Mutual Assured Destruction, French style;
President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
…in the meantime the world teeters on the brink of annihilation.
But hey enjoy the wine and cheeze.
France knows alot about the destruction of a people…
“France’s shame? : Rwanda’s civil war saw 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered by the Hutus – armed and supported by France. Now, 13 years later, is Paris once again meddling in the country’s affairs?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1987597,00.html
Where did I read that 3 nukes would wipe out Israel? I guess losing 1/3 to 2/3 of your country is not that big a danger.
Chirac should know, I guess.
I wonder if he would think it was a big danger if the one or two Iranian nukes were pointed at Paris.
Come to think about it no big loss.
Oddly I actually agree with Chirac on some of this.
In a nuclear world MAD, as insane as it sounds, leads to stability. Chirac has already made the statement that France reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against any country that uses terrorism against france. That is further the Americans have ever gone, or could go in my opinion.
He isnt dismissing Israel’s destruction he is saying that MAD is in play and that the Iraeli’s are capable of defending themselves in that environment. They possess nuclear armed submarines that survive an attack on the country.
As we all know, there is no defence against someone bent on suicide. So if Iran had a bomb and wanted to do that, knowing full well about the consequences, there is nothing anyone can do. You have to rely on the rationality of other actors, not imdeadinajihad.
If muslims were so universally desirous of wiping out Israel why hasnt Pakistan done the job?
As much as I hate to admit it, Chirac is correct. Of course for Israel to properly implement MAD it would have to
1) Admit it had nukes, which it hasnt
2) Admit it had nuclear submarines, which it hasnt
The time to do that is not now, it would be appropriate post Iran exploding a bomb, assuming it ever gets to that stage.
Chirac’s words may be callous….but I think they are realistic. Best to try to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, this can be acheived best by encouraging the opposition in Iran, the ground is ripe for an internal revolution…whether it is a complete revolution or a slow inexorable clipping of the power of the mullahs, a la what happened in England and the crown, remains to be seen.
But Chirac is indicating that MAD trumps all….we may not like it but it would be a true statement.
So stephen, you’re saying that Iran acquiring a nuclear strike capability would enhance ME stability. Who would have guessed? I feel much better now.
“President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.”
And if my aunt had nuts, she’d be my uncle.
Duuuuuuh.
“it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.”
By who? Not Chirac. Not the UN. Not the Democratic congress of the US. Maybe not by Israel. Who exacty, is going to stop Iran?
Chirac has a point, MAD works. It is thanks to MAD that the USA and USSR never lobbed nukes at each other during the 50-year cold war.
The issue with Iran (and for that matter, Pakistan) is their nukes are more likely to find their way into the hands of terror groups, who won’t use ICBMs to deliver them. They’ll use FedEx.
Moral relativism again. MAD worked with cultures that did not want to bomb each other back to the stone age. With a culture still firmly rooted in the seventh century, I’m not so sure that MAD is a viable proposition.