France will not give up nuclear weapons!!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be1d49a25959.jpg[/atsimg]
Article:

France will not fully give up its nuclear weapons, because doing so would “jeopardize” its security, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview with CBS on Monday as global leaders gathered for a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington earlier in the day. Right now, France has 300 nuclear warheads, Sarkozy explained, pointing to a previous 30-percent reduction of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Sarkozy also singled out 4 nuclear-powered submarines the French Navy is equipped with to contribute to national security

Source: english.ruvr.ru...
Another link: www.prokerala.com...

Hey Sarkozy-nothing like letting the cat out of the bag. Hey, we got 300 nukes... blink...
Russia and China must be laughing their a..es off right now. They don't have to lift a finger-other than to hit the "funds transmittal" button to get the money to the biggest paid-off politicians.

This world is getting crazier by the minute!!!

Originally posted by anon72
Hey Sarkozy-nothing like letting the cat out of the bag. Hey, we got 300 nukes... blink...

And it shows the hypocrisy of the French on this nuclear issue. How can they demand others fall into line with the NPT and don't acquire or spread nuclear weapons when they won't give up their own.

I dont see how france having nukes keeps france safe...they would never use it.

I think they are just opening with that line to use as leverage to get more stuff for disarming.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I dont see how france having nukes keeps france safe...

Well for starters the British have nukes. And the Germans have a large and powerful arms industry. Then there is the Russians. The Chinese and the American's.

As I've said before France engages in some very cloak and dagger type behaviour and if history is any indication they could change their mind and turn against us at any time if it benefits them.

Everyone know the French have a do as we say not as we do policy. They sell out everything. Think Iraq giant guns and arms shipments. Who volunteered to be Saddam's defense lawyer? Yes it was a Frenchman.

[/blinkered english point of view]

It's a fair call, no matter what is said or signed nobody will be giving up anything. Perhaps only the stupid nations who actually do think everybody else is reducing their numbers.

Until i see superman carrying a sack full of nukes to the sun we can assume it's business as usual.

reply to post by belial259


France have had an independant nuclear arms capability for decades now.

They, like the UK, have long been used to the MAD scenario and as such would only use them as a last resort.

I see no reason wny the countries thatcurrently have nuclear arms should be made to unilaterally disarm them.

If all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be disarmed we would still have the knowledge and capability to build more.
And someone would, as sure as night follows day.
And equally certain that it would be a 'rogue' nation which would play little heed to diplomacy etc.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay....we just need to ensure that their availability does not spread.

reply to post by pazcat


Yep, I think you're right there. None of the nations that have pretty much always had Nukes are going to do a damn thing, which is basically, the old Allies, the Russians and the Chinese.

Do you think us Brits will ever give up our nukes? nah, and that's not including the ICBMs everyone knows we've got hidden somewhere that the Yanks "loaned" us.

Originally posted by belial259
And it shows the hypocrisy of the French on this nuclear issue.

Sure does..

IMO though.. the Yanks are by far the biggest hypocrits in the whole thing..

"We'll reduce our Nukes to the point where we can only destroy the planet 10 times over and then expect everyone else to reduce theirs"



Rubbish..

I don't want the French or the Brits to give up their Nukes..

I want US nukes out of the EU..

The US needs to reduce its arsenal to save money..

The Ruski's need to do the same to keep what they have secure..

Noone in the middle east should be allowed them and no unstable State should have them either..

But the world isn't perfect..

reply to post by nik1halo


Considering we now have a simulator at AWE that is meant to be so accurate that it can do away with weapons testing altogether, I am sure we must have a number of new nukes lurking around the place..

Originally posted by Freeborn
I see no reason wny the countries thatcurrently have nuclear arms should be made to unilaterally disarm them.

If all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be disarmed we would still have the knowledge and capability to build more.
And someone would, as sure as night follows day.
And equally certain that it would be a 'rogue' nation which would play little heed to diplomacy etc.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay....we just need to ensure that their availability does not spread.

But why shouldn't it spread? If any of the established Nuclear powers can keep their deterrent whats to stop a country like Australia having it's own? We've reserved the right to do so in the event of a failure in the NPT or the spread of nuclear weapons to other powers in the region like Japan.

We've already got India, Pakistan and China nuclear armed in this part of the world if anyone else gets them we will have to aswell as a matter of course.

And if that is the case how can we lecture countries like Iran that may or may not be developing their own nuclear deterrent when their hostile next door neighbour has nuclear weapons?

And if the argument of MAD and deterrence is good for the current nuclear powers then why shouldn't everyone have their own deterrent?

I feel you can either have MAD or NPT but you can't have both.

does anybody actually believe a country with nukes would get rid of it completely? reducing it doesn't change anything, how many nukes out of that 300 do they really need to level a country? 10? maybe 15?

MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

But I doubt that works for countries that don't have WMD or nukes so I don't even know what you'd call that doctrine.

Perhaps it could just be AD = Assured Destruction.

reply to post by belial259


If anyone attacked Australia, with conventional or nuclear arnamants then all I can say is that the UK would retaliate with every single weapon at it's diposal.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada have always been loyal and resolute friends and we will never forget!

However, that liitle off topic rant doesn't answer your questions.

The nations that have had them are more than aware of the consequences of their useage and have procedures in place which ensures their deployment will be a last resort.
The danger is if they are allowed to proliferate then eventually a 'rogue' nation or leader, which hasn't got safeguards in place, will use one or more thus setting us off down the MAD road.

The main reason for all this is that there are better weapons, and american empire wants to impose this on people. Who knows what the anglo american empire has behind the scenes?

reply to post by andy1033


Now now Andy, you've been on your best behaviour and proven that you can contribute to rational and reasoned debate.

Do us both a favour and don't start all that again mate,

This thread reminds me of... (warning, foul language)

www.youtube.com...

Sorry mods if I've violated some kind of non-cursing-link policy by posting this, just thought it was topical and everyone could use a laugh...

reply to post by Legion2112




that video is pretty funny..

reply to post by Dermo


Yeah, with all the threads about nuclear proliferation here lately, who has 'em, who doesn't, who should or should not be allowed to make them, it just reminded me of that for some reason.

I'd write more but... I'm le tired.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I dont see how france having nukes keeps france safe...they would never use it.

I think they are just opening with that line to use as leverage to get more stuff for disarming.

No one will ever invade a nuclear armed nation. No nuclear armed Nation has ever been invaded. The term used in International Relations is "Mutually Assured Destruction" .. following that logical conclusion would be that it would take a very illogical nation to invade a country that, if nearing defeat, could launch say .,.. 300 nukes.

The reason the "World" is "Disarming" .. is because nukes are expensive to maintain, but also because the Worlds arsenals are aging very quickly. Russia and the US, along with other countries, will reduce their OLD stockpile, by not generating new nukes.. The reason being, smaller, more powerful nukes much cheaper to maintain have been built to take their place. As long as each country can still destroy another... what does it matter?