France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

Looks like the French are rethinking their use of WMD. While this is in line with US thinking, it means that there will be more reasons to use them.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Edit: Typo

[ October 29, 2003, 11:23: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

An additional note: the French Presidency denied to have changed its use of WMD recently, in response to the article by Liberation mentioned. However, there were no words about a possible change to come later on. So I would tend to believe France is actually reconsidering its use of WMD.

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

Basically, the new USA and French policy spells the doom to the non-prolifaration treaty. You are no longer safe if you refrain from nukes production. From now on, any state must have nukes as a mean of a deterrant. Very sad indeed.

___

P.S. I can't spell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ October 28, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

terrorist countries would have built them anyway.

[ October 28, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Terrorist countries ? What are they ? Is USA one ?

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

well, the countries which throw disedents into pLastic chipers are certainly on the list.

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A few offensive devices are nothing more than terror weapons. And the cost of building the first few is tremendous. Also the device itself is only part of the problem; delivery systems require an equal if not greater amount of effort. Crude ballistic missiles require huge warheads to overcome their inaccuracy. And a small country would have great difficulty in supporting the infrastructure need to build these high yield weapons. Aircraft delivery requires the ability to penetrate foreign airspace. But, the possession of a few weapons can be a very good defense option if your foes happen to be close by.

During the cold war, a lot of effort was put into killing these devices in place. You will remember this as the first strike options that used to be discussed. If both the US and USSR felt they would be able to take out the majority of the others ground based weapons, then I think a third rate country would be hard pressed to make good use of their stock. Not to mention what would be inbound soon after they launched.

I think that the delivery systems are what need to be limited. This will allow for regional defense, but limit the offensive capabilities.


It should also be noted that a weapon delivered by shipping container or truck would have a greatly reduced damage yield. These weapons achieve greatest effect only when detonated at high altitude.

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

#@%^&*# just saw the typo in the title…..Oh well, can’t edit it.

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

Good to see the French do actually have a backbone about something. Maybe they are having second thoughts about some of these little countries they do business with. Why does Yemen need Scuds? Why does N. Korea need a nuke? Why does Iran and Libya need nuclear power plants? Now all we have to do is dismantle some of our own down to a reasonable level.

Re: France rethinks nuclear deterrent
 

I am always uneasy about a "reasonnable level of nuclear weapons". Would the ability to destroy only 2 or 3 times the planet reasonnable enought ?

Sigh.

And I am still very uneasy about what appear to be a change of military doctrine. The most important lessons of gulf war2/North Korea negociations seems to be "without nukes, you're nothing".

Will the world become a safer place ? I wonder.

[ October 29, 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]