Ryokosha wrote: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.
cr187 wrote:is why the count would do this
Probably for the same reasons Ernst Stavro Blofeld would do this.