Why'd I ask about France and UK? I guess what piqued my curiosity was that I'd heard that right after 9/11, for a little while there was talk in the Pentagon about nuke retaliation on Afghanistan. Plus, considering that the French sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior (which accidentally resulted in at least one fatality), I suspect that if the French got hit hard (like losing the Eiffel Tower, Arce de Triumphe, or Notre Dame Cathedral or some other major landmark) and found out who did it, their reply could be pretty nasty.

I that case I grew up in the cold war. The fear was always there that one day it was going to happen .the government encouraged paranoia, the media encouraged paranoia, .there where plays on TV about the nuclear holocaust, films like when the wind blows did the rounds in the cinema. We grew up afraid of nukes. So I like to think that France and Britain would only use nukes as an absolute last resort. If the terrorist where to get hold of a dirty bomb or some kind of bio weapon that resulted in massive casualties then the gloves would be of and who ever did it and a few that didn’t would get there’s .but that would happen if it was Israel, America, France, or Britain. we would have little choice . America might have spoken about nukes in the heat of the moment but like us it would be a last resort. Just an opinion Ps the kids today have not clue about nukes . at the age of 10 I knew that the Russians would probably target my city with a ss11 and detonate it a mile above.

Not sure I understand your question muddy. What exactly do you mean by measured? Do you mean reasoned and effectual, or least offensive to the public at large? I with hold further comment without refinement of inquiry.

I apologize for any confusion I tend to think in pictures this can make me a little vague. I had miss interpreted the original thread as a insidious attack upon French and British,critics of Israel and America’s response to terrorism. I ask for clarification which Jerry W. Loper has been kind enough to give me. “Do you mean reasoned and effectual, or least offensive to the public at large” When I say Measured I mean in this context to be more calculated than emotional. So least offensive and reasoned.

I don't think the UK have tactical nukes anymore. Their only nukes are strategic, on Trident missiles on their submarines.

Muddy, Fair enough. I'll take that to mean effectual(since you have to have thought and weighed the public response to acctions) and reasoned. Fair enough. now, I don't think that either the Brits or the Frogs would resort to using nukes even if something like Big Ben, Picadilly, the Royal Palace, the Eiffel Tower, The Louve, or the Arc de Triumph were destroyed. They might go gonzo with a conventional response, the public might call for nuclear response, but their analogues of the American DoD would not even consider it. No way no day.

It could depends with where the attack comes from . ie: an Al Qaeda link in Syria or Iran known to have been financed by the Syrian/Iranian governing body blow the Eiffel Tower or Notre-Dame de Paris . French response could/can be a Nuclear strike on Teheran or Damascus . I have no doubts . Cheers .

the french police don't have a great reputation for being hard-working. there was recently an article in the FIGARO stating that police work a 27-hour week or something like that. anecdotal evidence suggests that during work hours, some moonlight as taxi drivers, tour guides, one guy was even an alpine tour guide and some openly practice oil painting in the police station! (though admittedly they're better than the police in my country he he) if an attack was planned and carried out on french soil, i don't think they'd make a hasty decision. i think whatever they did, they would plan it very carefully, unlike the americans in afghanistan. the nuclear option would be the last.

"if an attack was planned and carried out on french soil, i don't think they'd make a hasty decision. i think whatever they did, they would plan it very carefully, unlike the americans in afghanistan. " The Americans did in 4 months in Afghanistan what the Soviets could not acheive in 4 years, which is tells this poster that the planning was not all that bad. NewGuy

well, not that the americans did a bad job. but the french would talk about it and plan for a long time. you know how they are.