now smaller then ever before and less delivery systems available to us, can not be used as deterrence against terrorist or terrorist states. Terrorists don't care, even if they used a nuclear device against the U.S. or our Allies. If such states like North Korea or Iran were to use them, I'm sure we would target our nuclear weapons, low yield (20-50KT delivered via ALCM or Sea Based Missiles launched via Submarines) to military and nuclear targets, not civilian targets, even though civilians would probably be killed since there would be villages all the way up to cities near by these facilities/bases which is typical. The only thing I am worried about is the reaction that China and Russia would be.
Reply
post #20 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:22pm
No doubts here about the authenticity of the article (the statements have been widely reported and analyzed in the German press, too), or that Chirac basically hasn't changed his position over the last decade. What surprised me is that he came out and said it.
I would also be worried about Pakistan's reaction if the U.S., France, Britain, or Israel were to use nuclear weapons. I assume the range of its weapons isn't great, but enough to target Western military bases. The current government there has a very tenuous grip on power, and the population is unsympathetic to the West.
Reply
post #21 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:27pm
Thread Starter 
The thing that I found amazing here in the states is that this has *not* been reported on CNN or Fox at all. That amazes me with something like this being said, the American media has been ignoring it. I guess a member of the NATO alliance threatening using nuclear weapons against an organization or states isn't big enough news.
Reply
post #22 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
The thing that I found amazing here in the states is that this has *not* been reported on CNN or Fox at all. That amazes me with something like this being said, the American media has been ignoring it. I guess a member of the NATO alliance threatening using nuclear weapons against an organization or states isn't big enough news.
That is strange. It's been getting a fair amount of coverage here, even on CNN's German-language subsidiary. Al Jazeera also covered it, and reported on reactions in the German press. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...010F2261C1.htm
Reply
post #23 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obi
I think part of her point was that you seem to be assuming that a terrorist group will not use nuclear weapons out of fear of ours, and that isn't a reasonable assumption. Firstly, because terrorist groups are based in many countries, not just one, so where would we counterstrike, exactly? Two, because they've already shown their members are perfectly willing to die as long as they got us good first. If a terrorist group got a nuclear warhead, I don't think our having nuclear weapons as well would deter them in the slightest. And, let's not get into the discussion about whether or not the 2 nukes you speak of were necessary or whether we would have won without them, because that's a separate thread entirely. Just know that the necessity of those bombs is still hotly in dispute by respected historians on both sides of the argument, so it isn't necessarily going to be considered a definitive example to everyone here.

Edit to add: yes, nuclear weapons are an existential threat. Definition: could cause our extinction or destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life. Which goes back to her other point. Their existence isn't just a threat to some, it's a threat to all life.
A terrorist would not be afraid of our nuke because there is no place to hit back per se. I am not debating that. But certainly the threat of nuke retaliation would be a deterrent to a nation state to harbor al queda. This is what Chirac was talking about. And his reasoning is sound. The existence of nuke weapons keeps peace and prevents most nations from thinking twice about invading another. The fact that a nuke cannot be allowed to be possessed by al queda, makes it all the more important to deny such weaponry to rogue regimes like Iran, who would be more than happy to sell them to terrorist entities.

BTW, there is no "debate" about whther the use of nukes was needed to win WW2. Only historical revisionism by people with a very clear agenda. Back after the bombs were dropped, many in the Japanese hierarchy still hesitiated to surrender!!! Imagine then their willingness to surrender without those bombs being dropped on those 2 cities. If we had to invade the japanese mainland most conservative estimates were a million more allied casuaties. If the enemy had the atomic bomb they would have used it against us. War is war, and we ended a fight that we didnt start. If there was a choice of a million allied casulaties versus 200,000 enemy casualties today, I choose saving the lives of allies.
Reply
post #24 of 31
1/21/06 at 12:58pm
What concerns me about that, the US media not even reporting it, is how similar this is to the isolationist movement prior to WWII. The difference is that before it was "Here's what's going on over there, but it doesn't affect us." Now, it is "You don't need to know what's going on elsewhere in the world." This is more extreme example of it, since any time a political leader starts spouting about the Nuclear Option it should be World News as it could affect ALL of the world. But it happens all the time. Unless they go looking for international news, the US population really doesn't know what is happening outside of the US and direct US interests (i.e. US military action).
Reply
post #25 of 31
1/21/06 at 1:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
That is strange. It's been getting a fair amount of coverage here, even on CNN's German-language subsidiary. Al Jazeera also covered it, and reported on reactions in the German press. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...010F2261C1.htm

I asked a friend of mine who is with a Missile Wing still that I was under while in the Air Force and asked him about it and if he had been briefed or heard about it, he said no. Now that is surprising.
Reply
post #26 of 31
1/21/06 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
What concerns me about that, the US media not even reporting it, is how similar this is to the isolationist movement prior to WWII. The difference is that before it was "Here's what's going on over there, but it doesn't affect us." Now, it is "You don't need to know what's going on elsewhere in the world." This is more extreme example of it, since any time a political leader starts spouting about the Nuclear Option it should be World News as it could affect ALL of the world. But it happens all the time. Unless they go looking for international news, the US population really doesn't know what is happening outside of the US and direct US interests (i.e. US military action).
Absolutely. I'm surprised about CNN, though, because CNN International, as opposed to Headline News, usually does cover a lot of international news. However, I'm not sure how many people get it in the U.S.. CBC (Canada) reported http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060119/w011990.html, and Yahoo News ran an AP report.
Reply
post #27 of 31
1/21/06 at 1:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbw999
BTW, there is no "debate" about whther the use of nukes was needed to win WW2. Only historical revisionism by people with a very clear agenda. Back after the bombs were dropped, many in the Japanese hierarchy still hesitiated to surrender!!! Imagine then their willingness to surrender without those bombs being dropped on those 2 cities. If we had to invade the japanese mainland most conservative estimates were a million more allied casuaties. If the enemy had the atomic bomb they would have used it against us. War is war, and we ended a fight that we didnt start. If there was a choice of a million allied casulaties versus 200,000 enemy casualties today, I choose saving the lives of allies.
the estimate deaths of the initial bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 350,000. It would have been more in Nagasaki, but the bomb dropped 2-3 miles off target so the blast didn't kill as many as they were hoping too. Deaths would have been higher if it had been on target. Also if we had to do a main land invasion, some military planners had thought it would have last well into 1946 if not 1947. This is the Key reason why Truman chose to drop the 2 bombs we had built.

I wrote this in the "Bush Bashing" Thread and since it has alot to do with what we are talking about, I'll post it here again, with a twist in the last paragraph.

They were teaching boys, girls, women and old men to fight with bamboo sticks and anything else they could get their hands on to kill allied forces that landed on mainland Japan. Some would even commit suicide before surrendering, which happened when we reached the Japanese Islands. There grim footage of this when they reach Okinawa where you see children and women jumping from cliff’s, killing themselves. It was very brutal.

The military refused to surrender. However, it is speculated, if not out right true, that the Emperor did want to surrender to end the killings but no one from the military would listen and what was left of his government went either way. The military was so against surrender that they even attempted a take over the government, a coup, to continue the fight of Americans to the last solider stood in the Japanese military. They were deathly afraid of the Russians and tried to make every effort to make sure they could get a cease fire agreement with them, but that never happened. Anyways, as we know the coup failed (thanks to a bombing raid that caused a blackout) and the rest is history as they say.

One other thing I have been reading up upon, and even the History Channel had an interesting documentary on was Japans Atomic weapon. There is a lot of debate on this, but the History channel approached the old scientists that were still around, and essentially, said it was done to a point and rather proud of the project that they were apart of. Essentially, Japan had a bomb too, if you were to believe what the eyewitnesses have said about it. Today for the most part, it’s agreed in the mainstream that they were never close, but there are some, including a few veterans (one I can even quote) that they had it, and one reporter (David Snell) in 1946 after talking to a few eyewitnesses claimed it was even tested. Something to think about there on the “what if’sâ€. I’m not sure about the German atomic weapons program; I know that it’s pretty well that it was having its problems, including supply problems. But I don’t know exactly how close they were. I know that there were plans on using it against New York City, if the war went on a year longer… but then again, that would have been impossible to make it extend that long.
Reply
post #28 of 31
1/21/06 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Absolutely. I'm surprised about CNN, though, because CNN International, as opposed to Headline News, usually does cover a lot of international news. However, I'm not sure how many people get it in the U.S.. CBC (Canada) reported http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060119/w011990.html, and Yahoo News ran an AP report.
I just looked on CNN.com for any hint of the story. While they cover the whale in Britain, I guess nuclear threats don't deserve a story.

We have satellite service, and are subscribed for everything except the foreign language channels. We get CNN and Headline News, but CNN International isn't offered. They pulled it off of all the cable and satellite services, apparently. I just found this on Wikipedia:

Quote:
During 12pm-1pm EST on weekdays, CNNI airs on CNN/US[1].
How sad is that? We can only get 1 hour of International News, IF you are home and/or watching TV in the middle of the day.
Reply
post #29 of 31
1/21/06 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
the estimate deaths of the initial bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 350,000. It would have been more in Nagasaki, but the bomb dropped 2-3 miles off target so the blast didn't kill as many as they were hoping too. Deaths would have been higher if it had been on target. Also if we had to do a main land invasion, some military planners had thought it would have last well into 1946 if not 1947. This is the Key reason why Truman chose to drop the 2 bombs we had built.

I wrote this in the "Bush Bashing" Thread and since it has alot to do with what we are talking about, I'll post it here again, with a twist in the last paragraph.

They were teaching boys, girls, women and old men to fight with bamboo sticks and anything else they could get their hands on to kill allied forces that landed on mainland Japan. Some would even commit suicide before surrendering, which happened when we reached the Japanese Islands. There grim footage of this when they reach Okinawa where you see children and women jumping from cliff’s, killing themselves. It was very brutal.

The military refused to surrender. However, it is speculated, if not out right true, that the Emperor did want to surrender to end the killings but no one from the military would listen and what was left of his government went either way. The military was so against surrender that they even attempted a take over the government, a coup, to continue the fight of Americans to the last solider stood in the Japanese military. They were deathly afraid of the Russians and tried to make every effort to make sure they could get a cease fire agreement with them, but that never happened. Anyways, as we know the coup failed (thanks to a bombing raid that caused a blackout) and the rest is history as they say.

One other thing I have been reading up upon, and even the History Channel had an interesting documentary on was Japans Atomic weapon. There is a lot of debate on this, but the History channel approached the old scientists that were still around, and essentially, said it was done to a point and rather proud of the project that they were apart of. Essentially, Japan had a bomb too, if you were to believe what the eyewitnesses have said about it. Today for the most part, it’s agreed in the mainstream that they were never close, but there are some, including a few veterans (one I can even quote) that they had it, and one reporter (David Snell) in 1946 after talking to a few eyewitnesses claimed it was even tested. Something to think about there on the “what if’sâ€. I’m not sure about the German atomic weapons program; I know that it’s pretty well that it was having its problems, including supply problems. But I don’t know exactly how close they were. I know that there were plans on using it against New York City, if the war went on a year longer… but then again, that would have been impossible to make it extend that long.
Thanks Argo. Well done.
Reply
post #30 of 31
1/21/06 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I just looked on CNN.com for any hint of the story. While they cover the whale in Britain, I guess nuclear threats don't deserve a story.

We have satellite service, and are subscribed for everything except the foreign language channels. We get CNN and Headline News, but CNN International isn't offered. They pulled it off of all the cable and satellite services, apparently. I just found this on Wikipedia:



How sad is that? We can only get 1 hour of International News, IF you are home and/or watching TV in the middle of the day.
I just checked out CNN.com. The story was covered in the international edition, http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html , but apparently not in the U.S. edition.
When I did a search of "Chirac AND nuclear", I ended up at the international edition website.
Europeans, in general, get a lot of international news, also in the print media, but a lot of that is because of the relatively small size of the individual countries. You have to wonder how much international news is covered in China and India, with their huge populations. Still, as the U.S. is the "world's leader", its population should be better informed, and thus the media aren't fulfilling their obligations.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Chirac said WHAT?