- Sep 30, 2005
- Reaction score
- Toledo-ish OH
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
France rules out using nukes in a military conflict but is willing to respond with nukes in the event of a terrorist attack. Many terrorists are stateless and a nuclear response to terrorism could trigger a nuclear exchange which would threaten the survival of the human species. Terrorism, like I said before, is the greatest threat to the survival of mankind. Their are alot of terrorist organizations, like Al-queda, who are stateless and operate all around the globe. Using nuclear weapons wouldn't stop Al-queda from launching further terrorist attacks and Al-queda might actually try to provoke France into using nuclear weapons to enhance it's own position.M14 Shooter said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_2
Imagine, on the day we find ObL offering a truce, GWB threatened to use nukes on any terrorist state that attacked us.
Terrorism is carried out both by the state and independent organizations. It seems that Chirac's comments were aimed at those states who fund terrorist organizations. However, Al-Queda, is not exactly supported by any state and has alot of money and is all over the globe. I would be curious to see what Chirac would do if his nation was hit with a terrorist attack by Al-queda.oldreliable67 said:Read Chirac's comments and you will notice that he consistently referred to "state" sponsored terrorism. Since virtually all terrorism is currently "state-less", Chirac seems statement seems pretty self-serving - typically French.
Notice that Chirac was quite careful to not put a fine point on it. He simply referred to "state" terrorism. I'm guessing (admittedly) that this was a bit of deliberate ambiguity. Bush, on the other hand, was quite clear: terrorist organizations and those states that support or sponsor them.TimmyBoy said:Terrorism is carried out both by the state and independent organizations