JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Makes sense in terms of closer Franco-German defense cooperation. France has nukes (for better or worse) and Germany does not - the only other EU member with nuclear weapons is the UK. If European defense cooperation is to proceed, clearly nuclear forces have to be included somewhere in the equation, although I would be surprised if any suggestion is made that these forces are moved out of national control. But to have these forces (while still subject to national control) available for use in the defense of the greater European whole, makes a lot of sense.
She's right about Europe needing to spend more on defense, though - its not reasonable to rely on the US so heavily, since the Cold War threat has now largely evaporated.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
If true, what's the problem? That was U.S. policy, and, to some extent, still is. We touted our "nuclear umbrealla" for decades, and used it as a threat to keep the USSR from attack us or Western Europe.
It is interesting, but it isn't anything that hasn't been done in the past.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
I don't have facts or figures to hand, but in terms of equipment and training and the ability to project force around the globe, I would imagine France is right up there, probably 3rd after the US and UK. France currently has military operations ongoing in Afghanistan, Haiti and Cote d'Ivoire, possible in the DRC as well (not sure) and other UN operations. I think the naval side is not so strong, the one aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle" was obsolete before she was even commissioned.
Gman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
During the 60th anniversary D-Day celebrations, a defence analyst on BBC or Sky (I can't remember for sure), said that today only the US, British and French had an effective combined military with the ability to carry out large scale operations. I would say that all three militaries are mobile, flexible and motivated which seems to be required in today's world.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
If, say, Turkey invades Greece, or Russia invades Hungary, do you really believe that France will be willing to use its nukes to defend another EU state? Or will they wring their hands and ask for negotiations at the UN?
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Ryanb741 - if France is not no.3, who would you say is ? In terms of equipment, mobility and motivation, Russia and China, while numerically obviously HUGELY superior, probably are not a match - who else is there ? Israel ? Well equipped and motivated, but not vast force projection possiblities and quite a small navy.
I'd say the estimate of no.3 for France is about right.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
In terms of the ability to generally kick butt (which, after all, is what you need from an army !), you're probably right. Having a million tanks does tend to lend a certain credibility ! - but in terms of modern equipment and mobility, France has Russia and China both beat.
Gman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
A military is not measured in sheer numbers but on how they effectively use what's available. Russia and China do have huge armies compared to the French and the UK, but I doubt if they would be able to be deployed, used effectively and be motivated to fight as well as the French and British militaries.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
Yanksn4 - clearly you studied at the "Bullwinkle Moose" school of international politics. Alas, the world is not that black and white. The US was not always Dudley Do-Right, and the Soviet Union was not always Boris and Natasha, with big round bombs marked "BOMB".
- Killing their own citizens. The US has the highest rate of judicial execution in the world. And don't even get me started on gun control or lack thereof.
- Putting people in prison unjustly. Two words. Camp Delta. Until the US tries those people in a duly convened civilian court of law, and convicts them, the US cannot claim any moral high ground about the rule of law.
- Arming groups etc etc. Contras, Taliban, UNITA - the list of US-sponsored "liberation groups" is long and very very unenlightening. Two can (and did) play at that game.
Nobody said life under communism was all beer and skittles - far from it. But all the stuff you were talking about, it wasn't evil - it was just politics. Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.
GOTbound From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 94 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
And the French complains about Uncle W... threaten to use Nukes on rouge country's, well Uncle W didn't nuke neither Afghanistan or Iraq.
Anglo-French-German co-operation, to much history involved to make it work for real. A strong EU (incl. France as PART of it, not the self proclaimed super-power of it) with NATO (all EU non NATO members included) merged in to the Union and a stronger co-operation with USA both military and financial is what the "free-world" need to succeed.
Gman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
French Nuclear Arsenal
Strategic Delivery Systems
Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicle
Maximum Range (km)
M-4 1985 4,000 48 6 x MRV, TN-70/72 150 KT On 4 L'Inflexible SSBNs
M-45 1996 5,300 16 6 x MIRV, TN-75 100 KT On 1 Le Triomphant SSBN
Mirage 2000N 1988 1,205 45 1 ASMP 300 KT -
Super Etendard 1980 850 24 1 ASMP 300 KT Carrier-based
Summary of French Nuclear Arsenal:
The French nuclear arsenal, largely a legacy of De Gaulle's insistance on French strategic independence, is the third largest in the world. Until 1996, it was deployed on a triad mirroring those of Russia and the United States. However, in February 1996, President Chirac announced his intention to eliminate the land-based deterrent, destroying the Hades and SSBS S3D missiles.
Yet in tandem with this reduction, France is undertaking a modernization of its sea-based deterrent force, with the first of a new SSBN class, the Le Triomphant, along with a new SLBM, the M-45. The controversial nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll in 1995-96 was reportedly done to perfect warhead design. The French are even pressing forward with an advanced SLBM design, the M-51, complete with a stealthy, manuevering warhead called the TN-76.
The means of air delivery will remain potent, though the last French nuclear gravity bombs have been retired. The Mirage 2000N and carrier-based Super Etendard fighter-bombers are available to deliver short-range nuclear ASMP missiles. A follow-on to the current ASMP missile, dubbed the ASMP+ is under development and is slated to enter service in 2007. The new French nuclear role aircraft, the Rafale D, should be ready then as well.
The French arsenal at the moment is rife with contradictions -- while the reductions are sweeping and encouraging, the modernization program is widespread. The French would probably not engage in multilateral arms control until the U.S. and Russia came down to approximately the same warhead level.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62 Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
French nukes are on the La Redoubtable class of SSBNs. Highly capable Multi-target ICBMs, with a global reach.
In terms of military strength its:
This is based on Air Force, Army, Navy, Special Forces, Power Projection, and manpower basis - and is my best guess. Its a little skewed as Israel has a very powerful army and air force but aside from i think three corvettes, no Navy to speak of, whereas Spain has a kick ass navy, and a kick ass air force but not so much of a powerful army. I'd also contend that India will eclipse China in the next ten years.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 23 Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
In terms of global reach France is still strong.It has permanent troop bases in Gabon,Tchad,Congo-Brazzaville in Africa alone.Anybody know whether they have a base in Nouvelle Caledonie or French Guiana?