REST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to launch a targeted nuclear strike against any state that carried out a terrorist attack on French soil.

In a speech defending France's costly nuclear deterrent and toughening policy against terrorism,
President Jacques Chirac said Paris must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."


"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," he said.

Do you think he is dumb enough to use a nuke of any type/size in a response to an attack on french soil? I would hate to see what happens afterwards.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119...rms_france_dc_2

__________________
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

nahh i doubt it... hes just trying to scare them.

__________________
http://www.army-sykess.com/Video.htm
my way of supporting!!!

That's the time for Chirac to be led at the old people's home.

Well yes i think that its a way to scare people, because France is not a armed country, its not a potence of war, as other countries, and if you can see France in second World War was invaded easily i think its a the way of France to defend their country, If they use nuclear weapons, a great multi nations conflict will begin.

Yeah, he's the coward with the biggest balls lol.

well.. i most admit that i don't know other than what i have read
from my local newspapers.. and i think you all have miss interpered the whole point.

worst case terrorist attack could in worst cases wipe out the population of the
france in like 4 years (or such) leaving behind few thousand..

and if that kind of action is proofed to be launched by a foregin government,
the response would be nuclear.

so in the sense your statement says that your countrys government is the biggest coward of them all on this globe at the moment.
and they probably already have so big balls that they can sit on em.

France is not armed country? second worldwar? wtf?
if you go to such things as second world war, why not napoleon?

today is today and they have nucleararms and they have just stated that if they
if they have proof that there is a nation which carries out terrorist attacks against them,
they will preserve the right to use nuclear arms against this nation....
U.S. did the same clame ages ago.. actually U.S preserves the right to do as it pleases.
so whos more likely to cause multinational conflict?

well. as i see it, your president is playing the ball whit what he has helped
to create. nuclear France. now that you folks have it, you can make use of it no?
lol. shoot one without a warhead in the whitehouse for me.

-
and Lenin... your link has expired. so i have no idea where people are basing their
toughts on.

I never said that France was a not an armed country, i said that they have a lot of threat, its one of the most worst strategical geographic point. France always begins all the Big conflics declaring wars and then they are **** up.

The french military now days is pretty powerful .... doubt they'll mess up if they started a war

__________________
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

i see.. well.. how should i read this then?
And the geographical point doens't really count much after the development of
ICBM with the countrys which have
nuclear weapons. and it does not effect the possibility of terrorism in that country.

and that claim about France always starting big conflicts is from outerspace.

and lenin.. your link is still numb.

The military nuclear costs us very expensive approximately 10% of the military budget (3 billions €) for a small country as mine I find that heavy to support but on the other hand to share this technology with others european country finland fo example no problem (not if it's for strike white house :P), I don't like chirac it's not a secret and I find his declarations awkward at the time when we negotiate with Iran even if Iranians visibly accepted the Russian proposal.