News Strategy - simulation north korean - france conflict

[Art]

Okay, so they're not bedbuddies. But you know what I mean.

I meant it tongue in cheek though there is still a lot of anti-French rhetoric in the British media. Tabloids such as the Sun routinely run insulting headlines referring to the French as 'feelthy frogs' in a way that British racism laws would never allow were it any other nationality. It seems an exception is made for the French.

I suspect the French media probably represents Britain in similar vein.

Having said that they are so tied up together economically it is very unlikely at least in the forseeable future that they would ever go to war although on the other hand it's not that long ago that France was selling exocet missiles to Argentina and celebrating their success against British ships. That really did not go down well in Britain at the time.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The key to survival of any empire is it has to be profitable. Having subjugated another country you need to be able to reap the economic benefits. To do this you need peace which wasn't Napoleon's forte. Constant wars meant the land gained was a drain on the central coffers which eventually leads to collapse of empire as one loses the will and the financial power to support the large military force needed to hold onto your gains.

Rome had a pretty good go at the conquer conquer conquer method

 

[Art]

Rome had a pretty good go at the conquer conquer conquer method

As did Britain but new territories, not the same land repeatedly. Napoleon conquered the same countries such as Austria several times, Each time they were beaten they would sign peace treaties, lick their wounds for a while and then come back for more. Hence the need to consolidate gains through diplomatic and administrative skill.

The Romans too were excellent administrators who worked with indigent leaders to ensure peace in conquered lands thus enabling them to reap the benefits of trade and allowing them to move the bulk of their troops on to the next venture.

Examples of where Britain failed by failing to garnar sufficient support for continuing British governence in their 'possessions' are the USA and Ireland. In both cases they were loss making ventures as the high military cost in maintaining control greatly outstripped revenues gained. In the case of the US it was Britain's attempt to cover it's losses from the US in the shape of taxes which led to the Boston tea party and ultimately America's break from Britain.

 

[ray b]

trying to think of a good reason for this war
really cannot come up with one

but that aside if there was a war it would be very very one sided
N K has no way to get at France
and France can missile or aircraft attack at will any point in N K or any place they may have an reason to attack [ but none I can think of outside the country ]
or shipping if they have any other then their fishing fleet
with no valid reason or need to invade or even let their army get near N K
so a very low troop cost war and over quickly

 

[Plastic Photon]

Can you imgaine the fuel costs associated in traveling half way around the world to fight a starving pact of light-weight, resourceless communist with very few incentives to attack? The French would lose by fault of accounting. They have money, but not the same amount a united state would have, such as France + everyone other Euro exchanger may stand a better chance.

 

[JPC]

wait i found a reason
solve the french unemployment temporarily

and anyways , very unprobable france declares war if not attacked
u think all these ppl that abuse of my countries wellfare will be ok to have it end

if there's a war, france would maybe have to cut some social spendings, and i know a lot of these lazy ppl that would not be ok with that

---

because look
theres still like 10 percent of communist in france, some hide it by saying they are ecologist, some just say they are not totalitarian, and they are helped by the socialists

while in the right wing parties, u basicly have UMP (right wing), and FN (extreme right wing)
and they don't help each other

the extreme right wing becomes all alone vs everyone
and a lot of ppl don't like them

i say , the communist are even worse than them, but for most its like if it was ok
even through i am UMP and not FN, i think the FN is a lot more rational than the communist who promise that everything will happen without any work done
because from observations i have found 2 types of FN people
- the dangerous ones who are racist
- the ones who are just here because they believe in the old values like honor, and national pride

 

[chaoseverlasting]

If this war did take place, it would end in a stalemate. France couldn't win the ground battle (they have excellent and highly trained troops but the sheer number of infantry and ground support that N.Korea has would decimate them).

If this war were to be fought, it would be on N. Korean soil as no other european country would allow such a conflict in Europe. All this is assuming the war stays conventional and does not go nuclear. In the end, both end up losing because of the economical ramifications of such a conflict (france may be able to destroy the north korean economy though) would leave both countries in tatters... in the end, no one wins... even if they do, its a Pyhrric victory.

 

[Smurf]

Oh come on, a stalemate?

France couldn't win the ground battle (they have excellent and highly trained troops but the sheer number of infantry and ground support that N.Korea has would decimate them).

Pssht! France would bomb NK to ashes before actually invading. Who needs manpower against a foe like NK?

All this is assuming the war stays conventional and does not go nuclear.

If it goes nuclear it's even more one-sided. France has ICBM's, long range bombers, and the technology to make hydrogen bombs (don't know if they actually have any). North Korea can't yet reach the US, let alone France. They're literally on opposite sides of the world. What's NK going to nuke? French positions in Korea? Blow up their own cities. This is of course assuming NK even has nukes yet. Still just rumors last I heard.

In the end, both end up losing because of the economical ramifications of such a conflict (france may be able to destroy the north korean economy though) would leave both countries in tatters... in the end, no one wins... even if they do, its a Pyhrric victory.

What economic ramifications? If France was committed this conflict would be over in a matter of months tops, possibly weeks. They have one of the largest economies in the world - I think they can take a small bump.

The whole idea of NK even standing a chance against any committed western power is laughable.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Oh come on, a stalemate?Pssht! France would bomb NK to ashes before actually invading. Who needs manpower against a foe like NK?

If it goes nuclear it's even more one-sided. France has ICBM's, long range bombers, and the technology to make hydrogen bombs (don't know if they actually have any). North Korea can't yet reach the US, let alone France. They're literally on opposite sides of the world. What's NK going to nuke? French positions in Korea? Blow up their own cities. This is of course assuming NK even has nukes yet. Still just rumors last I heard.

What economic ramifications? If France was committed this conflict would be over in a matter of months tops, possibly weeks. They have one of the largest economies in the world - I think they can take a small bump.

The whole idea of NK even standing a chance against any committed western power is laughable.

I think you're wrong. You underestimate the requirements of such an undertaking. Granted, France has one of the largest economies of the world, but such a conflict would SERIOUSLY affect it.

Then there's the geography to think about. Dont think that complimentary to any sustained conflict whatsoever. Give it a rest man. Its not possible to come out on top of such a conflict. Even if you win, you lose. There's no point to it.

 

[Anttech]

hey

i was wondering, if there happened to be a North Korean - French conflict
that there would be no economic sanctions on both countries
that all other countries stay neutral
who would have the advantage ?

i know France has a small army, but modern
1 aircraft carrier (2 in 2015), nuclear attack submarines, Dassault jets, ect

north korea has a large army, but not completely modern
they still have some T34 tanks (Russian WW2 tanks), diesel submarines, ect
but they have a modern communication system so that their troops can communicate to each other, ect
and they have thousands of underground bases

France : about 130 000 troops
North Korea : 1 000 0000 troops

so , i was thinking, if we simmulate this conflict who would have the advantage ?

i was thinking that France would win the fight in the seas, maybe in the airs, but not in the ground

that france could set a missile belt in china, and set some long range guns
that france could send its troops by russia (russian trans siberian railway)

if any of you, work in strategy, your comments would be even better

Wow--- The scope of this mental experiment is so fantastical that its not worth bothering. Even after you define your scope, you break it in the next paragraph.

 

[JPC]

If this war did take place, it would end in a stalemate. France couldn't win the ground battle (they have excellent and highly trained troops but the sheer number of infantry and ground support that N.Korea has would decimate them).

I don't believe this
number of men doesn't make all the strenght
only a part of it

look, when USA fought japan
or when USA fought irak

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Or when the US and allies fought North Korea, admittedly NK was heavilly supported by Russia. So it wasn't like us and just them but even so...

Was even Afghanistan a victory for either the Russians or is it going to be one for us? Or will the mostly indigenous fighters eventually overcome the exterior forces by persistence and outside backing as they did before with Russia?

 

[JPC]

maybe the afghans managed to resist the russians for some time
but now technology has evolved
and we need to take this in consideration