Talk:Force de dissuasion

Untitled
I would like to ask a few questions about the "Inflexible"-class submarine... The "Inflexible" is an improved "Redoutable"-class submarine, so I wonder wether it would not be more appropriate to call is the "Redoutable" class than the "Inflexible"... Also, the entry for the "Inflexible" SNLE shows at "L'Inflexible", but for ship listings, I think we'd refer to her as "Inflexible" (without article). So I don't know if we should put a pointer from "Inflexible" to "L'Inflexbile"... Of course it conflict with the several British "Inflexible" vessels, but as the entry is already multiple, I think it shouldn't be a problem ? (How do one does this ? :p )


 * The Inflexible is very much improved compared to the Redoutable, to that point where some analysts consider it a class by itself. That said, these "class" frenzy is probably better used for NATO armament and possibly Soviet ones. Speaking of a "class" for a single ship is a bit ridiculous.
 * In French, the submarines are referred to as "SNLE" for the Redoutable to the Inflexible, and SNLE-NG ("New generation" :p) for the so-called "Triomphant class".
 * The presence of an article in a name is a tricky subject. On the hull of the Redoutable, you can read "Le Redoutable" ("The one which is frightening", litterally), but is clashes horribly in English to say "the Le Redoutable". Also, some ships are named Redoutable only (that was the case for the one in Trafalgar I think)... Complicated matters :p . Rama 08:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Some parts missing

The article is very instructing, but it is missing some parts. Maybe a historician should write a few words about the main ideas of the force de frappe: Independance, Deterrency in all directions and Change. The key phrase "tous azimuts" is not even mentioned, and the development of the conception of French independance towards European Independance are as little explained as the idea of Change that is always possible. You never knew who would rule a state in the future. This conception lay very near to De Gaulle in 1968 when he had to flee over the Rhine and it looked for a moment like France was going to collapse. It would have been very good for France to have a nuklear force then of course. Also maybe a philosoph could explain the Logic of the 800 million argument, that a philosophically untrained reader can impossibly understand. He would think, that the smaller the number of Frenchmen used, the more convincing the argument, the more numerous, the more counterproducing. So if this citation has to stand here in two languages, a short introduction to Cartesian Logic is absolutely necessary, if France is not to be made to look stupid. --Hanno Kuntze 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much information about individual nuclear tests
The page French nuclear testing redirects here, but this page doesn't discuss individual nuclear tests in much detail. Should this link be re-targeted to a more relevant article, or should this article be expanded to discuss individual nuclear tests by France?

Reply: The article France and weapons of mass destruction discusses nuclear testing in more detail. The page French nuclear testing therefore should redirect to that article.Redound (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed the redirect accordingly. Calistemon (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)