Nuclear games

In a stunning development, France is trying to outflank President Bush on irresponsible militaristic rhetoric. The same France that has loudly denounced the U.S.' military response to terrorism for the past several years. On January 19, French President Jacques Chirac warned that France is prepared to respond to a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons. He said that while France's response "could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind." Two things about this announcement stun me. The first is how ridiculous the idea of responding to a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons is, and the second is the relatively muted response from the rest of the world.\nThe logic behind a nuclear response to a terrorist attack escapes me. Who are they going to nuke? Terrorist attacks are increasingly committed by non-state actors, so how do you drop a nuclear bomb on them? There's also the inconvenient fact that terrorist attacks in Europe are being committed by people already living there. Would France bomb London if British Muslims carry out an attack similar to the London Underground bombings last summer, which was committed by British citizens? Heck, France might have to nuke itself given its deeply unhappy Muslim population. French Muslims (and other immigrants) rioted for several weeks this fall in anger over their treatment in France. Threatening to nuke their homelands is sure to go over well. \nIf the feasibility problem didn't deter France, you'd think the political arguments might. A western power nuking a, presumably, Muslim country will go over really well right now. There's also the issue of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Chirac's announcement came as the EU and United States were exerting diplomatic pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear programs. It seems unlikely that threatening a nuclear attack is the way to convince them to give up their programs.\nThe other thing about this story that amazes me is how little reaction Chirac's comments generated. Can you imagine what would happen if Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons in response to a terrorist attack? The outrage would be deafening. In 2002 the United States released the results of a nuclear weapons policy review that listed countries it viewed as the greatest threats (China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria) and said the United States was considering resuming weapons testing and was funding research into new types of nuclear weapons. The reaction was predictable; lots of chest-thumping that the United States was being irresponsible and comments from some of those mentioned in the report that the United States was seeking world domination. Why hasn't anyone accused France of seeking world domination after explicitly laying out conditions in which it might use nuclear weapons? \nI don't know why the media hasn't picked up on this story, but maybe it's all for the good. The United States isn't alone now in making irresponsible military threats. At least we can point out that we didn't nuke Afghanistan after 9/11. So, vive la France for making the United States look a little less crazy.