WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

[Starcom826]

It is a very nice, very well documented article you found. Nice find.

To be honest, I haven't heard anything on that until you brought it up.

Still, You have found our terrible secret: in France, we also have brain-dead falcons.

Luckily, changing the nuclear doctrine might not happen:

First, France's nuclear armement is very very small compared to the US: we may have 4 submarines with nuclear missiles and a few air-to-ground missile on fighter-bombers and most of it is completely out-dated: current plans estimate that it should be modernized around 2015. Source (in French)

Second, France has signed various international treaties for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and convention against attacks on civilian targets.

Third, France is a pacific country. Even a President as brain-challenged as Jacques Chirac would think a long time before using nuclear strikes.

I understand you are ticked off at the reaction of other countries: I would be too and I disagree with such policies but you may think that in the frame of the US war on Irak: a lot of countries were already ticked off by the war on Irak.

if the US wants to use nukes and not just conventional forces, ...

586518022[/snapback]

My opinion is most politicians are brain dead falcons, except those few grass roots politicians who are uncorruptable. The way I see it, number of weapons is irrelevant because when you're talking about nuclear weapons, once you have enough, having more is just there for show. Its like the Cold War where the US and the USSR became convinced that having more nukes was critical when really it didn't matter at all. The U.S. has also signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (apparently not the rest of the world thinks so, but I think) would think a long time before using nuclear strikes. Honestly, I think pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons is a moronic idea, and that none of the current nuclear powers (that we can confirm) will use them pre-emptively otherwise they would have already done so. The idea that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons on Iraq is preposterous and I have no idea how you thought of that.

[R-Flex]

How about this: They are both wrong/right (depending on your opinion)

Personally, I detest use of nuclear weapons, so I'm thumbs-down to such a policy.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I was being sarcastic and truthfull at the same time. Truth is I really don't care what France says or does, I disagree with thier policy, but being an American citizen have no real way to change thier policy short of becoming a French citizen, which ain't going to happen.

further I don't really take anything France says at face value because they're no longer a world player, they're a non-entity, and no-one worries about getting invaded by France. Now on our side, we've invaded 2 countries in the last 4 years, so a change in nuclear doctrine does scare alot of people.

Which of course may be all they want, to scare people. It's very possible they have no intention whatsoever of ever using nukes first, and that this is just postering to frighten Iran or N. Korea, and in a way that's fine, but I have to question the long term ramifications of leaving a doctrine such as this in place. If the plan required Congressional Approval as opposed to Presidential Approval I'd be fine with it, but I don't like the idea of it being one mans decision, it should be all of ours, or more specifically all of our elected representatives decision.

And I don't really mean any disrespect to French citizens, I'm just stating that you guys aren't really fighting anyone, don't have a recent history of attacking people, have never used a nuke on people, and as such aren't quite in the same league as the US, which has used nukes and has recently attacked 2 countries.

[Vykranth]

Honestly, I think pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons is a moronic idea, and that none of the current nuclear powers (that we can confirm) will use them pre-emptively otherwise they would have already done so.  The idea that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons on Iraq is preposterous and I have no idea how you thought of that.

586519737[/snapback]

After reading reading my previous post, I realized that I was not very clear in my last paragraph. Using Nukes in Iraq now is indeed completely absurd.

However, let's rewind to 2003 when the US declared war on Irak outside of the scope of UN and invaded Iraq using conventionnal forces

A lot of countries were opposed against this war.

Now, let's imagine that in 2007, the US declares war on another country and instead decides to use nuclear weapons and not just conventional forces.

I wonder what would be the reaction of other countries in that case.

[Vykranth]

Which of course may be all they want, to scare people.  It's very possible they have no intention whatsoever of ever using nukes first, and that this is just postering to frighten Iran or N. Korea, and in a way that's fine, but I have to question the long term ramifications of leaving a doctrine such as this in place.  If the plan required Congressional Approval as opposed to Presidential Approval I'd be fine with it, but I don't like the idea of it being one mans decision, it should be all of ours, or more specifically all of our elected representatives decision.

586522053[/snapback]

My main concern is that I fear that such a policy would only give arguments or reasons for would-be terrorists to be more fanatic about attacking the US

[stanneh]

the problem is will this lead to american weapons being used becouse your government lied to you and can you bare the responsability of nuking a country that was never a threat to you or anyone else.

you wont be forgiven you will have 1 chance to get it right if you **** it up like iraq watch out becouse when the rest of the entire world turns its back on you or even decides that your the biggest threat to our freedoms you might feel the justified wrath of the entire planet coming at you.