Posted on 01/19/2006 5:01:43 AM PST by wolf78
BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to launch a targeted nuclear strike against any state that carried out a terrorist attack on French soil.
In a speech defending France's costly nuclear deterrent and toughening policy against terrorism, President Jacques Chirac said Paris must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."
"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to northwestern France, where France's nuclear submarines are based.
"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
lol yeah thats why the iraqi soldiers ran like hell when the US tanks occured.
Everybody knows GWB would mean it, Chirac is just foaming from his mouth hidden before a white flag.
Hidden behind a white flag.
This from the country that was building a reactor for Iraq...
Mark
Since the most likely suspects are well known: Iran, Pakistan, Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia (or all of them), the retaliatory targets are very clear, but unlikely to need to worry about anything.
"We need to be 100% sure", will be the historic misguided cry to the French grave.
One can dream...
Specially if Germany, Great Britain and Rusia did likewise...
In all fairness, it's not like he could expect his army to be able to fight a conventional war.
um... where's the part about France getting permission from the UN before acting?
My word what a shift--sounds like Jacques is trying to outdo W for the leftists' "Warmonger" award of 2006.
That plus maybe he realizes he will soon be leading Eurabia.
But part of it I suspect, is the benefit that France can still get the global attention it craves.
A delivers the message of--pay attention to ME or I might nuke you.
It's more fundamental and primitive than that.
Here we have a primitive culture whose "memories" of glory in 8th century grows with each passing day. They are already halfway to their glorious redemption, to satisfy them for the next 1000 years of miserable existence: the World Trade Center towers.
Add to that the nuking of a major city in the civilized world and they're all set for the next 1000 years of celebrations and delusions of "greatness".
If the word "muslim" is allowed to survive...
The bad side is that I live on the beautiful Isle of Wight on the south coast of England - my house is only a couple of hundred miles from Paris as the crow flies. I'd hate the apple trees and grape vines in my garden to be sprinkled with radioactive powdered frenchies!
One sure can.
The guilty countries are well known.
Knowing that they all will suffer certain massive damage to targets of the victim's choosing might dissuade even the insane.
I suspect Chirac is just worried of retaliation from Iran via proxy for France siding with the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear program. And I actually think he means it, I guess he got himself a small pair.
I'll be damned---it's nice to see France grow half a ball.
You make a good point.
With France's military estimated to be between 15-20% Muslim, a conventional attack against a Muslim country is problematical. Just imagine the scale of fragging, sabotage and mutiny which would take place in the ranks! In fact, using the army inside France against Muslims would be problematical.
However, using nuclear weapons involves a lot less of the military and is more likely to involve those who are actually loyal to France.
Using nuclear weapons may be their only option. France has nearly been moved into checkmate by her Muslim hordes.
---He's FOS---
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the French in this regard. Remember it was the French, not long ago, going through with surface nuclear testing, in spite of international outrage.
The problem isn't necessarily with the troops on the ground - it's with the deranged clerics that run the country. They've publicly said it would be a good thing if Israel were destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack, even if Iran was destroyed by an Israeli nuclear retaliation. These clerics think it would be martyrdom for the whole country - a blessing from Allah.
But...but...wouldn't that also harm innocent civilians?
No, Tancredo advocated nuking a reglious center in a different country.
Sort of like if the British had nuked the Vatican because of IRA terrorism in London.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.