4 ms·

France has a long history of invading all kinds of countries, including European ones (think Napoleonic 1812). They're not hesitating to do that today when we c

France has a long history of invading all kinds of countries, including European ones (think Napoleonic 1812). They're not hesitating to do that today when we consider Africa. Neither South nor North Korea has either commitment or capacity or historical precedent. North Korea is a "fake it till you make it" media scarecrow. They would not go to agressive war and they never actually claimed they want to. If you try to do "five whys" on "Why you should fear North Korea more than France" the topic will evaporate around the third "why".

walkingolof 8y ago
Napolean did not have access to ICBM, thats why I also think NK is a tad scarier that France anon 1800...
- doombolt 8y ago
  You are thinking that Napoleon is a phenomenon on NK instead of being a phenomenon of France. This is based on some loud noises coming from the direction of NK and relative silence from French side. This is baseless. France have access to ICBM, aaaand we know they are Napoleon-capable. I'm not saying they're in for a global conflict, just telling that political-military opinions are built upon sand.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Well, Napoleon was born on a Mediterranean island (Corsica), which wasn't part of France the year he was born. Edit: it was sold (? or given) to France this year, from the Republic of Genoa.
baud147258 8y ago
> no historical precedent The Korea war doesn't count?
- doombolt 8y ago
  Did they try to conquer wider lands here? Does it count as an aggressive war? If it does not, why would one care that much?
Xixi 8y ago
South and North Korea certainly do have the capacity and recent historical precedent of waging a war against each other. The last attack of North Korea on South Korea was on November 23, 2010 [1]: "North Korean forces fired around 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, hitting both military and civilian targets." That's less than 8 years ago. This is why North Korea acquiring nukes is scary: it's not completely unreasonable to imagine that the Korean War could resume. I don't think in recent history France has engaged its army without either a mandate from the UN (Libya, Ivory Coast, etc.) [2], or being called for help by a local government according to a bilateral defense treaty (Mali). Maybe you have a counter example? Of course you can always go further in the past: France didn't become one of the largest European country by not waging expansionist wars... But I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to the world we are currently living in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong [2] Of course it doesn't mean that the result is always good: Libya is a giant cluster fuck now.
- doombolt 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom. Noam Chomsky has argued that the Western military intervention into Libya was a clear breach of UNSCR 1973 since it nullified the attempts for a ceasefire that were put forward by the resolution and welcomed by Gaddafi. As he puts it, "NATO powers (France and Britain in the lead and the United States following) violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for "all necessary steps" to protect civilians, but there's a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels." Definitely sounds like an agressive war to me. UN is a kind of self-indulgence here. Makes France more dangerous if anything, if they can pull things like this one through. They'll not only mess with you but make security council's members abstain when they plan the operation.

walkingolof 8y ago

Napolean did not have access to ICBM, thats why I also think NK is a tad scarier that France anon 1800...

doombolt 8y ago
You are thinking that Napoleon is a phenomenon on NK instead of being a phenomenon of France. This is based on some loud noises coming from the direction of NK and relative silence from French side. This is baseless. France have access to ICBM, aaaand we know they are Napoleon-capable. I'm not saying they're in for a global conflict, just telling that political-military opinions are built upon sand.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Well, Napoleon was born on a Mediterranean island (Corsica), which wasn't part of France the year he was born. Edit: it was sold (? or given) to France this year, from the Republic of Genoa.

baud147258 8y ago

> no historical precedent The Korea war doesn't count?

doombolt 8y ago
Did they try to conquer wider lands here? Does it count as an aggressive war? If it does not, why would one care that much?

Xixi 8y ago

South and North Korea certainly do have the capacity and recent historical precedent of waging a war against each other. The last attack of North Korea on South Korea was on November 23, 2010 [1]: "North Korean forces fired around 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, hitting both military and civilian targets." That's less than 8 years ago. This is why North Korea acquiring nukes is scary: it's not completely unreasonable to imagine that the Korean War could resume. I don't think in recent history France has engaged its army without either a mandate from the UN (Libya, Ivory Coast, etc.) [2], or being called for help by a local government according to a bilateral defense treaty (Mali). Maybe you have a counter example? Of course you can always go further in the past: France didn't become one of the largest European country by not waging expansionist wars... But I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to the world we are currently living in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong [2] Of course it doesn't mean that the result is always good: Libya is a giant cluster fuck now.

doombolt 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom. Noam Chomsky has argued that the Western military intervention into Libya was a clear breach of UNSCR 1973 since it nullified the attempts for a ceasefire that were put forward by the resolution and welcomed by Gaddafi. As he puts it, "NATO powers (France and Britain in the lead and the United States following) violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for "all necessary steps" to protect civilians, but there's a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels." Definitely sounds like an agressive war to me. UN is a kind of self-indulgence here. Makes France more dangerous if anything, if they can pull things like this one through. They'll not only mess with you but make security council's members abstain when they plan the operation.