Could France use its Nuclear Arsenal as Payback ?

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: aorAki

No, I am not preaching genocide.

A singular use of a Nuke is not a Genocide, it is an example.

You disgust me.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Hmm maybe because the bombings over the past ten years were just to throw sand on the eyes of the world and milk the oil from the insurgents? Unfornately, it has come to a point where we don't know who we shoul trust and nuking someone starts to seem like a valid option. Back to topic, if someone is gonna do it, it will be Putin, never France, IMO. I think he just found some relevant underground info on this matter and he is in a big moral dillema whether to push the big button. If he does hes the bad guy because.. Well, because he pushed the button. If he doesnt do it hes the bad guy because he was the guy with the power to stop it and didnt do it. obviously, in a case of nuclear war nobody wins, especially the people, and i really hope it doesnt happen. However with all that is coming out from the fog, that seems like a case of when.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: aorAki

No, I am not preaching genocide.

A singular use of a Nuke is not a Genocide, it is an example.

You disgust me.

I wouldn't give it anymore attention.
This person is obviously out to attract negative responses.

a regular nuke would not do what the prophesy in the bible describes (both for Syria and Iran.) There is a type of nuke that could do exactly what the bible describes but France does not have weapons of the requisite type. nor does america or Britain. Russia does. It would take contorted reason to create a scenario where Russia would use these bombs on Damascus. They are allies after all.

a regular atomic bomb of high yield either surrounded by a cobalt casing or with integral cobalt tampers or doping would kill every living creature including all plants and all microbes where ever the blast occurs and wherever the enhanced fall out is carried to by the winds. it would take 20 minutes of exposure to kill virtually every human or animal or plant and gamma activated cobalt fall out zone would be lethal for overt 25 years. the half life is 5.2 years but even the reduced dose after 5.2 years would kill in 40 minutes then 1 hour twenty minutes the following 5.2 years and so on for about 112 years. even if you had a fall out shelter adequate to protect you it would be near impossible to store enough food, water, medicine and so forth to outlast the poison and when you emerge there will be nothing but ruins and dust. no grass, no trees, no insects, birds or animals. just the remains of the dead. certainly no civil defense program on earth could shelter, feed and provide drink for their whole population or even a fraction of it for multiple decades.

all of this just by encasing a regular atomic bomb in normal cobalt.

originally posted by: mazzroth
The French seem to be boiling with revenge and the 20 bombs they dropped in Syria seem to be really a small effort in retaliation, I got to thinking that if ISIS even tried to do another attack on France the Syrian Government would be blamed somehow and the French Nuke Damascus like in prophecy in the bible - Isaiah 17:1 "Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap" ?

Things aren't looking too good and it could be a possibility in the near future, if I were ISIS I would stay well hidden and maybe go inactive forever.

The use of tactical Nuclear bombes in Syria were brought up last night by Francois Géré (leader of IFAS), who has been given the task by the French government to present different options on how to retaliate against IS.

Arguments used for the use of tactical Nuclear bombes were:

1. France dont have the capasety to do a ground intervention do to that large military resourses are being used within france.

2. The climate.
3. The difficult terrain that IS operate in.
4. Pressision strikes With convential bombs would not be enough.

Why do u guys keep insisting on the middle east being the target for a nuke? When # its the fan the nukes will be dropped thousands of miles away from there. Both Russia and USA have the power to eliminate Isis with a snap of the finger. The problem is how do they do it without starting a war with each other.

i am not a fan of nukes especially the new "improved" variety that may now exist. a cobalt bomb is however immediately neutralized if the intended target also has them. so knowing this the only reason to have them is in a first attack scenario. in other words Russia has developed them first with the intent to use them soon or else the whole effort was wasted. If america deploys a similar weapon then the use of the weapon would result in all russian territories also being sterilized of all life human or otherwise and being rendered uninhabitable for a good part of a century. There is no way to protect your nation's population or even a respectable fraction thereof and feed them and provide them water for decades. So the move is hardly a checkmate given the ease at which a countering arsenal can be fabricated and deployed. That is the calculus. so the only reason to make these weapons is to initiate a genocidal first strike with them.

the reason this ended up in this thread is someone mentioned the bible prophesy about Syria (also Iran) being rendered an unihabited ruin by normal nukes. normal nukes, awful as they are, do not render a land uninhabited and uninhabitable. fall out from a normal nuke is only lethal for a few days. thus far the only human invention that can do this is a cobalt bomb.

a reply to: spy66

1. France dont have the capasety to do a ground intervention do to that large military resourses are being used within france. 2. The climate. 3. The difficult terrain that IS operate in. 4. Pressision strikes With convential bombs would not be enough.

LOL, the French foreign legion trains in the desert. They have the capacity to make ISIS their bitch. 24-7 air cover and help from any special forces they can think of, Spetsnaz in country,SAS, Navy Seals or Delta. Yeah they could work ISIS over pretty dam good if they wanted too. The problem is Turkey. Turkey do will like Pakistan did and funnel more troops and weapons to ISIS right up till Russia sees this happening.

Russia will then have no good choice but to call them out for a fight. NATO would then have to make a serious choice, drop Turkey which they should do right now or leave France and Russia to ally together and loose Turkey anyway on top of France.

France should invoke the NATO article right now, get every NATO nation involved and watch how fast Turkey shows its true colors. France has nukes, Turkey does not= France wins.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: spy66

1. France dont have the capasety to do a ground intervention do to that large military resourses are being used within france. 2. The climate. 3. The difficult terrain that IS operate in. 4. Pressision strikes With convential bombs would not be enough.

LOL, the French foreign legion trains in the desert. They have the capacity to make ISIS their bitch. 24-7 air cover and help from any special forces they can think of, Spetsnaz in country,SAS, Navy Seals or Delta. Yeah they could work ISIS over pretty dam good if they wanted too. The problem is Turkey. Turkey do will like Pakistan did and funnel more troops and weapons to ISIS right up till Russia sees this happening.

Russia will then have no good choice but to call them out for a fight. NATO would then have to make a serious choice, drop Turkey which they should do right now or leave France and Russia to ally together and loose Turkey anyway on top of France.

France should invoke the NATO article right now, get every NATO nation involved and watch how fast Turkey shows its true colors. France has nukes, Turkey does not= France wins.

How many legions are there 5000 men ?

Hardly enough to do much damage agianst 30 000 ISIS. Who by the way dont wear a uniform. For the legion to find these rats would be even impossible for them.

And Syria is to big for them to be effective.


- Why NATO havent been involved is pritty odd, because Turkey have been attacked by ISIS. But i gues you know why. The US dont want ISIS taken out. The war in Syria is not about ISIS. It is about Assad.

a reply to: spy66

You know nothing of the French Foreign Legion do you?

They're a bit beyond just merely soldiers, what little I know tells me they are every bit the equal of any SpecOps troops in the world.

With this little difference...they don't give a damn whether they live or die, nor does the French govt.

ISIS could outnumber them five or six to one, and I'll still put my money on the guys wearing the kepis. Read the history, these guys are, and always have been, bad to the bone.

In fact, I'll match 'em up against just about anyone, man to man.

originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: SprocketUKNuclear weapons wouldn't really be a good idea . It would not destroy IS as they are also in Iraq. You cannot just nuke everywhere ISIS sets up. The whole world would become radioactive in no time, apart from maybe South America.

Funnily enough the British did use a form of nuclear weapon along with the Americans in the 2003 war. They had bombs which use radioactive waste instead of explosive. Many people in Fallujah were bombed with this crap they have deformed babies all the time.

Finally as Mr Putin mentioned at the G20 summit 40 countries around the world support ISIS in one way or another. Wonder who they are? One of them is America.

What you're referring to is DU ammunition, not "nuclear bombs/weapons", they are not that often used by the UK and every time they are used, the coordinates are recorded so it can be cleaned up.

Also, the US and UK are not the only countries that use them - the much loved Russian Army uses them as well, as do the French and a whole host of other nations.

It's also not really that radioactive - its more poisonous than anything else.

a reply to: spy66

Because Turkey haven't activated Article 5, that's why. Any support Turkey has requested has been given to them though by NATO