OK, this is twice you have stated the “someone gave them the bomb because they whined” hypothesis.
What are your sources for that claim, in the face of [url=“http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/France/FranceOrigin.html”]this history*?
Or are you just assuming nobody in France could have (a) figured it out themsleves or (b) just simply stolen it?
*&^%$ coding…
preview, preview, preview…
No, the big French flaw was their military planning structure. The Maginot Line was actually pretty much a success. Without the Maginot Line that border there was pretty much wide open to a rapid invasion by the Germans, since it didn’t have any natural buffers like the Rhine or the Belelux countries. The idea was to build a large defence that would force the Germans to attack elsewhere, while requiring the least amount of manpower to defend it as possible so that more men could be used where the Germans were actually attacking. No one seriously expected the Germans to even consider attacking the Maginot Line.
The French problem was that they decided on a course of action in the fall, which took it for granted that the Germans would attack through Belgium, which, to be fair, was the original German plan . Had they attacked in the fall, they probably would have been beaten by the French. Unfortunately for the French, things got delayed until the spring, and during the winter the Germans continued to evaluate their plans and make changes until they decided to push the main thrust through the Ardennes after a series of war games that showed that would probably be the best course of action. The French didn’t do this sort analysis and merely continued on assuming the Germans would attack through Belgium, ignoring any new information to the contrary.
For a good summary, read Strange Victory by Ernest May.
Félicitations. Ausgezeichnet. As a courtesy to you, I will not dignify your execrable post with the reply that it merits. I will higlight this, one more time, just in case you missed it:
And:
Take your axe elsewhere.
Tsk-tsk. What kind of language is that for such a well-read, multi-lingual person? (isn’t Charmin easer to obtain?)
I now postulate that a good reason for France to have a nuclear capability is that it ticks you off.
…and am I the only one who now has that Tom Leher song running through his head…?
*"First we got the bomb, and that was good.
'cause we love peace and brotherhood…
…then France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
'cause they’re on our side, I believe."*
Toilet paper shortage? 
I’m still waiting for a response to my request for a cite for the fact that “nuclear weapons are a scourge.”
I think a nuclear winter will have to come and go before you get a solid factual answer from this OP.
If the hypothesis of being able to develop nuclear weapons technology yourself is valid then we have no basis to stop Iraq from getting their nukes. We would especially have no basis to dictate to North Korea about making nukes because they already know how.
France has nukes because it was given to them and they were allowed to have them. Why? not for self defense. It was strictly pride. The pride of a has been nation still clinging to its memories of its glory days. At the end of WWII, France had nothing (not that it had anything prior to WWII) to barter for nuclear weapons technology. France is France and It MUST have the bomb.
BTW… how many nukes do they have anyway?
Well, accroding to andres in this thread, they have 464 exactly. And, also, according to him, the us has exactly 500 more than the Russkies. wooot! wtg USA!..
[chanting]
U-S-A
U-S-A
Then again, I cant get the image of Rock Hound from Armageddon on that asteroid standing in front of that nuke chanting “no nukes, no nukes”
This source Says that they had 450 even in 2000. They also say that the Russians have 20,000 and the US has 10,500. 
They prolly sold 10,000 since then to Iraq and NK.
And if you notice on my cite, the US and UK are the only members to have constantly reduced their numbers since the NPT was signed. Looks to me like China and France have a little parallel going on. Maybe everyone here is worng and they are worried about the Chinese. Over a billion yeallow people in Paris would get the easiest going Frenchie in a huff.
How the heck is how you got a particular weapon in any way relevant to whether your adversary wants you to disarm? That is NOT why we want Iraq and NK to have no nukes, we don’t want them nuke-armed because we feel they are not to be trusted with them. Whether or not they got it by hook or crook or good-old fashioned hard work and study is immaterial to the State Department.
**
All right, I guess I’ll have to repeat myself… Please illustrate us: By whom. When. How. And the source upon which you base that flat-out assertion. IOW, “cite?” (and you ignored the acquisition-by-espionage, a.k.a. “stolen” option I gave)
French Arsenal: As of a year ago, estimate by CDI is 350 warheads, on 4 ballistic-missile submarines and on 84 aircraft, 24 of which can operate from aircraft carriers. Fourth in the world only slightly behind China’s 400.
It doesn’t even sound you’ve bothered to conduct minimal research into modern French history, which is almost shameful since you have the internet at your disposal. France is one of the wealthiest nations in Europe and has been for centuries. They didn’t have to “barter” for anything.
Atomic research in France was underway well before the war, much of it contributed by the Curies and Joliot-Curies (the most famous member of the group, Marie, was actualy Polish, but received her higher education and did her best work in France).
I’m also not fond of French foreign policies of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it would be stupid to dismiss their wealth and scientific expertise. No-one “gave” them the Bomb, though they did rely heavily on the research performed by the Americans and British during the war.
Since the end of the cold war, the French have been reducing their stockpiles. For recent numbers, these guys say the French had (at the end of 2000) 133 sub- and air-launched nuclear-capable missiles, with a total yield of 67.5 Gross Megatons. The French are dismantling old style “gravity” (i.e. dumb) bombs and ballistic missiles, no doubt seeking to build a nuclear arsenal that may be overall smaller than cold-war totals, but with increased speed and flexibility.
In 1960, the German invasion had been only 15 years earlier, and the first Soviet nuclear test only 11 years earlier. It is completely idiotic to claim the development of French nuclear forces were not motivated heavily by the needs of national defense. As for hanging onto nukes, I cant see any compelling reason why France, a stable democracy, should disarm at the will of anyone but its own citizens. I’m far less concerned about them than I am about the harsh dictatorships in Iraq and North Korea, where the executive answers to no-one.
Hmmm, a lot of conflicting numbers being tossed around.
If I may speak on behalf of Saen and JRD for a moment:
How many nukes do the French have? LOTS
Where did they get them? THEY BUILT THEM
Are they likely to give them up? MAIS, NON
I liek yur cite better. It has pictures and everything.:eek:
Do you intend to back up any of your points in this thread with facts, or can we conclude that your point here is just that you don’t like the French?
The French have nukes because they want them and they have the capabilities to create them. You may not like it, I may not like it (although I suspect for very different reasons), but that’s the way it is. They have kept them, and no-one’s stopped them having them, because no-one has been in a position to both be concerned about them and take them off them.
Is that a clear enough answer?
would my claiming to have a lack of fingers be a good excuse for my kindergarten grammar?
Good Lord, Futile Gesture. Slayer said it three times. That makes it a fact.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Sua
I must apologize.
I have just re-read this thread that I started, and I am sorry that I got out of hand with some of my comments. So:
To Maeglin: I am very sorry for the way I addressed you in your posts. What I did was not very nice, and I hope you don’t take it personally.
To everyone else: I’m sorry that I turned a debate into a circus sideshow, and I’m sorry that the tenor of my comments were vicious and not up to the standards everyone else upholds in this forum.
The only reason I can think that this may have occurred was because I have never posted anywhere on the internet before, and do not have a facility with expressing complex ideas in just a paragraph or two, and so some of my posts seem stupid. I also didn’t realize that you can’t convey in just words what you can convey in speech, as much nuance is lost, and when you think you are just kidding or being ironic, in written words is actually quite mean.
I was actually quite serious in my question namely 1. France has nukes 2. French official nuclear doctrine (strategic deterrent) does not provide real justification for having nukes anymore 3. France, therefore, in the interests of everyone, should give up its nukes… UNLESS the French are keeping nukes for purposes which while perfectly valid, are not politically popular, and so mislead the public with their position papers. I was thinking that the French keep nukes in order to protect troops during a conventional projection of power, such as a foreign intervention – although their official policy specifically disavows such a use. But I don’t know, so I asked if anyone did.
I got pissed off at Maeglin because I thought he was hijacking my thread, believe it or not. I see now that the fault was mine, as I did not make my question clear enough in the original post, and the thread went downhill from there.
Again, I apologize.
To repeat Sam’s point, in the second half of the Twentieth Centurty, one had to have nukes to be a great power. France thought of itself as a great power; ergo, it had to have nukes. I’ve seen the point made elsewhere in a scholarly fashion.
A secondary concern of the French was military independence from the U.S. As the third nuclear power in the world (by number of warheads), France could justifiably claim that it needed no one to defend it. I believe that the same motivation also led France to withdraw from NATO for a period.