In a debate, a former French minister questioned the usefulness of nuclear weapons for a country like France. He explained that in the event of a war against Russia, China or even the USA, for example, that in the event of a war against countries with huge territories, even if France had the capacity to retaliate, France would never be able to destroy one of these countries, because these countries have such huge territories that they would always survive a nuclear strike, whereas France would be destroyed.
So do you think that for countries like France and others of similar size or smaller, possessing nuclear weapons is useful?
Do countries that have nuclear weapons but have a small territory gain anything from having nuclear weapons?
Having nuclear weapons is just insane period and for there to not be talks of eliminating then from every country is insane, and what's worse is no one person should decide that there going to launch these weapons to destroy us all, no one should have the ability to decide the fate of rest of us while they go home in their bunker already prepared for them, shows how much out lives mean to these people, you never hear any talks of eliminating these weapons and there is no winner in a conflict like this, these countries that have these weapons are no different than bullies hiding behind these things t to push others around, I don't get why it's so hard for these so called leaders to just talk out their differences instead of always taking crap trying to act tough, there not the ones whose going to be out there getting shit at dying you are for the mess that they caused, if these so called leaders can't be mature and responsible to seek with matters then it's time we kick all of them out and put grown ups in there who don't resort to wars as a answer their differences we need to no one gives a damn evening just goes right along allowing these people to go around the world stay crap trying back here lie to everyone and send you go die for their crap wind they go hide under the bed, I say these politicians start shit let them clean up their own mess,
France isn't exactly tiny; it IS the largest country in Europe. More to the point, smaller nations generally only win wars with larger ones by making the fight too costly for the larger to maintain- that's how the Afghans drove out the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the English, the Russians, the Americans, and would've done for the Mongols, if they hadn't collapsed first. Nukes basically act as a deterrent.
Consider the Winter War, when the USSR invaded Finland. There was pressure from what would become the Allied nations (well, the other Allied nations) to arm, support, and even send troops to assist the Fins, and if that had happened, World War 2 would've broken out early, and centered around Finland (at least in Europe). Depending on exactly how it shook out, Germany might even have been on the other side, at least at first; Mannerheim was already willing to work with Hitler (though he didn't like him). But if Finland had nukes, that would NOT have happened- Stalin may seem like he'd've pressed on even if his troops got nuked, but not if that bomb went off in Moscow. He might've used one as a rallying point for the USSR's sla- um, "citizens", but a second would've seen him either forced to sue for peace, or overthrown.
If Ukraine still had nukes, Putin never would've invaded them. Sure, he could've nuked them right back, but then he'd win nothing but irradiated wasteland.
The state of Texas is larger than France, in fact France represents 0.4% of the world's land mass.
So, for example, if Russia launches a war against us, even if we retaliate with nuclear weapons, Russia will destroy France before France can annihilate Russia.
Out of the 195 countries on Earth, you rank 42nd in size; the largest are, indeed, MUCH larger, but you're just shy of the top twenty percent; keep some perspective here.
Likewise, remember that wars aren't like natural disasters, that happen uncontrollably and for no reason; they're declared with a purpose and a goal, and fought and suffered through by human beings. France has four boomers constantly on rotation, meaning that if Russia declared war on France, the only way the first gunshots could be ahead of the twelve largest cities in Russia being destroyed was if the troops were being quartered in the Russian embassy. That would take Russia out of the war even if those cities WEREN'T all in the west of the country.
You don't win a war exclusively by killing everyone who's even remotely capable of fighting back; you don't need to depopulate Russia completely to stop their invasion of you.
Just to correct you. The afgans didn't drive out the Greeks ever. The Greeks had a kingdom in Afghanistan, central Asia and Northern India that lasted for hundreds of years and was the last free Greek kingdom after the Romans and Parthians had taken over it. Afghanistan was exchanged between a series of invaders
@Drewtate What, the Bactrians? The people who converted to local religion and custom, going local and stopping in every meaningful sense save the genetic, specifically to avoid being driven out?
Historical revisionism's an ugly thing; don't let pride make you participate.
Nope. Well established fact. The kingdom lasted over 200 years. Sythian tribes moved in to central Asia and invaded them, they in turn had been driven out by the huns after being defeated by the Chinese. This happened many times in Afghanistan with nomadic tribes driven from their homes on the steppe by other more powerful nomadic tribes being driven into central Asia, Afghanistan and then india
Similar argument for the UK. The only point of our nukes is so we can say we went down fighting, at best we can take out a few strategic targets for the Americans. People say it's a deterrent but I'd doubt putin cares about losing a few towns.
France is not that small compared with other European countries and every country is small in terms of it's major cities. As well as being much smaller than Russia.
But then Russia is mostly waste land so if the populous part was made nuclear waste than it's people can't simply relocate to an equally good piece of land and carry on. In time perhaps it could but there are reasons why other cities are so much smaller. The US is especially blessed in terms of fertile land and water so probably it would rebuild/recover first
I think the former minister is very naive to claim the objective is to destroy every square inch of another country. His argument fails if his premise is not true.
The principal threat is to a country's major cities and industrial centers. Moscow, St Petersburg and about 10 other Russian cities have a population of more than a million. France has 300 warheads. It's got coverage.
The former minister also has another false unstated but implicit premise in claiming the objective is to win a nuclear war which has been labeled as unwinnable for a long time. The objective is to dissuade actions that might trigger a nuclear exchange such as rolling tanks into Paris.
I think the interesting question today would be if the US, Russia, or China initiated, would it be one in, all in? Could China sit out a Russia/US nuclear war? If any of those three get to sit out then they win world domination. Both Russia and US could choose to nuke China for good measure.
@strateguy632 In a Russia/US nuclear war would they nuke China do you think? If I was china after a Russia/US exchange I would send in my army and navy to take over both countries if this were a board game.
For one, the mere fact a nation has nukes is more than enough to deter others from attacking them. I highly doubt Russia would have invaded Ukraine had they kept their nukes and it's no wonder no one's doing shit against North Korea nowadays, as the matter of fact, they were open to historical negotiations with world leaders just a few years back.
Secondly, the size of an invading nation means jack. Nukes are used on densely populated areas, not the Russian tundra. In case of a foreign power invading a nation, the defender can't use nukes to defend their nation directly, dropping nukes on what you consider to be your own territory is a retarded idea. However, they would be used to obliterate cities of the invading force. Probably hitting key strategic targets, decimating their military power and, yes, killing thousands of civilians in a moment. The internal squabbles of invaders would reach a fever pitch, likely to lead to a capitulation else risking civil war. Also, France is the 3rd largest nation on the continent. If they are too small for nukes, why the hell does Israel have them?
Which ever retard minister thinks that should look at how WWII came to an end instead of wanting his natation to become defenseless.
And say all of those retarded prophecies of his transpired. Your nation is facing certain doom. Why the flying fuck would you take it sitting down and wouldn't at the very fucking least try to annihilate the invaders? Would he wait for the UK and US to save his stupid ass, once again.
Of course it's useful. France's cold-war nuke policy was basically a suicide pact with the Soviets. Soviets invade France? Bye bye Moscow and anything within 75 miles near it.
Mutual destruction and a crazy enough country to do it would definitely deter anyone.
Sure Russia would definitely survive a nuclear altercation with France considering the immense size of the Russian Federation. However Moscow, St Petersburg and a dozen other major cities would touched by the force of a star.
Between you and me I would rather go on living not knowing what a star feels like regardless if I would win the altercation or not.
I might argue that it's not really necessary, but not illogical either. Keep in mind that everybody in the world started stocking up on nukes after WWII as kind of a fad or a fail safe in the event that Russia or some other power might try to start another large scale war, since the Cold War came next and the Soviet Union was thought to be the new threat. Nobody actually believed in using nukes, they just started buying/producing them as a just-in-case.
Is it necessary for a small country to have them against a big one? If you were oh say... South Korea in a desperate situation against China in a major fight, I would not exactly say it's useless for SK to launch them. Nukes also can cover very large areas of land, so my guess would be that you would really only need under 10 to subdue a very large nation badly. As opposed to hundreds or thousands of conventional ballistics on the battlefield.
There has only been one thing that has stopped the use of nuclear weapons since the end of WW2 and that was MAD Mutuality Assured Destruction see these web-pages www.britannica.com/.../mutual-assured-destructionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction Also they have been one of the few things that has keep Israel in one piece even though they'll deny have functional nuclear weapons if asked. The "physics packages" are sitting ready to use with minimal assembly. If anything I'm more worried about them being used by the likes of Iran, India, Pakistan, but most especially China & North Korea (if either country thinks its boxed into a corner)
Nukes are a deterrent more than anything. It doesn't matter how big or small the other country is. A nuclear threat to any big city is a tremendous deterrent.
The large majority of nukes in the world have already been destroyed. But the ones that are left can still do devastating damage.
So what's the alternative? Destroy the nukes and get down on both hands and knees begging for mercy? I would rather have the nukes. Maybe france can't destroy china or Russia or the US but they could aim at the capital and large cities causing massive damage.
Of course the idea is to NOT have to use them. But that doesn't make having them pointless.
It’s more about maintaining a global balance. I think France has about 4 SSBNs each with 16 missiles each with 4 -6 MRVs, so around 256 nukes. The UK has similar. Yes even both combined is far less than Russia, China, US. It does help keep a balance across the globe, not knowing where 256 nukes are makes attacking someone a gamble. Without them, that balance is removed, hopefully no sane country will ever use one ever again, unfortunately with technology it will likely occur.
It's the same thing with guns.. If you know the person next to you has one, you'll think twice about attacking them.. Knowing that a nation even if small like France has access to nukes makes anybody who would think to attack them have second thoughts..
They are still useful in that they will deter any serious attempt at an invasion. Take Israel for example, they are very small, have nukes, and all their neighbors hate them and would probably like to invade but if they did the Israelis could nuke the enemy capitals or even take out Mecca if they were about to lose. It's an excellent deterrent.
What it means is that no country will f*ck with you. You think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they hadn't given their nukes up. If Sadam had managed to get nukes would the Gulf War 1991 and invasion of Iraq 2003 happened?
sure they gain. china is deterred from shooting at paris because france can shoot at beijing or whatever they call the capital. france has more than one, if, then, can retaliate many city, china won't risk losing five cities.
As for size, this is why the submarine part of the triad is so important. An adversary can't be sure they will be able to eliminate all of the countries nuclear assets, which would make them vulnerable to a nuclear strike.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
