France rethinks nuclear deterrent

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
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.

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.

[Thermodyne]

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

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

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.

[Unknown_Enemy]

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 ]

[Erax]

I agree with Thermo - the warhead is only one part of the equation, you need the means to deliver it. But if you are a third-rate country and paranoid enough, you can plant the devices at the most likely points of invasion to detonate them under an invading army.

[Grand Deceiver]

Here is an interesting Side note..as you can see by my Signature I am in the USMC. I also happen to be assigned at the moment to USCENTCOM (2 years now). The point of me saying this is that although we dont trust the French enough to let them in our building unescorted (only the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis are really allowed free reign) I have had many a talk with French Military Officers. Generally speaking the French Military is VERY dissatisfied with their Governments Policies on just about everything. The French Military is for the most step in step with the US view on "Things"

By the way..dont take this as French Bashing..just as an informative bit f observation.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Grand Deceiver:
only the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis are really allowed free reign

Not even the spanish ?

Generally speaking the French Military is VERY dissatisfied with their Governments Policies on just about everything.

Current french position on international matters are not only plainly stupid but dangerous. Don't take me wrong, I still think US policy will create more terrorism than they will root out, but there was less nocive way to say "bad idea" (As Canada did).

As a side note, you'll notice that it has always been the gaullists (say republican in USA) that were american basher (getting out of nato, saying "get lost" to bush....) and the socialists (translate as the democrats) that were pro US (Mitterand, a socialist president supporting Reagan to put pershing in Europe).

By the way..dont take this as French Bashing.

There has been none in this board, and it is indeed a credit to put on all members.