France global reach is world second now

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

french stratege 8/9/2009 8:59:02 PM

Which extinction?

USA would not suicide themselves for Guiana and Brasil.

So they would not use nukes against our population if we did not use nukes against US population.

But nothing prevent us to use nukes agaisnt our adversary including your military at sea or on land.

We have make it clear that overseas territories are protected by our deterrent (since explictely included in our vital interests as links I have given prove it) and we make it clear we would use it if necessary.

Francfe has been very clear that our deterrent can act against any agressor threatening our vital interest even by non nuclear means.

ht*p://www.ceri-sciencespo.com...

Differences between France and its allies

Today, three particular features of French nuclear doctrine differentiate it from the American and British ones.France?s concept of a ?final warning? is different from the US/UK concept of ?sub-strategic? or ?non-strategic? planning and use. The final warning is the idea to threaten an adversary who might have underestimated French resolve to defend its vital interests, or misjudged the exact limits of these interests, with a single limited strike on military targets. Forged in the 1970s, the final warning concept is a compromise between the need to avoid the ?all or nothing? dilemma and the equally pressing need, in French minds, to avoid adopting a flexible response-type concept ? both options judged not credible. The final warning could not be repeated, and would be followed by a massive strike if the adversary persisted. It is judged still relevant in the new strategic context, given that a regional or distant adversary might be more prone to misjudge French determination to safeguard its vital interests than the former Soviet Union would have been. (

....

France, by contrast, chooses to center its declaratory policy vis-à-vis such threats by promising a nuclear response to any aggression against its vital interests, whatever the means employed.8 This reflects a different conception of deterrence and in particular of the balance between certainty and uncertainty: Washington and London are clear about the circumstances that would constitute a particular threshold (WMD use), but unclear about the response; Paris is vague about the exact threshold (?vital interests?), but clear about the response.9

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/9/2009 9:05:40 PM

Thank you JFKY

But I'm not a fool with Rafale.I have never overestimated it and as a professional I know very well about our doctrine and capabilities some not public.

However Rafale one of the world top platform and we have a roadmap to make sure it works in coming decades even vs best Russian aircrafts.

Quote Reply

usajoe1 8/9/2009 10:30:17 PM

USA would not suicide themselves for Guiana and Brasil.

Hey fanboy, first of all Brazil is not going to invade Guiana, so stop your little childish scnerios. Second, the French leadership is not going to start a nuclear war that will kill every single French men, women and child. Third, your 4 SSBN's and the CDG, with its nuclear armed Rafales will be much easier to find and sink, than a force like Russia and America, which can survive a nuclear strike from one of your SSBN's, if that SSBN survives against a couple of dozen American and Russian subs that will be looking for it. You can not do anything about the thousands of American and Russian WH's deliverd from dozens of subs, hunderds of silos, and hundreds of bombers. Point being, America and Russia can survive an attack from France, while France can't survive one from America and Russia.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 8/10/2009 2:01:33 AM

As Prime Minister Lord Palmerston once remarked "Britain has no permanent friends, she only has permanent interests." France maintains the Force de Frappe not deter Russia, but to DETER...so too, US nuclear weapons. One hundred years ago Britain's enemy was Germany and it's ally, Russia. Now that is reversed.

Exactly, which is why FS (and apparently you) do not see that US interests are coincident with French pretensions. That is why I am amused when he says that France was an ally.

Nations have interests. Nuclear weapons preserve those interests. They also make you a "player" on the world stage. It not by accident that ALL FIVE UNSC Permanent Members are also Nuclear Powers. France keeps to nuclear weapons to preserve its independence, from ANY hostile power or coalition, just as the US does.

The FOUR UNSC members are the victors of WW II plus France. Nuclear weapons was an afterthought. Get your history straight.

Please people, FS may be an idiot about the Rafale, but on this he is quite correct. I don't see why you guys have such trouble understanding the Realpolitik that is involved.

Realpolitik ... is not what you think. Its international policy based on the practical factors that determnine what you are able to do. Hence this whole insane discussion with its lunatic assumptions, what ifs and declarations grounded in FANTASY is not Realpolitik.

The Force de Frappe is a death spasm force that France would use only in extremeis. It would have no use in a realistic confrontation such as the Brazil example.

Herald

Quote Reply

Nocturne 8/10/2009 8:27:00 AM

yeah i know USA is great and the world really like your tech& hardware.. but most of you really suffer from underestimation of the rest of the world..I am pretty sure that UK would have done sth pretty deadly even without help from USA in Falklands and I am sure France would be capable of striking back in force if any of it's strategic interest would be threatened. and yes i agree several dozens of Rafaels and brigade or two wouldn't overwhelm a bigger country but.. the existance of that force makes potential enemies to consider if its really worth of trying sth that would bring the french force into play.

Quote Reply

Parmenion Calm down maybe? 8/10/2009 9:33:13 AM

Okay, let's all calm down.

Herald: Yes you're right of course the US could stop France a la suez if they chose to do anything in Brazil. And yes french nuclear retaliation would be a big mistake, even if that's technically what the French nulcear doctrine would call for in that situation.

But why are you criticising FS for maintaing that his country would stand up to the US? Of course in reality they wouldn't. But isn't there something called national pride and self-respect? I just think it's a bit mean to constantly remind FS that the US is ten times stronger. Yes he's being irrational- but isn't their something about patriotism that is inherently deeply irrational, that leads vastly outnumbered and outgunned people to victory in good causes- such as at Thermopalaye or in your nation's revolution? The flip side is that it leads people to declare irrational things in forums. Other than that he's a fairly reasonable guy.

Carry on winning the tech and numbers argument where you excel- but maybe lay off being nasty about his country's weaknesses next to yours just because you can? It's a bit harsh- it's his country, he's a patriot- so he's stuck with it. Seems nasty to victimise him for that- he's pro-US for crissakes. When you say to a guy "we can own you if you step out of line" what does he do, just take that? I think your'e accidently crossing a line that threatens manhood and patriotism.

I think FS's pride is drving him to say we'd respond with "x" because that's what the doctrine says and that's what national pride demands. I would bet a hundered quid that's not what he wants to do, and probably very uncomfortable and feels a little silly saying it. In reality it's a silly scenario and both nations are close allies that have benefited and awful lot from one another.

Why not just ignore it and move on. You really think it's fair to trample on a man's pride, on his respect for his country- just because you're stronger and you can? Keep the debate to tech and MN versus whoever on an imaginary island with no monroe doctrine in place. Then you can have a proper debate- which you'll probably win- that will enrich people with knowledge, not just upset them.

Give the poor guy a break. He's what passes for a decent poster these days, will accept some rational arguments, and the alternative is Le Zookeeper. I know you don't mean to Herald, and you have code of objectivity which if their where more people here on your level would work. But when you're a big fish in a little pond, you tend to scare people away. We need non US or UK posters here desperately- otherwise it'll get stale. Keep a away the Russian and PRC trolls, sure. But new ideas- and good, honest debates where people learn new things- is the only point this forum has as far as I can see.

Quote Reply

JFKY Get YOUR facts straight Herald 8/10/2009 9:39:50 AM

Know who the first Five Permanent Members were:

1) US

2) USSR

3) UK

4) France

5)REPUBLIC of China

5) Replaced by Peoples Republic of China RoC in 1971! 7 years after becoming a NuclearPower....

It is not by accident that all five Permenent Members are also Nuclear Powers.

Quote Reply

JFKY And yeah Herald I got the whole 8/10/2009 10:07:37 AM

Realpolitk concept down...its based on the MATERIAL factors not the ethical factors...in short national interests, not alliance or "friendship."

France took a different path than Britain after the 1956 Suez Fiasco. Britain, emphasized the "Special Relationship" with the US. ANd has striven to be the "good partner" of the US. It has sought to act with the US.

France, decided that the best path was to develop independently of the US, as much as practicable. British nuclear weapons are US designs, needing US technical support. Not French systems, they are indigenous designs. France attempts to maintain its distance from the US. Should there be an instance akin to the Suez Crisis again, neither the US NOR Russia will be able to threaten France, without some possibility of response. France can, in a limited manner, execute the Suez Scenario...and this time should Russia threaten her with "rockets" France may return the favour. That is the point of the Force de Frappe.

As to your complaint that the Force de Frappe is merely a 'death spasm", the same criticism can be made of the US nuclear force, save in regards to the PRC. The US can NOT plausibly use it's nuclear forces in any manner that will not lead to the destruction of the United States. They serve only to deter Russian or other large-scale use of nuclear weapons against the US. So, the US Nuclear Triad is merely a death spasm response as well, save against the PRC. And even in that case, the PRC can most likely deter the US from striking the mainland, with nuclear weapons, by the threat of the destruction of Hawaiian and Alaskan targets. Certainly the US is not going to trade Honolulu or Juneau for Taipei....

Lastly, unless I mis-read the topic this isn't about the Force de Frappe, but rather France's ability to project power globally. Which it has, second only to the US' ability to project power. And the basis of that capacity is the same in both cases, CVN's, UnRep, ARG's, and paratroopers...France has the capacity to use all of these, just as the US does. It is a capacity all other nations lack...many have certain elements, SSN's, or Surface forces, or amphibious forces, or paratroops, but none, save France and the US can field the combined force of conventional a/c, escorted by surface vessels and SSN's, covering the delivery of marines and paratroops, with the follow-on echelon of other conventional forces.

Finally it is irrelevant to discuss the likelihood France fighting Brasil or any particular nation...for 45 years the "Next War in Europe" was going to be fought in the Hof and Fulda Gaps...who knew the REAL Next War in Europe would be the squalid live fire exercise of Kosovo? The US hasn't fought who it planned to fight in decades...so it is silly to complain that it's "unrealistic" to posit a conflict between France and Brasil. Sure it is, but in 1981 "knew" when it fought in the Middle East it would be fighting the USSR, in 1988 it knew it would be fighting the Iranians, who knew that two years later the US would be fighting it's nominal ally Iraq?

What it is fair to discuss IS Brasil as an example of who France might be fighting...along with Gabon, or a discussion of Peace-Keeping in the Balkans, or Limited War/COIN in Afghanistan. France has a limited capacity to intervene in all these scenarios, though any given one may be "unthinkable" at the moment....after all until April 1982 I don't think Britain thought it would be fighting for 600,000 sheep in the Malvinas (and in fact had the Argentines waited for a year, the British might have NOT had the capacity to wage Operation Corporate, as Hermes, Invincible, Illustrious, Fearless, and Intrepid were slated for decommissioning due to Budgetary Cuts).

So any SPECIFIC scenario for discussion may be moot, but it doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a basis for discussion, explication, and analysis of force structures, and costs.

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/10/2009 11:07:55 AM

Parmenion

Herald wanted to provoke us by saying that USA would side Brasil in case of Brasil invaded Guiana, enforcing the so called Monroe doctrine.

In this what-if scenario I have to remember that France would not bow to USA in case of invasion of a french territory, as Mrs Thatcher did not bow to US State department when Argentina invaded Falklands, and said to USA choose between an alliance with GB or Argentina, and according to persistent rumors, that UK were ready to use nukes if unable to recover Falklands.

Vietnam war (DBP), Suez and Falkland crisis are clearly events where USA did not fully enforce its alliance with France or Great Britain.

In Suez , USA have choosen to side Egypt against its allies, while our fight was legitimate since Suez canal did not belong to Egypt and Egypt has broken an international treaty.

In Falkland , USA pushed first UK to negociate and surrender an attacked and invaded British territory in order to preserve its interest with South America.

Only will of Mrs Thatcher, UK nukes and necessity to preserve NATO facing Soviets, pushed at the end USA to side reluctantly its ally, staying almost neutral and giving no visible help in order to not get South America angry.

Notice that UK took its AIM 9L in NATO common reserve as treaty allowed her.USA did not gave it, UK took them as they had the right to do.

I'm very sorry but lessons of history show that it is better to have some means to resist pressure from a superpower.

In diplomatic forum France says constantly that its deterrent would be used according to our doctrine whatever the agressor.

In order to do that we have to make sure that USA or an other great power like Russia or China, would not interfer like in Falkland or Suez including by jeopardizing our second strike ability.If USA could jeopardize our second strike ability, our deterrent would be dependant of USA will, and we do not tolerate it since Suez.

"I just think it's a bit mean to constantly remind FS that the US is ten times stronger. Yes he's being irrational"

I know perfectly the strenght of USA, and also that nuclear weapons are an equalizer.And I'm perfectly rational.

What would be irrational for France would have been to build a potent deterrent, says that our overseas are protected by it, and then do not act.

We would betray our commitment to defend our territorial integrity, lose all our international credit and ability to deter, and surrender.

France build in deterrent after WW2, Vietnam and Suez to insure that we would not be forced to surrender by lack of strenght and firepower, including like in Suez a third party allying itself against us.

France has make very clear that:

1 - our overseas territory territorial integrity is part of few vital interests we have explicitely mentionned (rest are deliberatly vague to preserve incertainty and deter)

2 - our deterrent will be used if ANY ennemy try to jeopardize our vital interests

What would be irrational is to think that USA would strike French cities and civilians then get a nuclear retaliation on its main cities, because France would have strike US military objectives with nukes, in a case where it is USA which FIRST attacked France either conventionaly or with nukes, because France has exercised its right to defend and thus had nuked Brasil.

Let me be clear, if USA (or an other great power) strike France in order to protect an agressor of our vital interests, France would give a warning to this agressor with a limited nuclear strike on its military, then in case of escalation, would deliver a massive strike on its military and keep enough nuke to prevent an anihilation of its civilian population.

it is clearly written in official document I cite in links.

Of course the massive strike on its military will be on conventional forces which are much more vulnerable than nuke deterrent and need much less nukes.

Now do you think that USA would suicide it self as a great power, because of Guiana invasion by Brasil?

Let see game theory:

If USA side Brasil, France nukes Brasil, if USA r

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/10/2009 11:17:30 AM

Parmenion, it is not a question to calm down because I would be angry for nationalistic reasons

I just answered to Herald provocation, and his what if scenario according to open french doctrine.And in full cold blood, I think personaly that we would enforce it even USA was previouly our ally.If I were the president I would certainly do that.

As long as we feel our second strike ability is preserved and that we can deliver a prestrategic strike even on some key US assets.As long we are able to do that, USA which are a rational actor, will not risk nuclear war to help an agressor of France.

BTW, notice that we have received in July first batch of Rafale F3 and we immediately attribute them to our nuclear air force squadrons which will be operational in 2010 with ASMP-A.

PS: typo error : read of course: And at the end Guiana remains french.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT