Well, France (no offense) doesn't have the most powerful military in the world, thus their military response would be limited. France retired/is retiring their tactical/strategic missile and only retaining their naval ones (submarines mainly) and some for the air force. So, an attack with nuclear or coventional weapons would be almost impossible. I doubt that any French submarines or aircraft would make it into firing range of the United States without being destroyed.
As for political affects. France would demand that everyone involved be tracked down and handed over to them, and that safeguards are taken to prevent this from happening again. They might even break out of NATO and begin to isolate themselves militarly and build up a more power military with long range nuclear missiles.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 17 2003, 06:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 17 2003, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And, in response to my last post - what would you recommend France do, should the bombs be American in origin? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "Recommend" is a bad word to use- in my last post I wasn't recommending that the U.S. do what I said they would, I was just saying that they *would,* because they probably wouldn't have anything to lose. I am not playing the role of a patriotic American- I'm just being a realist.
The situation for France (and every country except Russia) is different for reasons of military reality. There is no action they could take against the U.S. that would not result in something worse for them. Their only recourse is appeasement. Maybe if they had a ballistic missile submarine they could threaten to take out something, but even then it would be a weak hand, considering they could only threaten a limited strike, in return for complete extermination. Russia retains a slim chance of a successful "first strike", provided it can not only coordinate its nuclear arsenal, but sink all of the threatening ballistic missile subs. The Soviet navy might have had a chance, but I doubt today's Russian navy could pull that off.
What I still find somewhat improbable about this scenario is the size of the bomb we're talking about. It seems like it's way too big to be considered anything other than a top-level government job, so why would a country start a nuclear exchange with anything less than an all-out attack? In order for a country to possibly claim no involvement, the bomb has to be really puny and amateur.
Agreed. Hence my my argumentativeness with the entire scenario to begin with. The situation as described just isn't very feasible or likely, due mostly to logistic problems. No one has made a 5 megaton device since the 1950's, to my knowledge, and then it was only because the targeting systems of bombers and ICBM's were measured in error radii of tens of miles, not 10's of feet as they are today. An entire 8-warhead Trident D4 MIRV carrier adds up to 800KT total, for example.
And if a device stolen from the USA were used against France, I rather doubt that France would retaliate with an all-out strike, any more than the reverse situation between us and them, or russia. It's far too improbable of a situation, as opposed to a China or North Korea, countries we are 'less cordial' with, to quote Bubbleblower.
And I repeat, my answers are based on what I know of US doctrine and policy, not my own opinion of what a good response is. As I said previously...
Comments
As for political affects. France would demand that everyone involved be tracked down and handed over to them, and that safeguards are taken to prevent this from happening again. They might even break out of NATO and begin to isolate themselves militarly and build up a more power military with long range nuclear missiles.
"Recommend" is a bad word to use- in my last post I wasn't recommending that the U.S. do what I said they would, I was just saying that they *would,* because they probably wouldn't have anything to lose. I am not playing the role of a patriotic American- I'm just being a realist.
The situation for France (and every country except Russia) is different for reasons of military reality. There is no action they could take against the U.S. that would not result in something worse for them. Their only recourse is appeasement. Maybe if they had a ballistic missile submarine they could threaten to take out something, but even then it would be a weak hand, considering they could only threaten a limited strike, in return for complete extermination. Russia retains a slim chance of a successful "first strike", provided it can not only coordinate its nuclear arsenal, but sink all of the threatening ballistic missile subs. The Soviet navy might have had a chance, but I doubt today's Russian navy could pull that off.
What I still find somewhat improbable about this scenario is the size of the bomb we're talking about. It seems like it's way too big to be considered anything other than a top-level government job, so why would a country start a nuclear exchange with anything less than an all-out attack? In order for a country to possibly claim no involvement, the bomb has to be really puny and amateur.
And if a device stolen from the USA were used against France, I rather doubt that France would retaliate with an all-out strike, any more than the reverse situation between us and them, or russia. It's far too improbable of a situation, as opposed to a China or North Korea, countries we are 'less cordial' with, to quote Bubbleblower.
And I repeat, my answers are based on what I know of US doctrine and policy, not my own opinion of what a good response is. As I said previously...