Young Writers Society

BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear arms program,
President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."

He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.

The rest of the article is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_ ... rance_dc_2


Maybe this will dispel all the notions that bubbleheads have about France and other so-called internationally responsible countries.

France with nukes and the desire to use them...scary. I'm serious. I wonder what size of terror attack would motivate France. A hotel bombing? A 9/11 scale event?

I know. I was really surprised to hear this. I saw it on Fox News. (Which I wasn't watching voluntarily, it just happened to be on at the gym!) Aviator, I think the motivation was all of the nuclear plants in Iran, correct? Anyone have a different reason?

No, that sounds about right, Sarah. And, while I don't like the thought of nuclear attack, if things like this deter a nuclear attack from Iran-which will soon be gaining the capacity to make nuclear arms if we do not act-hey, go ahead and do it, then, I say. Because the one thing that scares me most is a nuclear Iran, especially with that batsh*t crazy Ahmadinejad as president.

MMmmm. USA and Britain attacks Iraq because of nuclear weapons. France have them and are threatening to use them, no one attacks.

Yeah thats fair!!!

Argh.

Damn frogs.

Blow the world up, that always helps solve terrorism.

Bah - Chirac's too senile to be making decisions about nuclear weapons.

backgroundbob wrote:Argh.

Damn frogs.

I agree.

l

Adam101 wrote:MMmmm. USA and Britain attacks Iraq because of nuclear weapons. France have them and are threatening to use them, no one attacks.

Yeah thats fair!!!

well the french are our allies, that might be one reason why we didn't attack them; and iraq, pshh, thats entirely different story. They were suspected to have nukes/WMDs, but there was no proof, and we haven't found them yet; even if they exist.

watch france end up nuking north korea or something like that....


i wonder if announcing that they will use nuclear weapons against anyone who performs a big act of terrorism (or attacks them) will help them not get attacked or have the opposite effect. Someone threatening anyone who attacks them with nukes can make many dangerous people and countries nervous.

Adam101 wrote:MMmmm. USA and Britain attacks Iraq because of nuclear weapons. France have them and are threatening to use them, no one attacks.

Yeah thats fair!!!

You're ignoring geopolitics; France does not equal Iraq. France is an ally. France is not led by a lunatic.


I actually very much doubt France would ever use nuclear weapons. They're better at warcraft than most give them credit for, and they know that terrorists are not concentrated enough for a nuke, or nukes, to have any effect on terrorism. I imagine Chirac said it just to scare the Iranians a bit.

Some would argue that Chirac is, indeed, a lunatic. But, that is neither here nor there.

Some would argue that Chirac is, indeed, a lunatic.

You beat me to that one. Besides: the USA installed Saddam. They sure didn't install Chirac.

Bin Laden, Saddam, Bush...

... you guys sure can pick 'em.

backgroundbob wrote:

Some would argue that Chirac is, indeed, a lunatic.

You beat me to that one. Besides: the USA installed Saddam.

If you're going to say something like that, you gotta back it up with sound supporting facts. Saddam came to power after a culmination of internal struggles within the Baath party back in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was president. For all of Carter's faults, I would think installing any heads of state was not one of them. If you have access to different information showing that Carter interfered in Baath party affairs so as to prop up Saddam as the Iraqi head of state, it'd be nice to see.

Nate wrote:They're better at warcraft than most give them credit for,

What? Korea is way better at Warcraft than France, and I mean Warcraft 3, which has nothing to do with anything at all pretaining to this.

Why dont other countries attack us for having Nuclear weapons?

backgroundbob wrote:

Bob, how does that address anything at all? That picture is with Donald Rumsfeld, taken during the Reagan administration. You may not know much about American politics, but Reagan came after Carter. Saddam was head of Iraq for years before Rumsfeld ever met with him.

Besides, your "evidence" is extremely weak. I got pictures of Bush shaking hands with Blair. Does that mean Bush placed Blair? Of course not, and if not for any other reason, because Blair became Prime Minister when Clinton was President of the US.

Come on. I know you're smarter than this. And in the future, stop with trying to be a smart ass. "In The News" is supposed to be the debate forum for current events. The same rules apply, and if you continue, you will be banned from this forum. The debate forum got turned into a usergroup partially because too many people had become smart asses there. I rather avoid that happening in this forum.

Sponson Light wrote:What? Korea is way better at Warcraft than France, and I mean Warcraft 3, which has nothing to do with anything at all pretaining to this.

Why dont other countries attack us for having Nuclear weapons?

lol

Other countries don't attack us for having nuclear weapons precisely because we have nuclear weapons. But, it actually has more to do with globalization; that is, a country has far more to gain these days through the liberalization of one's economy than through war. Just look at the US. Every war since World War II, from Korea to Iraq, has not helped our economy at all. We engage in these wars for various reasons, but they damage us economically. Right now, Iraq is exacaberating our current account deficit and our budget deficit, which leads to costly imbalances that we'll be dealing with some years down the road. Of course, wars do have a good short term effect for the economy, but the long term costs far outweigh the short term profits. Besides, no head of state really cares that the US, France, Britian, Russia, and China have nukes. They're much more concerned about countries like Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, which all have nukes and may use them. It's only far-lefties who believe getting rid of nuclear weapons would end all wars that really want the US to dump the nukes. Of course, many conservatives do too, but because it costs a lot of money to keep them and they're really not needed anymore.