France could defend EU in case of attack: minister

[burnedout]

[Hat tip: Charles Johnson]

France could use its nuclear capability to defend its neighbours, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Monday, while also urging European Union states to increase military spending.

She said that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'"

"If Germany asked us for help, it is probable that European solidarity would come into play," she told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, and added: "For us, nuclear weapons are the ultimate protection against a threat from abroad."

She said ethnic conflict and terrorism were making the world increasingly more unstable and called on EU members to increase their military budgets to two percent of gross domestic product -- NATO's minimum recommended level.

"Today in Europe there are only three countries who spend more than 2.0 percent of GDP on defence. They are France, Britain and Greece. The others are not doing enough," Alliot-Marie said.

She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world.

Link - retrans of an AFP story, by the way.

Heh. Gotta love Curtis LeMay and the "Bombsie Twins".

 

[Strk]

Greece may spend over 2%, but they also require all 18 year olds to enlist last I knew. I know some will say "but why does that matter?". Well, it matters because equipping and feeding them is factored into the military budget, which means most of the budget is spent on room and board and not advancements in technology.

 

[Jmman]

"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

 

[AnImuS]

they're still weak.

death to the infidels!

 

[dirtcheapguy]

ha ha ha this move is so dangerous. and make north korea will not surender their nuke plant.. and the world not save anymore..
death to the infidels. agree with that.
frence is a traitor too the usa people

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

I don't think they're arguing U.S. dominance in the military department

As for 2nd and 3rd, well, it kind of depends. You have China, a country with a massive army, but not exactly the most sophisticated. You have Russia, a very sophisticated army on paper, but a lack of funding prevents them from building most of what they have designed. Then there is Israel and Taiwan, countries that purchase consirable amounts of military equipment from us, with Israel also receiving close to $3.7 billion in military aid annually. However, both countries are quite small and limited to a mostly defensive military, since they can't really mobilize a massive force. There is Germany and Japan, who spend a fair amount of money on their militaries, but that is because of higher GDPs than most. Both countries are also constitutionally limited to what they can do with their military forces. Then there is the United Kingdom, probably their closest competitor in terms of militaries.(I'm ignoring the U.S. in this part, because, like I said at the beginning, there is no question on who number one is)

So I suppose it depends on which part of the military she is concerning herself with. Size or capability(*edit*, by capability, I mean more than just throwing loads of nukes at someone else, although that seems to be part of her argument). Sure, I'll beat a dead horse and say it again, they are no match in capability to the U.S., but that isn't the argument. Personally, I think it is a pointless argument because, in the end, after all the bickering and name calling, we are on the same side as France.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

I don't think they're arguing U.S. dominance in the military department

As for 2nd and 3rd, well, it kind of depends. You have China, a country with a massive army, but not exactly the most sophisticated. You have Russia, a very sophisticated army on paper, but a lack of funding prevents them from building most of what they have designed. Then there is Israel and Taiwan, countries that purchase consirable amounts of military equipment from us, with Israel also receiving close to $3.7 billion in military aid annually. However, both countries are quite small and limited to a mostly defensive military, since they can't really mobilize a massive force. There is Germany and Japan, who spend a fair amount of money on their militaries, but that is because of higher GDPs than most. Both countries are also constitutionally limited to what they can do with their military forces. Then there is the United Kingdom, probably their closest competitor in terms of militaries.(I'm ignoring the U.S. in this part, because, like I said at the beginning, there is no question on who number one is)

So I suppose it depends on which part of the military she is concerning herself with. Size or capability(*edit*, by capability, I mean more than just throwing loads of nukes at someone else, although that seems to be part of her argument). Sure, I'll beat a dead horse and say it again, they are no match in capability to the U.S., but that isn't the argument. Personally, I think it is a pointless argument because, in the end, after all the bickering and name calling, we are on the same side as France.

Exactly. Another thing to point out is that we live in a country where our military is seemingly invincible. While we all know that the US has a great military, one has to think about the fact that not many countries have the research funding that the US has. I would agree with this person that France has one of the top militaries in the world.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

It is rather sad when poeple's prejudices and idealogies prevent them from seeing the truth, which is that France really does have the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
It is rather sad when poeple's prejudices and idealogies prevent them from seeing the truth, which is that France really does have the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world.

Rather sad, indeed, MtM.

Just take notice of the number of historicaly ignorant, culturally ignorant, geopolitically ignorant, rah rah fanboyz on this forum. Kind of makes your eyes roll back in your head, doesn't it?

Take ol' glenn1 right here. Hell, he's not even a fanboy of any sort by any means, but, have you ever heard a more unbelievably ingnorant statement in your life than this:

"Since any good idea will tend to be implemented voluntarily . . .

It's the first damn 10 words in his post. :roll:

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

It is rather sad when poeple's prejudices and idealogies prevent them from seeing the truth, which is that France really does have the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world.

Are you kidding me?

I'm by no means a French basher... but France doesn't have the second OR third best army in the world. And how the hell would you rate that anyway?

If you rate by size and military spending, it's basically USA, China and Russia.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Jmman
"She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world. "



Did they legalize drugs in France already? She must be smoking some good stuff........

I was thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure the combined forces of the Oklahoma and Texas National Guard could kick France's ass.

It is rather sad when poeple's prejudices and idealogies prevent them from seeing the truth, which is that France really does have the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world.

Are you kidding me?

I'm by no means a French basher... but France doesn't have the second OR third best army in the world. And how the hell would you rate that anyway?

If you rate by size and military spending, it's basically USA, China and Russia.

Yes, indeed, they are behind all three, and possibly Great Britian, too, but they stand alone with these powers in their ability to project their power abroad.

In nuclear terms, they stand with the above four in such ability. Other "nuclear" powers like Pakistan and India could only truly reach each other, if at all. Israel is focused on their Arab neighbors.

France ranks above China in it's ability to project it's non nuclear power around the world (not just accross the straits of Formosa [sans the US Navy!] or into t's land neighbors such as Vietnam or India).

shinerburke's incredibly ignorant assertion that the Oklahoma or Texas national guard could alone take on the nation of France is as fanboy dumbass as you can get, and par for the course on this forum.

 

[sMiLeYz]

I'm not defending Shinerburke's ignorant statement, but we don't need more ignorance being spread around. France obviously has an adequate army, judging from their presence in the Balkins.

Having the second or third best army in the world is a bit of a stretch.

 

[0roo0roo]

nukes + france for protection lol all a crazy nut has to do is get his own nukes and call their bluff. invade a country or two using conventional means. france wouldn't be willing to pay the price of nuclear exchange. same way hitler got so far without being slapped down. no one was willing to risk total war. no one thought it was possible. ww1 was the wall to end all wars after all.

 

[AndrewR]

Considering the large Muslim population and the likelihood that they are militants among it, do you think they'll nuke themselves?

 

[irwincur]

The only thing the French army is good at is running fast, in the wrong direction. But considering all of the money they got from their illegal arms sales to Saddam between 1991 - 2002 they might have been able to do some upgrades.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The only thing the French army is good at is running fast, in the wrong direction. But considering all of the money they got from their illegal arms sales to Saddam between 1991 - 2002 they might have been able to do some upgrades.

Link?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The only thing the French army is good at is running fast, in the wrong direction. But considering all of the money they got from their illegal arms sales to Saddam between 1991 - 2002 they might have been able to do some upgrades.

HAHA FUNNY! That's really original you should patent that joke.

I like how this thread separates the ignorant racists from the enlightened folk.

 

[alphatarget1]

France doesn't have the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world. The UK has a better military than France.

and no, oklahoma + texas national guard probably can't beat france alone... it's a joke people (at least i think it is)

 

[irwincur]

and no, oklahoma + texas national guard probably can't beat france alone... it's a joke people (at least i think it is)

Consideirng the combined GDP of Texas and Oklahoma is about equal to France this is entirely plausible. Also considering that France has not been on the winning side of a war since Napolean savaged Europe and Russia - it is also plausible. Unless of course the French could clone Napolean, then they might have a chance.

Link?

As you wish. Notice that the US accounted for less than .5% of arms sales. Russia, France, and China, for over 70%.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

 

[crazycarl]

@irwincur-

so all those blank spaces for '91 - '01 were France's illegal arms sales?

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: irwincur

and no, oklahoma + texas national guard probably can't beat france alone... it's a joke people (at least i think it is)

Consideirng the combined GDP of Texas and Oklahoma is about equal to France this is entirely plausible. Also considering that France has not been on the winning side of a war since Napolean savaged Europe and Russia - it is also plausible. Unless of course the French could clone Napolean, then they might have a chance.

Link?

As you wish. Notice that the US accounted for less than .5% of arms sales. Russia, France, and China, for over 70%.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Unfortunately, your 'source' lacks data for the years you mentioned, 1991-2002. Also, you failed to take into consideration the fact that the USSR provided (according to that source) 57% of the arms to Iraq in comparison to the French 13%. That's what, a 400% difference?

 

[irwincur]

Notice the trend. They did not just shut off the pump.

Also, why were the Iraqi's using brand new French anti tank missiles last year? The ones that were so new that the French military did not even have a significant number yet. The ones that were sold weeks after the first UN vote on Iraq. Also, they don't show Russia selling weapons during that period and everyone in the world knows that they were. The chart was mainly to illustrate the links between the coalition of weasles and arms sales. Obviously they would not have opposed the war if there was nothing to hide.

 

[lozina]

irwincur, you're posts are consistently filled with unsubstantiated accusations and on the rare occassion you do attempt to provide some evidence to 'prove' your point it winds up working against you. How are you nto ashamed? Why do you continue to post garbage on these forums?

Originally posted by: irwincur
Notice the trend. They did not just shut off the pump.

What trend? The one where France's arm sales peaked in 1984 and dropped since then?

Also, why were the Iraqi's using brand new French anti tank missiles last year? The ones that were so new that the French military did not even have a significant number yet. The ones that were sold weeks after the first UN vote on Iraq.

Word of the Day

Also, they don't show Russia selling weapons during that period and everyone in the world knows that they were. The chart was mainly to illustrate the links between the coalition of weasles and arms sales. Obviously they would not have opposed the war if there was nothing to hide.

I guess everyone in the world except me, because AFAIK the US made some accusations that Russian companies were selling night vision goggles and what-not while the Russians denied it. US based it's accusations on some US Intelligence reports, you know, the ones that said there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq ? It's a simple case of he-said-she-said anyway. Russia retaliated with accusations that US was selling deadly military technology to countries that are known to support terrorism as well.

And the chart shows US sale of arms to Iraq so your point is completely lost.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: irwincur

and no, oklahoma + texas national guard probably can't beat france alone... it's a joke people (at least i think it is)

Consideirng the combined GDP of Texas and Oklahoma is about equal to France this is entirely plausible. Also considering that France has not been on the winning side of a war since Napolean savaged Europe and Russia - it is also plausible. Unless of course the French could clone Napolean, then they might have a chance.

Link?

As you wish. Notice that the US accounted for less than .5% of arms sales. Russia, France, and China, for over 70%.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Are we forgetting a little bit of history? I'm not talking about the idiot Vickey regime, but the military and who they fought with.

Also, as far as China goes, they say they spend about $25 billion annually. The DoD estimates China spends more like $65 billion annually on its military. I've read that it is more like $50 million annually. Now, in terms of raw troop numbers, China is definitely a bigger military. However, like I said before, it is an army of 4 million that can't really go anywhere.

The UK spends slightly less than France last I knew(In 2001 France spent 2.7% of its GDP and the UK spent 2.6%. France's economy is also slightly larger.) So again, like I said earlier, it depends on what part of the military you are discussing. And if you want to go with overall destructive power, France has more strategic nukes than the U.K. and China, which puts them 3rd in the world in terms of nuclear power.