Pete Barrett
1/10/2009 12:04:00 PM
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:23:01 -0800, Andre Kantek wrote:
> I believe that is no more likely than Tatcher in 1982, besides France
> was more in turmoil during the 60s.
>
As it turned out, Mrs. Thatcher didn't need to - the war went about as
well as she could have hoped. But British public opinion would have
supported her if she'd deployed them (possibly not if she'd used them) at
the time. (Though the US wouldn't have supported even threatening
Argentina with nuclear weapons, which would probably have been decisive
for Mrs. Thatcher; I doubt de Gaulle would have cared about US opinion 20
years earlier.)
> De Gaulle would prefer a more conventional approach, IMO.
I don't doubt it. However, what I see happening is something like this:
The war drags on, and France suffers a definite reverse.
De Gaulle's popularity plummets among the French electorate.
De Gaulle publicly deploys a single bomber capable of carrying a nuclear
weapon, which is an implied threat.
De Gaulle's popularity increases.
France conducts a nuclear test, just to drive the point home.
De Gaulle's poularity increases further.
Brazil continues the war.
De Gaulle finds that actually using the thing would be politically popular
with the electorate.
Which puts him a real fix.
--
Pete Barrett