Jacques Chirac is Babbling again

Follow the bouncing hawk…

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism

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.

HUH? So if Saudi Arabia were to fly over and bomb Paris to the ground, nukes would be out of the question but if Syria blows up the Eiffel tower he’d nuke them? WTF?

“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 a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

“This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.”

I think I get it now… If a state uses terrorism they get nuked because that is not a military conflict… But if it is state sponsored terrorism, doesn’t that make it an act of war and by definition a military action?

Who came up with this policy, John Kerry? “We’ll nuke them unless it is a case where we won’t nuke them.”

Who exactly is this supposed to impress? He must be trying to impress a young intern or something by talking manly. State based terrorism could really never be proven if it happened and anyone who would sponsor state based terrorism against France would hardly be deterred by this nonsense.

Basically he said if the completely improbable happens, they might have a completely impossible response. Yawn.

Global Warming Crippling Russia, Europe
Milblog of the week
  • I guess we could hope that bin Laden calls his bluff.

    But on second thought, he’s offering up a “truce” isn’t he?

  • Whitehall

    Thank goodness that he didn’t mention bombing Mecca! He’d really be in trouble then.

    Of course, one rule about nuclear waepons is to be ambiguous about what you might or might not do with them. So cut the guy some slack and be thankful he’s finally showing some spine.

  • I read it a couple of times…seems like he may be saying that an enemy that strikes with conventional weapons and otherwise observes the traditional “rules of war” will be treated in kind, while an unconventional enemy or attack may very well get an unconventional response.

  • robert

    Reportedly, he was defending the budget for nuclear arms.

  • Zober

    Poor guys you are, France is devloping micro nukes, that could be launched and destroy far less but stronger than actual conventional weapons , bombs!

    you are so poor in mind, of course that France will not respond by a 300kt nuke head if saudies plot a terrorist attack on chimical or nuke installation in france or europe!

    why wasting your times with things out of you cortex!

    bladi blaha

  • POOP

    Jacques Chirac is Babbling again???

    ooppss, no, the USA are BABLING again, as ever!

    stick a carot in your bummm!

    neo cons USA is on top of his list, not only French don’t ask the keys to uncle sam to use thier nukes!

    but they can erase north america 23 times!

  • Proud Kaffir

    Is it the French who are responding here with such poor English? Oh, yes, the French. The French are so tough that a group of hoodlums can defeat them on a nightly basis, over and over again. Perhaps Chirac should have threatemed to nuke the “disgruntled youth” who torch cars.

    Seriously, though, I believe if a terrorist organization attacks with WMD or other method that involves immense casualties (9/11), I believe a nuclear retaliation is justified. I think Bush would have been justified in nuking the Taliban and Al Qaeda, if they did not turn over Bin Laden and his deputies.

    Chirac may actually have a point. However, nuking after a small scale terrorist attack probably is not justified.

  • In Chirac’s defense I can understand him being kind of vague about this. Keeping the enemy guessing is part of a good defense. I think he’s publically carving out an nice loophole in France’s no-nukes policy to account for the dangers of nuclear state-sponsors of terrorism, like Iran.

  • Hey, France could use nukes! They could!

    And I could sing opera…as I fly through the air…on my way to Jessica Alba’s house…she’s my mistress, you know. Yeah, that’s the ticket!