quote:

---

Jacques Chirac says he is prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that carries out a terrorist attack on France.

In a speech underlining the need for its expensive nuclear deterrent, the French President said that security comes at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centres of power.

He said: "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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suaros:
it allows for minimum civilian casualties

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
I kind of think he was just stating the obvious.

---

I think he was making a completely idle threat, actually.

No government on earth will respond with nuclear force to anything less than the impending loss of an all-out conventional war*. Pretending that you'd respond in such a way to terrorism is ludicrous.

The leader who issued the order would become his generation's Adolf Hitler and the nation would become an international pariah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

I think he was making a completely idle threat, actually.

No government on earth will respond with nuclear force to anything less than the impending loss of an all-out conventional war*. Pretending that you'd respond in such a way to terrorism is ludicrous.

The leader who issued the order would become his generation's Adolf Hitler and the nation would become an international pariah.

* As Israel threatened to do, for instance, to end the 73 war.

---

I think that if there was a terrorist act that killed, say, a couple of hundred thousand French citizens and the act was tied back to, say, Iran, I wouldn't think it would be merely an "idle threat". Besides, France has no conventional military that could respond in any meaningful way to an attack like that (the only military in the world that could is the USA's), unless France had the support of the USA and the Brits (which, if France was attacked like that, we would almost certainly support them, despite past differences). So, if there was USA military support for a conventional response, I suppose it would be an idle threat. But, France, alone? I think they'd use it.

On that subject, what would Canada do if there was a massive terrorist attack on your country?

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

In other words, your hypothetical is proposterous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

On that subject, what would Canada do if there was a massive terrorist attack on your country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
If you're capable of killing a couple of hundred thousand people, you have WAY better military options at your command than terrorism.

In other words, your hypothetical is proposterous.

Terrorism is the weapon of the nearly powerless. No one chooses it except through necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
If you're capable of killing a couple of hundred thousand people, you have WAY better military options at your command than terrorism.

In other words, your hypothetical is proposterous.

Terrorism is the weapon of the nearly powerless. No one chooses it except through necessity.

---

Killing a couple of hundred thousand people without a significant military would be difficult be far from impossible and, therefore, far from being simply dismissed as "preposterous".

Assuming it's possible, what would Canada do in a case like that? More specifically, what could Canada do? Rather than face that fact, it's easier to simply dismiss the hypothetical as something that could never possibly...ever...happen.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
On that subject, what would Canada do if there was a massive terrorist attack on your country?

---

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Carter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carter:
Undoubtedly there would be millions of Canadians who would be frothing at the mouth demanding that their government nuke the entire Middle East in retaliation. But the government would be unable to do so, because it doesn't have nuclear weapons. But unfortunately we can't be as certain what response would be from the American or French governments. Which is the problem.

---

The "problem" being that Canada would be impotent to do anything to protect itself or deter further attacks, right?

Edited to Add: Actually, that wouldn't be a problem because I would guess that the USA would help Canada.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

The "problem" being that Canada would be impotent to do anything to protect itself or deter further attacks, right?

---

quote:

---

The "problem" being that Canada would be impotent to do anything to protect itself or deter further attacks, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Military might -- nuclear or conventional -- doesn't deter terrorist attacks. That's the point of terrorism.

---

quote:

---

I'm not so sure of that. If something very important to the terrorists was at risk of being destroyed, then it might.

---

I think Osama bin Laden and company would have been quite pleased had, say, the US obliterated Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons some time after Sept. 11, 2001.

What better proof of their thesis, i.e. that the "West" is prepared to wage all-out war on "Islam"? (Scare quotes indicate merely that neither word refers to anything monolithic, or even particularly coherent). What better way to win millions of Arabs and Muslims to their cause?

And on the subject of Sept. 11 -- the US, in case you hadn't noticed, was and remains the strongest military power in world history, both in absolute and in relative terms. None of that deterred those attacks.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
I think Osama bin Laden and company would have been quite pleased had, say, the US obliterated Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons some time after Sept. 11, 2001.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
What better proof of their thesis, i.e. that the "West" is prepared to wage all-out war on "Islam"? (Scare quotes indicate merely that neither word refers to anything monolithic, or even particularly coherent). What better way to win millions of Arabs and Muslims to their cause?

---

quote:

---

Just like the IRA would have been "quite pleased" had the Protestant Brits killed the Pope and destroyed the Vatican.

---

It's just possible they'd have seen this as a propaganda coup for their side, but truthfully, I don't think they'd have cared. The troubles in northern Ireland are only nominally about religion. "Catholic" and "Protestant" are merely labels for "nationalist/Republican" and "Unionist/Loyalist," respectively.

Besides: the IRA had and has a quite concrete political goal: the British out of Northern Ireland. This is something achievable. Al-Qaeda claims to want a worldwide caliphate. This is complete fantasy, and absurd fantasy, what's more. The politics of the two organizations are simply not of the same kind.

quote:

---

If the West was, in fact, faced with attacks that could destroy Western civilization, then there would be an all-out war on "Islam". But, I don't believe for a minute that "the West" is seeking that.

---

Nor do I. Now, tell it to the suicide-bomber types. I'm only saying, that's what these people claim.

[Edited because a quick search tells me it was the Official IRA, not the Provos, that had a "Marxist analysis" of the Irish situation].

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Nor do I. Now, tell it to the suicide-bomber types. I'm only saying, that's what these people claim.

---

Maybe this is far-fetched, I dunno. But I do know one thing for sure: When nuclear retaliation becomes the new standard, we'll all be screwed as soon as the first one goes off...
Then It'll just be: "I'll see your kiloton and raise you with a megaton..."

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clog-boy:
But I do know one thing for sure: When nuclear retaliation becomes the new standard, we'll all be screwed as soon as the first one goes off...
Then It'll just be: "I'll see your kiloton and raise you with a megaton..."

---

[ETA: Although I doubt anyone can profit from desolate plains, uninhabitable for the next, what, century?]

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clog-boy:
How about, for instance, the Chinese...? With the West and the islam crippling each other and China looking from the side-lines...?
It's just that when nuclear retalition becomes the standard, it leaves an opening for third parties to start a war between the other two parties and profit from both sides in the mean time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Evil Twin:
Re:"In fifty years, the Chinese will be a far bigger threat to Canada (economically, politically, militarily) than the USA ever has been, even in the absence of the USA and Muslims trying to destroy each other."

I can see an economic threat to Canada, sure. However, I'm curious, why do you see China as a military or political threat? China might plausibly be a threat to their neighbors such as Russia or Japan, but to Canada??? Why and how?

---

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clog-boy:
But if for instance the U.S. would love to see Mecca burn and certainly if they can blame the French for doing it, what would stop the U.S. from staging an attack as if it were done by islamic terrorists...? The death of a couple of 100.000 French wouldn't make Bush lose a lot of sleep overnight, methinks...

Maybe this is far-fetched, I dunno.
[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clog-boy:
And what if someone stages an attack..? If for instance Mecca was chosen by the French as a target for retaliation, many islamic terrorists would think twice before trying to call the bluff, right?
[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

In fifty years, the Chinese will be a far bigger threat to Canada (economically, politically, militarily) than the USA ever has been, even in the absence of the USA and Muslims trying to destroy each other.

---

Hell, give it twenty years, give us a brand new generation of uber-nationalistic Chinese at the government's helm and a bluewater navy and there ya go! The perfect storm.

Truth be told, right now there isn't much Russia could do if China decided to take Siberia. Russia would have to save all of its marbles for central Asia. That would mean American boys would be looking at Chinese boys across the Berring Strait.

A Chinese invasion of North America would probably not involve Canadian territory in its first phase, rather the Chinese objective would be to secure the coastal areas from Alaska on down to California. The Chinese could then set their sites on Alberta's oil fields and tarsands, taking them by invading Canada from the south.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Alan Avans ]

quote:

---

If terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a major French city (say they kill a million or so Pariseans) I doubt the French would hesitate for a second to respond. I make no statement if this would be the right action or not, just an observation from reading history books. Chirac was just pointing out this obvious fact.

---

quote:

---

Possible if the terrorists were sheltered/sponsored by another state (like the Taliban-al-Qaeda relationship prior to 9/11). But what of terrorists sponsored by no state (as far as we know).

---

If a terrorist group isn't sponsored by a state -- and I mean a relatively stable, rich state, not a rabble like the Taliban -- then it won't be able to build a nuclear bomb, properly so called. The technical challenges are just beyond the capacity of any small, stateless organization.

The most they could do would be to explode a so-called "dirty" device -- just high explosive which scatters a quantity of radioactive material around. This would kill very few people (probably no more than would killed by a conventional suicide bomber) and destroy very little, relatively speaking. The point would be to cause panic and demoralization.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
The technical challenges are just beyond the capacity of any small, stateless organization.

---

Just started googling about this subject. Doesn't look all too hard according to this site here

{Sorry, couldn't resist... )

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

Someone blows up a train station and kill a couple of hundred people, and Chirac wants to nuke people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I think that if there was a terrorist act that killed, say, a couple of hundred thousand French citizens and the act was tied back to, say, Iran, I wouldn't think it would be merely an "idle threat". Besides, France has no conventional military that could respond in any meaningful way to an attack like that (the only military in the world that could is the USA's), unless France had the support of the USA and the Brits (which, if France was attacked like that, we would almost certainly support them, despite past differences). So, if there was USA military support for a conventional response, I suppose it would be an idle threat. But, France, alone? I think they'd use it.

On that subject, what would Canada do if there was a massive terrorist attack on your country?

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

I think Osama bin Laden and company would have been quite pleased had, say, the US obliterated Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons some time after Sept. 11, 2001.

What better proof of their thesis, i.e. that the "West" is prepared to wage all-out war on "Islam"? (Scare quotes indicate merely that neither word refers to anything monolithic, or even particularly coherent). What better way to win millions of Arabs and Muslims to their cause?

And on the subject of Sept. 11 -- the US, in case you hadn't noticed, was and remains the strongest military power in world history, both in absolute and in relative terms. None of that deterred those attacks.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
France has a large and competent and technically superior conventional army.

---

Yeah, just sprung to mind: What about the Foreign Legion? Wouldn't like to see those bastards come barging in....

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

quote:

---

This is absolute crap.

---

Which is? That conventional (or nuclear) military power doesn't deter terrorism? Or that massive retaliation (overreaction) by state power is or can be in the interest of terrorists?

Edit:

Thinking about it, the "Mecca and Medina" comment, particularly, was probably crap. Exaggeration for rhetorical effect -- assuming bin Laden was sincere in wanting US troops out of Saudi Arabia, he likely wouldn't want to see the holy cities destroyed.

But I stand by the general point about great-power (over-)reaction playing into the hands of organizations like al-Qaeda.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

I think Osama bin Laden and company would have been quite pleased had, say, the US obliterated Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons some time after Sept. 11, 2001.

---

I don't think the word pleased would come to mind in the head of any muslim, including Osama, if anyone were to throw a nuke on this

Edit:
Argh, why didn't you edit a tad sooner, could have saved my lazy ass a post

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]

quote:

---

Jacques Chirac says he is prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that carries out a terrorist attack on France.

---

It's too early for April 1st ('lance has explained why), so I guess Chirac is trying to curry favour with disenchanted Front Nationale members.

"Worst. Thread. Ever."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
A Chinese invasion of North America would probably not involve Canadian territory in its first phase, rather the Chinese objective would be to secure the coastal areas from Alaska on down to California. The Chinese could then set their sites on Alberta's oil fields and tarsands, taking them by invading Canada from the south.

Would this be before or after the US has nuked the bejesus out of mainland China?

---

Hmmm. That would seem to be a compelling constraint on China.

MAD would keep the US and China from invading each other's territories, and probably even each other's allies territories. The rest of the world of course they would (and probably do) consider up for grabs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:

Hmmm. That would seem to be a compelling constraint on China.

Maybe MAD would keep the conflict conventional. China has nukes too ya know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:
A Chinese invasion of North America would probably not involve Canadian territory in its first phase, rather the Chinese objective would be to secure the coastal areas from Alaska on down to California. The Chinese could then set their sites on Alberta's oil fields and tarsands, taking them by invading Canada from the south.
Would this be before or after the US has nuked the bejesus out of mainland China?

---