Luna Questions? Ask Them Here!

[Lord Styphon]

also will we see how come the count is doin all this, and, to be literal, WHY?

Because in actuality, Count von Brucken is a lab mouse pretending to be a European dictator as part of an elaborate scheme to take over the world.

Seriously, though. It's world domination.

i'm usin all these big words and i'm only 13!

[Ryokosha]

also will we see how come the count is doin all this, and, to be literal, WHY?

Because in actuality, Count von Brucken is a lab mouse pretending to be a European dictator as part of an elaborate scheme to take over the world.

Seriously, though. It's world domination.

PINKY AND THE BRAIN Wooo!

Why is a actually a very interesting question. How is another good one, since he seems to have a very large network for a small country.

[Lord Styphon]

You don't need to be a big country to have a nice network of agents; you just need to be able to afford them. Consider all of those small Italian city-states in the Renaissance.

Since Bruckenstein is unlikely to have the same commercial that states like Venice, Genoa and Florence did, I'd guess that the Count's resources are largely inherited wealth. Possibly Nazi gold, as well.

Or maybe he's running on credit.

Why is he doing it? He's a supervillain; it's what they do.

How is he doing it? I know exactly how his plan is supposed to work. It's brilliant, really. And says something about Luna and Co. that they can't fit it together themselves (even if they don't have a piece of the puzzle that we do).

[Ryokosha]

True but if you're countries smaller then (did they say Central Park?) I am not sure your nations line of credit is all that good. It's also true you don't need a big country to have lots of spies but the Italian city-states were slightly different in that they had lots of money to back them up.

[Lord Styphon]

I seem to recall it being constantly being described as a mountaintop (with no countryside). There are a few countries left that fit that size pretty well in the world.

The Vatican comes to mind as one with lots of clout and money.

Speaking of money, while the Italian city-states had money and the best condotierri that would stay bought to back them up, we don't know that Bruckenstein doesn't have some source of money of its own to do the same. We're not privy to how von Brucken finances his ambitions. Perhaps he has photos of Baron de Rothschild with two 5-year olds, a ferret and a Hubbard squash.

[Ryokosha]

True but the Vatican is different, strip it if the religious aura and it would probably be dirt poor in a few years.

Granted they could be sitting on the largest diamond mine in the world but if that was the case wouldn't the U.S. be trying to cozy up to them to make sure they don't go to "Communist China" with all that wealth? Having known operatives spying on their leader (even if they can't be proven to be from the U.S. they are likely known to be from the U.S.) is not the way to "cozy up" to them.

[Lord Styphon]

Why bother with cozying up? In Bruckenstein's case, regime change is a much easier, much better and more profitable option.

[Ryokosha]

Because overthrowing a country through spy operations that is part of the UN is not something that endears you to the other members or is perhaps all that easy (take all the times the real life CIA has tried with Cuba), and by the time you try they might have an alliance with "Red China" which makes an overthrow a lot more dangerous. It's better to kiss up and quietly take control without the obvious coup d'état signs that would be left behind with a more obvious overthrow.

[Lord Styphon]

There are many ways to change regimes. You can go the CIA route with the subversion and covert ops, or you could go the big and flashy route and send in the panzers. Either option works, and world powers have used both over the course of history.

UN members have had their governments overthrown by other UN members, either directly or through subversion, practically since the UN has come into existence. In the Cold War, the U.S. used both soft and hard power to topple Soviet-aligned regimes, and the Soviets did the same in reverse. And got away with it a great many times.

Bruckenstein, being a dreary mountaintop, is isolated. It's small, and so can't prepare defense in depth. Being small, the government can't be the goliath it would be in a larger country, and thus is easier to decapitate. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe, China would be in no position to help it. And, since it's pissed off the powers that be in the region (and obviously poses a threat), nobody would much care if it did get axed in some way.

[Ryokosha]

As to the idea of "sending in the panzers", well if you mean like a "conflict" which took place from about the 1950's to the 1970's in part of Asia, or one currently going on in the middle east, well we all know how the first ended and it's more and more obvious the second is already heading toward a very similar ending. So yes nations have used it, but I am not sure of a country yet which has used it and has not paid a heavy price for such a route in the long run.

The Cold War I think was unique, it was truly the only time two "superpowers" sat in the UN, never before (didn't exist before and the "League of Nations" imploded shortly after it was formed) or since (though maybe soon with China being the "other superpower") has that really occurred, and only when you have two superpowers that will nip at each other's heals but not bite the ankle can such things occur as governments being overthrown by an individual superpower without people (nations) crying out in fear of being next.

Remember what happened to Goliath in the story though, and I think people said the same things about the two previously mentioned "wars" too; "they're small countries, they can be easily decapitated, they angered other powers in that region...." In short I think if you don't want to go the covert ops way you have to be ready for a long and very costly (in life and money) war and be ready to pull back from that war on a moments notice the second it starts to go south and obviously becomes a stalemate. Besides between kissing up and going to war, kissing up is still easier and much more "loved" then either war or covert ops.

[Ryokosha]

You make a good point, we don't know why he is doing what he is doing, just that he is doing it, and somehow it is just assumed it is for "world domination". It might be something more simple.

[Lord Styphon]

So yes nations have used it, but I am not sure of a country yet which has used it and has not paid a heavy price for such a route in the long run.

In that case, allow me to direct you to an example of using force to remove a government that took place in the 1980s on a Caribbean island. Or back to one in 1903, where a province of a South American country was seperated from that country and established as an independent state.

Bruckenstein, being described as a tiny little country, offers a possibility of being completely overrun. If you want a similar example, take German occupation of Luxembourg during both world wars. The Germans crossed the border and that was that. Bruckenstein would find itself in a similar position to Luxembourg.

The Cold War I think was unique, it was truly the only time two "superpowers" sat in the UN, never before (didn't exist before and the "League of Nations" imploded shortly after it was formed) or since (though maybe soon with China being the "other superpower") has that really occurred, and only when you have two superpowers that will nip at each other's heals but not bite the ankle can such things occur as governments being overthrown by an individual superpower without people (nations) crying out in fear of being next.

So, you're using an example of the status quo for more than half of the UN's history as the only time something happened in UN history? It is kind of hard to have a situation in the UN before there was a UN, afterall.

Removing the whole UN angle, it's far from the only time there have been two superpowers that have held the world between them and tried to overthrow the other's position. Case in point, the Napoleonic Wars, in which the roles of superpowers were played by France, which dominated Europe, and Great Britain, which pretty much dominated the world outside of Europe. Neither was afraid to go and take appropriate action against the government of a more minor power that didn't do what they wanted.

There have also been multipolar worlds where individual powers have schemed against each other either directly or through satellites. The Victorian Era is a perfect example. One facet of that was the Great Game between Britain and Russia in Central Asia. There were others. Like the half-hour war between Britain and the Sultan of Zanzibar.

This is how statecraft works, how it always has worked, and always will work.

Besides between kissing up and going to war, kissing up is still easier and much more "loved" then either war or covert ops.

Which begs the question of why any major power would "kiss up" to an inferior state in the first place, particularly when nothing is gained from doing so. It would be like China "kissing up" to Bhutan. Sure they could do it, but why?

Your example of Vietnam is compltely wrong, by the way. In Vietnam, it was the Other Guys who were out to remove a government by force, not us.

is why the count would do this

Probably for the same reasons Ernst Stavro Blofeld would do this.