Objective political verisimilitude

Éomer of Rohan

Let me reiterate. It is the USA who is the only nation on earth to threaten a non-nuclear country with nuclear bombardment; one of the eight such countries was Panama, one of the most inoffensive countries in the world. And it was the USA who offered France the use of the nuclear bomb after Dien Bien Phu fell - and France refused.

The French were full participants in the cold war and were letting off Nuclear weapons in French Polynesia as recently as 1997.

And? So what if the French were part of the cold war - they were not threatening foreign nations with annihilation. They illegally attacked several nations in order to hold on to their failing empire but never in such a manner as the US.

but, the French are about the last people on earth who can point the finger in that regard

When it comes down to nuclear weapons, it will be the USA, out of the nation states who had nuclear weapons during the cold war who would be the first to use them. Hell, the Warsaw Pact was formed because the USSR was justifiably terrified of NATO.

Typedef

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And? So what if the French were part of the cold war - they were not threatening foreign nations with annihilation.

Really? Then what do you call NATO, a knitting club?
Besides, the USA still has to my knowledge a no first strike policy vis-a-vis use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/12/971208-ap.htm
Even that policy has been questioned quite recently and pubicly in the US, in the post September 11th environment.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-11-12-oped-kuperman_x.htm

I think the concept I was trying to convey is that any nation with military superiority will use it, same with pan-demic political superiority, that paradigm hardly doesn't apply to the French, the Germans or any other group/country.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Typedef
Really? Then what do you call NATO, a knitting club?
Besides, the USA still has to my knowledge a no first strike policy vis-a-vis use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

I think that WMD will not be the issue within 10 years. They *will* pass the building of small-scale nuclear (leaving aside the many conspriacy theories that such devices were used in the Sept. 11 attacks - hence the pulverised concrete).

They have alos publicy adopted a "pre-emptive strike" policy in general warfare terms. I don't think they'll ever do a Hiroshima again, but they'll use focussed small-scale nuclear weapons. WSD - Weapons of Smaller Destruction. It's all over the .mil and .gov domains if you do a google.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Besides, the USA still has to my knowledge a no first strike policy vis-a-vis use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Correct, but their current direction of research is to create nuclear weapons that they will not classify as WMDs, and thus which will not count as "first strike" if they use them, but rather as just another bloody big bomb...like a MOAB on steroids.

The problem is that if you are the opposition, faced with an enemy using nuclear weapons on you, and presented with the argument of "but ours arent WMDs cause we say so, but yours are, so you cant use them"...what are you gonna do?

Let your troops get nuked, or use your nukes in retaliation.

That leads to both sides throwing nukes, and both sides claiming that they were not the initiators of the exchange.

The US, of course, will be expected to avoid this issue by defining a new classification for these weapons, as they are neither WMDs or conventional. Bit like the Gitmo "detainees"....when the rules wont work for you....just create a new term which isnt covered by the rules, and all is well.

Unfortunately, while the world might sit by and accept Gitmo, I'm not sure anyone will sit by and let their nation get "not-a-nuke nuked" and not retaliate with "its-nuclear-or-it-aint nukes".

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Added to which is the fact that it was France, not the USA which supplied Israel with the atomic bomb.

Actually it was a bit of a mixed bunch, with the French supplying the first reactor and jets (to deliver the bombs) and the Americans supplying the materials and technical skills. IIRC, Germany also had a role.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Let me reiterate. It is the USA who is the only nation on earth to threaten a non-nuclear country with nuclear bombardment; one of the eight such countries was Panama[/I

When was this? (just curious)

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And? So what if the French were part of the cold war - they were not threatening foreign nations with annihilation.

So the French aiming their ballistic missiles at Moscow wasn't threatening to annilihilate (a very large part) of the Russian population?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Hell, the Warsaw Pact was formed because the USSR was justifiably terrified of NATO.

Well the Warsaw Pact was an afterthought for the USSR, presented as reacting to NATO. De facto they controlled the Eastern European militiaries from 1943-1945.