C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!!!

Can anyone explain to me why France would ever need more than about five warheads? Maybe twenty-five if you want to have a 5:1 redundancy per target. Under what possible circumstances would France need to level more than a handful of cities? Even a zombie apocalypse wouldn't warrant 300.

This is what we're doing in here, right?

Subby: President Sarkozy vows to surrender two-thirds of France's nuclear warheads

You make me proud Subby.

Smellvin: Can anyone explain to me why France would ever need more than about five warheads? Maybe twenty-five if you want to have a 5:1 redundancy per target. Under what possible circumstances would France need to level more than a handful of cities? Even a zombie apocalypse wouldn't warrant 300.

The same reason that the US and USSR each needed tens of thousands during the Cold War. Duh.

Angry Hatter: You make me proud Subby.

Subby here. What did you mean by that? I spelled surrender right...I think.

Smellvin: Can anyone explain to me why France would ever need more than about five warheads? Maybe twenty-five if you want to have a 5:1 redundancy per target. Under what possible circumstances would France need to level more than a handful of cities? Even a zombie apocalypse wouldn't warrant 300.

They really need fewer than that. They need zero, if they're going to be able to knuckle under properly when Iran points their sole clunky overlarge and unwieldy nuclear warhead at the Eiffel Tower.

I guess 300 makes it look like they're pretending to defend themselves.

France developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War for two reasons...

1 - To create a "credible" European nuclear force so the US couldn't change their mind of shiat went down.
2 - Because they are France, and wanted to feel special.

They have always been a 2nd tier nuclear power, but insist on maintaining a pointless superpower style triad of weapons instead of moving towards an SLBM only arsenal like the UK. This is a recognition that they don't need those weapons, and they can retire some of the older ones while looking good (the US did this too). They only need a small retaliatory force anyway, 100 warheads would be more than enough.

/don't get my started on the US arsenal
//currently writing my thesis on it
///so, anyone wanna talk B61s or B57s?

Etchy333: Angry Hatter: You make me proud Subby.

Subby here. What did you mean by that? I spelled surrender right...I think.

Don't tell me you used the word "surrender" unintentionally when referring to the French.

/Hilarious

Angry Hatter: Don't tell me you used the word "surrender" unintentionally when referring to the French.

Simply the best verb available....yeah, that's it

Melissa Theuriau knows a thing or two about "mushroom clouds."

Not only did I submit this with basically the same headline, but mine was more factually accurate. The Federation of American Scientists says they have around 348 nukes, and will be reducing their cache to about 300, which does not two thirds make. More like 14%.

But whatever.

france is part of "them" right?

Viewer: Not only did I submit this with basically the same headline, but mine was more factually accurate. The Federation of American Scientists says they have around 348 nukes, and will be reducing their cache to about 300, which does not two thirds make. More like 14%.

But whatever.

See, the difference here was the Boobies had hot French chicks yelling about something.

Let this be a lesson to you.

/go filter go

Jubeebee

Is that picture legit..?

Jubeebee: Melissa Theuriau knows a thing or two about "mushroom clouds."

Viewer: Not only did I submit this with basically the same headline, but mine was more factually accurate. The Federation of American Scientists says they have around 348 nukes, and will be reducing their cache to about 300, which does not two thirds make. More like 14%.

But whatever.

They are cutting airborne warheads (bomber/fighter delivered) by two thirds, not overall warheads. As of 2005 they had about 60 of them, plus 288 SLBM warheads. They just launched a new submarine, so they can get rid of more of the airborne weapons.

Necrosis


Aren't the airborne (fighter/bomber) delivered weapons intended for tactical use in support of their mobile armored columns? I thought that was part of their Post WWII strategy which emphasized smaller divisions of combined arms with close air support and small nukes (more agile than larger set-pieces with nuclear arms added to counter the Soviet superiority of numbers). The nukes, IIRC, were not intended as counter-force or second strike weapons (the later due to their "soft" or exposed storage meaning they couldn't reliably survive a first strike).

Jubeebee: Melissa Theuriau knows a thing or two about "mushroom clouds."

...fap-fap-fap...