France rethinks nuclear deterrent

[Thermodyne]

Looks like the French are rethinking their use of WMD. While this is in line with US thinking, it means that there will be more reasons to use them.

Updated: 28-Oct-2003


SHAPE News Summary & Analysis
28 October 2003


FRANCE-DEFENSE
France’s nuclear deterrent is in the midst of a revolution. President Chirac is expected to confirm this within the weeks ahead—possibly during a forthcoming visit to Brest, where the Strategic Oceangoing Force is based, reported Liberation, Oct. 27. According to the newspaper, a senior military official has confirmed that the “reorientation” will be “finally decided on” at the beginning of 2004. Without citing any country, the official reportedly added that France’s strike forces now target what the United States calls “rogue states,” nations acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Noting, in a related article, that President Chirac is rewriting France’s nuclear doctrine to deal with rogue states armed with chemical and biological weapons, The Times concludes that Chirac has decided to follow the United States by widening a nuclear strategy that was originally designed to deter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The newspaper adds that in a televised interview Monday, Gen. Norlain, a former head of the Higher Institute of National Defense Studies, acknowledged that a shift in strategy was inevitable, given the changes in the geopolitical climate. The Washington Times observes that if the report is true, the French shift would echo a policy change formulated by the Bush administration in 2002. The newspaper quotes defense expert Francois Heisbourg stressing, however, that a shift in French strategy began Last year with little fanfare. The Daily Telegraph writes that if confirmed, France’s shift will overturn 40 years of French nuclear strategy founded on the principle of deterrence against declared nuclear powers. In unveiling such a new strategy, Chirac would bring France into line with America, which has said it might one day be necessary to use nuclear weapons against nations with weapons of mass destruction, stresses the newspaper. “The change in French policy would bring France closer to the new U.S. doctrine expressed in January Last year,” observes The Independent.

Edit: Typo

[ October 29, 2003, 11:23: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Alneyan]

An additional note: the French Presidency denied to have changed its use of WMD recently, in response to the article by Liberation mentioned. However, there were no words about a possible change to come later on. So I would tend to believe France is actually reconsidering its use of WMD.

[oleg]

Basically, the new USA and French policy spells the doom to the non-prolifaration treaty. You are no longer safe if you refrain from nukes production. From now on, any state must have nukes as a mean of a deterrant. Very sad indeed.

___

P.S. I can't spell.

[ October 28, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: oleg ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

terrorist countries would have built them anyway.

[ October 28, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
terrorist countries would have built them anyway.

Terrorist countries ? What are they ? Is USA one ?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, the countries which throw disedents into pLastic chipers are certainly on the list.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
Basically, the new USA and French policy spells the doom to the non-prolifaration treaty. You are no longer safe if you refrain from nukes production. From now on, any state must have nukes as a mean of a deterrant. Very sad indeed.

___

P.S. I can't spell.

A few offensive devices are nothing more than terror weapons. And the cost of building the first few is tremendous. Also the device itself is only part of the problem; delivery systems require an equal if not greater amount of effort. Crude ballistic missiles require huge warheads to overcome their inaccuracy. And a small country would have great difficulty in supporting the infrastructure need to build these high yield weapons. Aircraft delivery requires the ability to penetrate foreign airspace. But, the possession of a few weapons can be a very good defense option if your foes happen to be close by.

During the cold war, a lot of effort was put into killing these devices in place. You will remember this as the first strike options that used to be discussed. If both the US and USSR felt they would be able to take out the majority of the others ground based weapons, then I think a third rate country would be hard pressed to make good use of their stock. Not to mention what would be inbound soon after they launched.

I think that the delivery systems are what need to be limited. This will allow for regional defense, but limit the offensive capabilities.


It should also be noted that a weapon delivered by shipping container or truck would have a greatly reduced damage yield. These weapons achieve greatest effect only when detonated at high altitude.

[Thermodyne]

#@%^&*# just saw the typo in the title�..Oh well, can�t edit it.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Good to see the French do actually have a backbone about something. Maybe they are having second thoughts about some of these little countries they do business with. Why does Yemen need Scuds? Why does N. Korea need a nuke? Why does Iran and Libya need nuclear power plants? Now all we have to do is dismantle some of our own down to a reasonable level.

[Unknown_Enemy]

I am always uneasy about a "reasonnable level of nuclear weapons". Would the ability to destroy only 2 or 3 times the planet reasonnable enought ?

Sigh.

And I am still very uneasy about what appear to be a change of military doctrine. The most important lessons of gulf war2/North Korea negociations seems to be "without nukes, you're nothing".

Will the world become a safer place ? I wonder.

[ October 29, 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]