Well, yeah, but you did so crisply and articulately, and with cites.
Me, I was just my usual jabbering self…
Well, Meglin,
As a courtesy to you, I actually went and read those sites you posted for my “information” – even though I’ve wiped my ass with more documents on nuclear policy than you’ll ever read, and a number of them in their originial languages…
Just for fun, I will post here what one of your sites said regarding threats to France that can only be countenanced by a nuclear deterrent:
“Deterrence never was, and cannot ever be, construed as an appropriate response to every military threat. It has only one, albeit essential, function: to protect France’s territory and its vital interests. Neither French territory nor French vital interests have been at stake in the Gulf or in the former Yugoslavia.”
And French territory and vital interests are not threatened now, nor will they be in the forseable future. A sloppy as the French chausseurs d’Alpines have become, I’m certain that they can protect the Riviera from the Mighty Italian War Machine.
Bottom line, France does not face a threat to its territory or its vital interests that merit a nuclear deterrence, any more than Italy does. So FRANCE DOES NOT NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Until you prove this otherwise, this holds.
The only reason France has now, and ever has had nukes is:
Arrogance.
Pride.
A case of smallcox.
& A seat at the Security Council.
All of them unjustifiable reasons to have nuclear weapons. You don’t need them, get rid of 'em.
What I was asking in my OP was: what threats does France face today that they need nukes for deterrence?
I can’t find any, and YOU CAN"T EITHER. And neither do those articles you cited. And if France faces no threats (unlike the US), it does not need nukes. And if it doesn’t need nukes, then its policies are immoral.
BTW, had you actually READ the articles you cited, you would have found out the differences in UK and French nuclear policy and you would not have the need to call me a hypocrite.
To any one else, if you know of any vital threats to France that merit a nuclear response, let me know. I’m still searching.
Er, so you already had a conclusion in mind, and you opened this thread just so you could skewer anyone who disagreed with it? Well, hell, why did we even bother responding to your ‘question’, anyway?
As for your argument, that France should get rid of its nukes, I’m listening. What steps should be taken, in your view? Tariffs on wine and cheese? Booting France out of NATO? Sanctions? Invasion? What?
The French have nukes because they can and because they want and because they believe it is in their national interest. There is no question nuclear powers have more weight than non nuclear powers.
I have only come across a few posts by gonzalo de cordoba and I have to say I find them all so utterly stupid I feel an impending pit thread coming soon. If and when that happens I will be a very willing contributor.
The British journalist Neal Ascherson once coined the idea of Britain and France as “warrior nations.” Clearly, through the late 20th century, the US, Russia and China were first-rank powers and universally acknowledged as such. There were then plenty of other countries - Germany, Japan, Canada etc. - who counted as important nations: economically powerful, members of groupings like the G8 or disproportionately influential in the UN or whatever. Such nations might often deploy military power under the umbrella of an organisation like NATO or, more commonly in practice, UN peacekeeping. They had respected professional armies with up-to-date weaponry, but that was about it.
In Ascherson’s view, the British and the French were the anomalous in-between case. Some of this was merely the idea that they were trying to punch above their weight, as some imperial hangover. But his argument was that it’d become a positive attribute in the two nations, e.g. we might not have the biggest army in the world, but we might have the best. In Britain you saw this embodied in beliefs about things like the Falklands War or the SAS. Further back, it’s the line of thought that the Yanks may have been necessary to win the War, but we saved civilisation in 1940 and all the clever stuff - radar, Ultra, bouncing bombs - was our idea. Second rank status was quite acceptable, provided we could play Athens to Washington’s Rome. Even Blair as the restraining hand on Bush. Obviously the specifics of the French version are different, but the same idea applies. One really can’t imagine any other stable democracy feeling the need to mount the sort of grand parade of military hardware that the French do down the Champs-Elysees every Bastille Day. Except, of course, that we Brits are convinced that we do military parades better than anybody else.
In this account, nuclear weaponry was just part of the package. Both countries were significant players in nuclear research prior to 1939 and there was the establishment expectation in both that they should continue as world leaders in the field after WWII. (Weart’s Scientists in Power is supposed to be the classic take on the French version of this, but I haven’t read it.) Both went on to be significant players in the field of nuclear energy. The question amongst the leaders involved was hardly “why”, it was “why ever not?” And once started, there are all sorts of arguments that can be constructed for programmes continuing. You then get into messes like Cheveline or the 1990s testing in the French Pacific.
Sorry, having seen and photographed a few Bastille Day military parades, on the basis of uniforms (especially hats) alone, the French win hands down.
Minor hijack:
Just why the heck, anyway, do the firemen carry machine guns in the parade?
/minor hijack
To fight fire with firepower, maybe?
Moderator’s Note: Just a reminder–if you want to start a Pit thread on somebody, start a Pit thread on 'em. Otherwise, debate the issues here in GD, please.
At this point, inertia.
France has nukes because France is a Great Power and Great Powers have nukes. It really comes down to that. France developed nukes because nukes enabled France to remain a world power. Why is France in the Security Council and India isn’t? India is more powerful by almost any measure - but France had nukes when India didn’t. And when the U.N. was created, it was very much in Britain’s and the U.S’s interest to have France in the SC because it could be counted on to tilt away from the Soviet Union.
Well, when France went nuclear, the German invasion was a recent memory. I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’ttake the option, especially when it was clear that large fixed defenses (i.e. the Maginot Line) were no match for a fast-moving enemy.
Of course, I can see them disarming if gonzo KEEPS INSISTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS THAT THEY DON’T NEED NUKES.
Capital letters might work on the Iraqis and North Koreans, too. I hope GWB is pursuing this option.
Now, now. How can we claim any moral authority if we are willing to contemplate first use of capital letters on a country with which we are not at war?
Reminds of me of scene in ** Gangs of New York ** where two different fire departments showed up to fight the same fire and decided to fight each other for the privledge (While robbers looted the house in plain view of everyone).
Apparently, things like that really did happen during the mid-1800’s, as well as different police departments getting into fights with each other.
It’s been implied up above, but the basic reason is that in the 1950s and early 1960s, France still considered itself one of the leading world powers, with an empire comprising half of Africa and a fair number of possessions elsewhere in the Americas, south Asia, and the South Pacific. It was not at all interested in depending on the U.S. and the U.K. for a nuclear shield. In essence, it was a matter of French national pride to develop their own bomb. (And the Soviet Union was the obvious enemy throughout this period, for all three nations.)
And, gonzalo, if I may be so bold as to comment, a little less ego and a little more willingness to discuss with others will make your experience here more enjoyable for all of us, you included. You may very well have “wiped your ass with more documents on nuclear policy than Maeglin will ever read” (although if you’re that high-powered an expert, it’s surprising that you cannot even spell his username correctly), but to the rest of us, you’re a name on a message board – to be judged, if at all, on the basis of what you post. Snarky comments on whether there’s a reason that satisfies you as to whether France has any reason to have a nuclear arsenal.
In their eyes, there’s good reason, or they would not have developed one. And unless you get a seat on the U.N. Security Council, IMHO your opinion about whether or not they needed one is just that – your opinion.
You’re welcome to it – but if you just want to bitch about France not needing nuclear weapons, the place to do so is the Pit. People have been trying to supply you with reasons why they believe France felt it needed a nuclear arsenal. And we could probably have a healthy and productive debate about the relative objective validity of those reasons. But the game here is not “give me a reason that satisfies me.”
First of all… I’d just like to pay hommage to Wang-Ka’s brilliant post… that should answer your question right there. 
But to answer the already beaten down question anyway…
As mentioned France was an occupied country in the very war the bomb was introduced in. Wouldn’t ‘France has nukes because the Germans were seen as a huge threat’ easily fit with the above line of logic? Honestly considering the players who would have a better reasoning then those that were taken over?
Sure, international prestige would be a big driving force, but I think the above justification is as good as any of those you menioned.
I’d also like to say while gonzalo’s post was rude and uncalled for Maeglin’s post was equally so. Two wrongs don’t make a right but there was no reason to blatently assume gonz had read nothing. The two brain cell comment was in bad taste.
"Israel has nukes because many would like to wipe them off the face of the earth. "
and you have trouble understanding france?
I have trouble understanding what difference there is between the UK, France and the US on the “level of threat” faced by each since all are signed up to a Treaty which guarantees that a nuclear strike on any one of them is equivalent to such a strike on their own soil, and since any Soviet first-strike during the Cold War would almost certainly have prioritised western Europe for obliteration in order to knockout Early Warning systems and the bunkers holding short range ICBM’s aimed at Moscow.
Incidentally gonzalo - why do you wipe your ass with nuclear policy documents so frequently?
Yes it did. It held the Germans off for months until they decided to go around it, through the Ardennes forest. When France fell, the Maginot Line still stood. All according to this Staff Report.
By the way, the Great Wall of China is not the most insane bulwark against invaders in human history. Have you seen Hadrian’s Wall?
Actually, the Germans weren’t held off by it: they simply planned to go around it. They did keep a large body of force waiting on their side, simply to pin down all the defenders. It probably slowed the Germans down, but not by much. They simply analyzed the plan and attacked elsewhere - classic martial strategy.
The big French flaw was their reliance on fixed defences in a modern war. WWWi, it seems, was merely an abberation.
BTW: I’ve seen more than one report saying Hadrian’s wall was not realy meant as a significant military line, but rather as an official demarcation of space. I.E, “This side belongs to us Romans, that side belongs to you Picts.” Like wise for the line in Germany.