Sorry, couldn’t resist the headline. They still have their boomers, of course — but no more sluggers ported by carrier.
France no longer deploys nuclear weapons on its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle under normal circumstances but stores the weapons on land, according to French officials.President Nicolas Sarkozy declared in March 2008 that France “could and should be more transparent with respect to its nuclear arsenal than anyone ever has been.” But while the other nuclear powers declared long ago that their naval weapons were offloaded or scrapped after the Cold War ended, a similar announcement has – to my knowledge – been lacking from France.
The French acknowledgment marks the end of peacetime deployment of short-range nuclear weapons at sea.
Peace Dividend.
Of course, US never needed to deploy nukes on carriers because our boomers, which we have the most of, were always more quiet and more accurate, so the concession meant less. The bigger deal is that all of NATO is now officially standing down aircraft-based naval tac nukes. It has been long since this was any realisitic threat, but a certain momentum can here be built to push nonproliferation beyond carrier platform. Why exactly does France, the UK or any other Euro-power need with any sort of nuke deterrent or other type of force? I think that we can certainly also at least reduce nuke deterrence patrols, mothball some boats, decom some warheads, we are none worse for the wear and eventually save some savings in the budget. Matter of fact, as sure as “Charlie don’t surf!”, Haji don’t nuke. Never seemed to bother them that we could have easily leveled Faluja, or Haditha, or Bhagdad itself. Exactly how does our fleet of Ohio-class boats deter that stuff? Not at all.
We need fewer guns folks. Because we have had the most guns and that hasn’t worked. Time to turn in your ammo and bake an apple pie. The truth is we have consistently overreacted and we could have saved a hell of a lot of money by not gunning up just because the current loser in the whitehouse has dark skin. You will not lose your guns. That is not on the agenda. The agenda is this radical idea you might be able to resolve your differences and improve your condition without resorting to violence. You know, just the kinda stuff you Jesus people like to talk about, at least the ones that don’t feel it necessary to carry while in church. But hey, who am I to say, I’m just some Atheist sinner who thought what Jesus had to say about how you treat your enemies might be a sound idea or whether God’s law about killing folks was clear or not. So you decide for yourself duders out there.
We carried nukes on our carriers for a long time Dean. Not sure how your argument shifted from “no nukes” to “God is dead,” but it was difficult to follow.
Dean as a self confessed atheist fails to recognize that there are many views within Christianity. This is true on personal self defense and national self defense. But as a non-christian he has not had to wrestle with any of the particular views and see which one has the most reason on its side. Thus he can paint with a broad and inaccurate brush, seemingly pitting Jesus against Christians. But only seemingly.
His other failed statement is “Because we have had the most guns and that hasn’t worked.” At its core, it attributes a complete failure to having guns. This is widely known as false by most everyone who chooses to have a gun. Once again, Dean fails to account for the position of his opponent. Many people who have guns prevent and interrupt crimes. Nations that ‘have more guns’ tend not to get overrun, and can in fact help their neighbor who failed to prepare. But these “peace through strength” dividends don’t attract the attention of foolishly idealistic people like Dean.
Dean then further states some silliness about blackphobia, lacking the most basic knowledge of real people he tries to stereotype.
The question of whether nukes are good against terrorism or their state sponsors misses the point that nukes might have some other remaining purpose.
The idea that “resolving differences … without resorting to violence” is best accomplished from a position of unprepared weakness apparently appeals to the unprepared and weak Dean. Besides, many people and nations with guns and nukes resolve differences all of the time. Those white Christians in Dean’s imagination huddle around their guns waiting for a black man to shoot first and talk to later. In his view, there can be no other reason for differences than fear and white racism, again a failure to know more than stereotypes, acknowledge any other reasons for differences, or acknowledge any other reasons for violence.
Perhaps if Dean hated less, listened more, and learned to reason he might be more in touch with the real world.
AO — great response.
Dean — what the hell are you talking about???
It’s not a matter of having too many guns. It’s a matter of people believing we wouldn’t use the guns we had. And that’s mostly down to people like Dean.
And Dean? If you’re an Athiest, don’t presume to interpret God’s will for us.
Oorah! Mr. AnotherOpinion and DaveP. athiests tend to have serious hubris issues. Believe me, I am one.
Seems to me the move makes sense if you are a French Naval Aviator. What possible target will CDG be required to launch Entendards on with nukes? Better to save the money and figure out how to build a second carrier.