To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?
Yet, the same people (Republicans) are again claiming we need to do the same thing in Iran?
To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?
No.
Yet, the same people (Republicans) are again claiming we need to do the same thing in Iran?
Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.
The UN atomic agency chief on Monday affirmed Iran’s commitment to a 2015 nuclear deal, in a statement that comes as the US has argued that Tehran was violating the “spirit” of the accord, with US President Donald Trump looking to “decertify” it.
“I can state that the nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the (nuclear agreement) are being implemented,” International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said in prepared remarks during a conference in Rome.
Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium — used for peaceful purposes, but when further processed for a weapon — did not exceed the agreed limit of 300 kilograms (661 pounds), the report said.
It added that Iran “has not pursued the construction of the Arak… reactor” — which could give it weapons-grade plutonium — and has not enriched uranium above low purity levels.
This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.
The UN atomic agency chief on Monday affirmed Iran’s commitment to a 2015 nuclear deal, in a statement that comes as the US has argued that Tehran was violating the “spirit” of the accord, with US President Donald Trump looking to “decertify” it.
“I can state that the nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the (nuclear agreement) are being implemented,” International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said in prepared remarks during a conference in Rome.
Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium — used for peaceful purposes, but when further processed for a weapon — did not exceed the agreed limit of 300 kilograms (661 pounds), the report said.
It added that Iran “has not pursued the construction of the Arak… reactor” — which could give it weapons-grade plutonium — and has not enriched uranium above low purity levels.
This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.
Yeah, Russia could have told them the same thing. The US will lie about everything and rarely keeps its word, not when it is a promise and not even when it is an official treaty.
VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s chief urged major powers on Tuesday to clarify a part of their nuclear deal with Iran dealing with technology that could be used to develop an atom bomb, an area Russia said the agency should leave alone.
The 2015 pact between six major powers and Iran restricts its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Compliance with those curbs is being verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has defended the deal as a major step forward while declining to comment specifically on criticism of it by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called the accord - reached by predecessor Barack Obama - “an embarrassment to the United States”.
But while Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has infuriated Tehran by saying the IAEA should widen its inspections to include military sites, diplomats say Russia has been trying to restrict the agency’s role by arguing it has no authority to police a broadly worded section of the deal.
That section bans “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device”. It lists examples such as using computer models that simulate a nuclear bomb, or designing multi-point, explosive detonation systems.
Unlike many other parts of the deal, the provision, known as Section T, makes no mention of the IAEA or specifics of how it will be verified. Russia says that means the IAEA has no authority over it. Western powers and the agency disagree.
“Our tools are limited,” Amano told Reuters when asked if his agency had the means to verify Section T.
“In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don’t see any (such commitment).”
Amano said he hoped the parties to the agreement would discuss the issue in the Joint Commission, a forum created by the deal, adding that even a clearer definition of terms such as the technology referred to would be an improvement.
“More clarification would be helpful ... Russia has a different view. They believe that it is not the mandate of the IAEA. Others have different views and discussions are ongoing.”
DIPLOMACY
Trump has hinted that he may not recertify the agreement when it comes up for review by a mid-October deadline, in which case the U.S. Congress would have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the accord, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Amano repeated, however, that Iran was implementing its nuclear commitments under the deal. He said complementary access - often consisting of short-notice inspections carried out under the IAEA Additional Protocol, which Iran is implementing under the accord - was going smoothly.
“Complementary access in Iran is being undertaken without problem and the number of accesses is quite high,” he said.
When asked if a successful Iran deal could help encourage a political solution in nuclear-armed North Korea, to which the IAEA has no access, Amano said the two situations were quite different. But he added: “I also do not say that there’s no comparison, because in the JCPOA’s case, diplomacy worked.”
This is pretty close to game over on certification.
Condition 1 of Corker-Cardin requires the president to certify “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement” [a]. One part of the agreement – Annex 1, Section T – prohibits Iran from conducting certain “activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device” [b].
The IAEA has not been able to verify Iran is implementing Section T because the relevant activities would be occurring on military sites and Iran has barred the IAEA from inspecting those sites [c][d][e]. IAEA officials say they won’t even ask for access because they know Iran would say no and it would give the Trump administration an “excuse” on the deal [f].
The policy community has known about this failure for months: in August nuclear experts from FDD and ISIS published a report that concluded “it is likely that some of the conditions in Section T are not currently being met and may in fact be violated by Iran” [g].
Yesterday IAEA chief Amano confirmed the IAEA has indeed been unable to verify Iran is implementing Section T….Here are the Amano quotes:
“Our tools are limited,” Amano told Reuters when asked if his agency had the means to verify Section T. “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don’t see any (such commitment).” Amano said he hoped the parties to the agreement would discuss the issue in the Joint Commission.
Advocates of the Iran deal respond that the IAEA hasn’t found any Iranian violations [h]. 1st, that’s not relevant for certification: condition 1 requires the president to certify Iran has implemented all parts of the agreement, not that Iran hasn’t been caught cheating on the parts they have implemented. 2nd, the IAEA hasn’t caught Iran cheating because they haven’t been able to look where Iran is cheating: last week lawmakers on Senate Intelligence suggested to the Weekly Standard they’ve seen classified reports that Iran is violating the deal .
The agency has been unable to verify that Tehran is implementing the deal in it's entirety. The regime has barred inspectors from inspecting many military sites.
Even Senate intelligence has surmised that they have evidence that Iran is violate the rules [i]as written. Hence why I think there are some debate, that does have merits imo, that we ought to stay in the Iran Deal and try to enforce it to the letter of the agreement. The problem with enforcement, is that it takes the other countries to agree with enforcement... you think Russia will go with that? Hey... we've been told that there's this love affair between Trump and Russia, so who knows... might happen? Shall we hold our breath?
By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.
If *I* were North Korea, I'd want the same thing that Iran got. Seems like Iran is getting best of both worlds: Sanction relief for a toothless nuke accord.
I'd rather be forking honest and just paid Iran (and potentially NK) for all of their nuke stuff. Make 'em fabulously wealthy... sure, it'd be expensive but at least WW3 doesn't come close to fruition.
...eh, tangently. My point was I don't think that happens w/o the Iran deal.... and the makeup of the Iran deal certainly germane to this thread as it would be the absolute starting point for North Korea.
whembly wrote: By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.
Well, that seems to be reparations from a decades-old failed weapons deal, in effect Iranian money frozen when the US-backed puppet Shah was overthrown. If there's no sanctions left to freeze it the money should be payed out, no? Keeping your agreements is one of the key factors in making a nation a trustworthy international dealer.
That goes for Iran too. They have gotten some sweet foreign currency and trade for the nuke deal, and they want to keep that up. Breaking the deal would cost them, the people might actually get angry with the regime and oh, it would be a proper cause for much harsher sanctions or even military strikes. And they are heavily outclassed.
- Pre-revolution Iran gave us money for arms.
- The revolution happened and we decided not to deliver said arms to the new regime.
- We did however decide to keep the money they paid us.
- We agreed to mutual arbitration on what to do with that money.
- It was arbitrated that Iran’s money is actually Iran’s, since we never delivered what they paid us for.
- The US managed to take the money it had already agreed to pay back, and get something else in return for it simply by giving Iran’s money to Iran.
According to some, the US got royally fethed in that deal.
Every locked thread has had this exact same conversation.
I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.
- Pre-revolution Iran gave us money for arms. - The revolution happened and we decided not to deliver said arms to the new regime. - We did however decide to keep the money they paid us. - We agreed to mutual arbitration on what to do with that money. - It was arbitrated that Iran’s money is actually Iran’s, since we never delivered what they paid us for. - The US managed to take the money it had already agreed to pay back, and get something else in return for it simply by giving Iran’s money to Iran.
According to some, the US got royally fethed in that deal.
Every locked thread has had this exact same conversation.
Because you seek out "one sentence" in attempt to derail the whole thread in attempt to re-litigate the "in's and out's" of said statement just to prove my opinion contains "wrong thoughts".
I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.
I didn't say Trump didn't start a Twitter war? Jebus that's what he does! You're projecting quite a bit.
But, to get the conversation back to North Korea, they would probably want the same Iran Deal if there's going to be any deal. The US backing out of that isn't going to change it... as it buys them time to do what they want. (ie, kick the can further down the road).
d-usa wrote: I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.
Same, and same. The heckler's veto always works here.
Anyway, I don't think any deal whatsoever is possible with North Korea, and if I were NK, I sure wouldn't bother attempting a deal with the US, which has as of recent shown very little interest in honoring it's word. What's the point of making a deal with Rex Tillerson, who might not be speaking on behalf of the POTUS, and who might be countermanded at any point?
d-usa wrote: I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.
Same, and same. The heckler's veto always works here.
Seriously?
Anyway, I don't think any deal whatsoever is possible with North Korea, and if I were NK, I sure wouldn't bother attempting a deal with the US, which has as of recent shown very little interest in honoring it's word. What's the point of making a deal with Rex Tillerson, who might not be speaking on behalf of the POTUS, and who might be countermanded at any point?
Yeah... can't imagine that Tillerson would want to stay now because of that... in fact, I'm surprised he hasn't left already.
My money is on Tillerson being gone within a month, and maybe as little as 2 weeks. I've read Mike Pompeo is being groomed for the role. How will that affect relations with NK? Pompeo seems like not much of a hawk, although how that contrasts with Tillerson is unknown, since no one really knows where Tillerson is.
I don't know that it really matters what anyone's stance on anything is because we don't have any kind of unified diplomatic message anyway. Why anybody should negotiate with us on anything is beyond me, because who would they even be negotiating with?
And that's before we get into the whole "we can cancel anything we negotiated in the past for any reason at any time" mess.
whembly wrote: To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
Corker is speaking his mind now that he isn't seeking re-election and isn't worried about upsetting the Trump portion of his own state.
Mark Meadows response to Corker is quite telling, "It's easy to be bold when you're not coming back." So you'll note that Meadows, who's made a public display of aligning himself with Trump, doesn't even try to disagree with Corker. Instead he just explains that people like himself who are looking to remain in the senate have lots of reasons to be cowardly and pretend Trump isn't a disaster.
Later on Meadows realised he had let his actual opinion of Trump be known, and so he made another statement that everythign Corker said was false. But you know, what happened is obvious. I mean, if Corker said "Trump is an alien from Grabnar IV and he's here to steal our precious brain juices', Meadows wouldn't reply with 'It's easy to be bold when you're not coming back'. He would have said "That's not true, Corker is lying." Saying its easy to be bold when you're leaving is what you say when someone is telling a truth that others can't say because of the consequences.
Yeah... that's a disturbing trend. Especially since Trump isn't he only one who doesn't want to kick the can down the road again...
"Kicking the can" is just a negative spin on "containment". Containment until political normalisation is the only way to resolve this without getting hundreds of thousands of SK people killed at the very least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.
Yes. You made a claim that the IAEA said the deal wasn't working. In response to a direct quote from the chief of the IAEA stating that the deal is working, you post a story talking about a dispute on the technical limitations of the deal, and nothing even close to a statement or conclusion that the deal wasn't working.
You said a thing that is not true. Retract it.
By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.
This is not acceptable. You have had this explained to you dozens of times. You know the 'strange pallets' were the US releasing money to Iran as a direct result of arbitration that the US agreed to finding that the US had to return money that Iran had paid to it. The 'strange pallets' is the US honouring a legal finding. Pretending you don't know this is a lie, and you should apologise and never do anything like that ever again.
Seems like Iran is getting best of both worlds: Sanction relief for a toothless nuke accord.
The only person saying the nuclear controls are toothless is Trump. You've bought in to some crazy stuff from some very stupid and very dishonest people in your time, but I really doubt you want to rely on Donald fething Trump for your opinion on the Iran nuclear controls.
In exchange for allowing some level of trade, the international community would require NK to give up some portion of its weapons program and require inspections of NK facilities to ensure compliance. How is this a question? How do you not know how these deals operate?
Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?
Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?
Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.
Ouze wrote: This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.
Who ever thought US can be trusted anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: In exchange for allowing some level of trade, the international community would require NK to give up some portion of its weapons program and require inspections of NK facilities to ensure compliance. How is this a question? How do you not know how these deals operate?
What weapons though? Nukes? That's just same as giving carte blancet for US to invade them sooner or later. It's not even IF US invade but WHEN.
If I see anyone mention Corker again they'll need a damn good explanation for me as to why, which they can send to me via pm because they won't be in the OT to post it. We've made our points about the Iran deal and been inevitably derailed with that as well, so that's done for this thread as well.
tneva82 wrote: What weapons though? Nukes? That's just same as giving carte blancet for US to invade them sooner or later. It's not even IF US invade but WHEN.
No. NK hasn't had nukes for the last 70 years, and the US never invaded. Nor is it in the interest of the US to invade, it'd set off a giant humanitarian disaster and upend the entire stability of the region for absolutely no gain at all.
It's quite interesting that Fraz was just trying to argue that Iran can't be trusted to keep to a deal, and now you're arguing that the US can't be trusted. You're both wrong, nations stick to most deals. Not because any nation is full of honourable people who will do anything to make sure they stick to the terms of any deal they make, but because most people in most countries can be counted on to stick to their own best interests, and that means they'll keep to deals when the alternative really sucks. This means Iran won't break the nuclear deal because they will be hammered by a return to the sanctions, and it means the US won't invade NK for the same reason very few people put their genitals inside bee hives*.
*Possibly Trump excluded. But am I talking about Iran or the beehive?
Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?
Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.
True.. But even then older systems can be used dangerously.
A old fashioned artillery barrage on Seoul is just as effective as it was decades ago. Americas Iowa class while old, created heavy and maybe outdated can still aniliate any surface or land target inside of range.
Older tech is older. But often very proven and reliable.
If you had no anti tank gear, a T34 would be a dangerous opponent still. Even a MkV UK Ww1 heavy could be dangerous if you did not have gear to face em.
The point is in right situation than older machines and weapons can be dangerous.
Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?
Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?
Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.
They also got their hands on more advanced hardware though, It looks like the soldier in this picture is using Windows 98!
By now, elite units might even be using XP already. Certainly we are doomed.
....Hackers from North Korea are reported to have stolen a large cache of military documents from South Korea, including a plan to assassinate North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.
Rhee Cheol-hee, a South Korean lawmaker, said the information was from his country's defence ministry.
The compromised documents include wartime contingency plans drawn up by the US and South Korea.
They also include reports to the allies' senior commanders.
The South Korean defence ministry has so far refused to comment about the allegation.
Plans for the South's special forces were reportedly accessed, along with information on significant power plants and military facilities in the South.
Mr Rhee belongs to South Korea's ruling party, and sits on its parliament's defence committee. He said some 235 gigabytes of military documents had been stolen from the Defence Integrated Data Centre, and that 80% of them have yet to be identified.
The hack took place in September last year. In May, South Korea said a large amount of data had been stolen and that North Korea may have instigated the cyber attack - but gave no details of what was taken.
North Korea denied the claim.
Trump: 'One thing will work' with N Korea
North Korea-US tension: How worried should we be?
Inside the world's most secretive country
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reports that Seoul has been subject to a barrage of cyber attacks by its communist neighbour in recent years, with many targeting government websites and facilities.
The isolated state is believed to have specially-trained hackers based overseas, including in China.
North Korea has accused South Korea of "fabricating" the claims.
News that Pyongyang is likely to have accessed the Seoul-Washington plans for all-out war in the Koreas will do nothing to soothe tensions between the US and North Korea.
The two nations have been at verbal loggerheads over the North's nuclear activities, with the US pressing for a halt to missile tests and Pyongyang vowing to continue them.....
Please do not make fun of N.K. computers. They have managed to do some damage via hacking int he past, so they obviously have a cadre of people with the equipment and the skills.
To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?
No.
Yes.
The Facts
Clinton’s deal was called the Agreed Framework. In contrast to the detailed and lengthy agreement negotiated in 2015 under President Barack Obama intended to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Agreed Framework, struck in 1994, was only a few pages long.
Essentially, an international consortium planned to replace the North’s plutonium reactor with two light-water reactors; in the meantime, the United States would supply the North with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil every year to make up for the theoretical loss of the reactor while the new ones were built.
North Korea’s program was clearly created to churn out nuclear weapons; the reactor at Yongbyon was not connected to the power grid and appeared only designed to produce plutonium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons. The theory of the deal was that, with the plant shuttered and the plutonium under the close watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Korea would not be able to produce a bomb. There were also vague references in the text to improving relations and commerce.
The deal was hugely controversial in Congress. Just as with Obama’s Iran negotiations, Clinton structured the agreement so that it was not considered a treaty that would have required ratification by the Senate. As with Iran, there was also an international component, with South Korea, Japan and a European agency joining with the United States to create an organization to implement the accord.
As Iowa State University professor Young Whan Kihl noted in an article exploring the political ramifications:
Since the “Agreed Framework” took the form of a presidential “executive agreement,” rather than a formal treaty (such as SALT I & II), the U.S. Senate did not need to give “advise and consent” under the U.S. Constitution. However, the terms of the agreement are controversial and subject to scrutiny by the Republican-dominant U.S. Congress that began a series of congressional hearings in mid-January 1995. Some congressmen and senators demanded that the “agreed framework” be treated as a formal treaty; this move was resisted by the Clinton Administration but, because of the budgetary and appropriation clauses of the agreement, the U.S. Congress was inevitably drawn into the process of implementation and verification of the agreement.
So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was even slapped down when he suggested the administration would follow the path set by the Clinton administration. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and spent months trying to develop its own policy.
So basically, the Republicans scuttled the NK deal around Nuclear Weapons and is now complaining about "kicking the can" down the road. Wow. Short memories indeed vis-a-vis nuclear deals and what happens when you break them. People just make nuclear weapons.
Maybe that is what they want? I do not know. Trump did talk about expanding the number of nuclear weapons in the world on the trail, and many people seemed pretty happy with the idea so the US wouldn't need to be the "world police" anymore. In that context, this policy of proliferation could make sense. However, then escalating with a country that does have Nukes seems a bit of an odd way to show the proliferation is a good idea.
Maybe no one actually has a policy or plan after all!
Easy E wrote: Please do not make fun of N.K. computers. They have managed to do some damage via hacking int he past, so they obviously have a cadre of people with the equipment and the skills.
To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?
No.
Yes.
The Facts
Clinton’s deal was called the Agreed Framework. In contrast to the detailed and lengthy agreement negotiated in 2015 under President Barack Obama intended to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Agreed Framework, struck in 1994, was only a few pages long.
Essentially, an international consortium planned to replace the North’s plutonium reactor with two light-water reactors; in the meantime, the United States would supply the North with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil every year to make up for the theoretical loss of the reactor while the new ones were built.
North Korea’s program was clearly created to churn out nuclear weapons; the reactor at Yongbyon was not connected to the power grid and appeared only designed to produce plutonium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons. The theory of the deal was that, with the plant shuttered and the plutonium under the close watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Korea would not be able to produce a bomb. There were also vague references in the text to improving relations and commerce.
The deal was hugely controversial in Congress. Just as with Obama’s Iran negotiations, Clinton structured the agreement so that it was not considered a treaty that would have required ratification by the Senate. As with Iran, there was also an international component, with South Korea, Japan and a European agency joining with the United States to create an organization to implement the accord.
As Iowa State University professor Young Whan Kihl noted in an article exploring the political ramifications:
Since the “Agreed Framework” took the form of a presidential “executive agreement,” rather than a formal treaty (such as SALT I & II), the U.S. Senate did not need to give “advise and consent” under the U.S. Constitution. However, the terms of the agreement are controversial and subject to scrutiny by the Republican-dominant U.S. Congress that began a series of congressional hearings in mid-January 1995. Some congressmen and senators demanded that the “agreed framework” be treated as a formal treaty; this move was resisted by the Clinton Administration but, because of the budgetary and appropriation clauses of the agreement, the U.S. Congress was inevitably drawn into the process of implementation and verification of the agreement.
So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was even slapped down when he suggested the administration would follow the path set by the Clinton administration. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and spent months trying to develop its own policy.
So basically, the Republicans scuttled the NK deal around Nuclear Weapons and is now complaining about "kicking the can" down the road. Wow. Short memories indeed vis-a-vis nuclear deals and what happens when you break them. People just make nuclear weapons.
Maybe that is what they want? I do not know. Trump did talk about expanding the number of nuclear weapons in the world on the trail, and many people seemed pretty happy with the idea so the US wouldn't need to be the "world police" anymore. In that context, this policy of proliferation could make sense. However, then escalating with a country that does have Nukes seems a bit of an odd way to show the proliferation is a good idea.
Maybe no one actually has a policy or plan after all!
True this is tv e hardware the reveal.
There are likely hacker units they are more secret about and or abroad as NK is not that connected via Internet.
Locations away would be ideal for attackers as harder to trace.
So basically, the Republicans scuttled the NK deal around Nuclear Weapons and is now complaining about "kicking the can" down the road. Wow. Short memories indeed vis-a-vis nuclear deals and what happens when you break them. People just make nuclear weapons.
Maybe that is what they want? I do not know. Trump did talk about expanding the number of nuclear weapons in the world on the trail, and many people seemed pretty happy with the idea so the US wouldn't need to be the "world police" anymore. In that context, this policy of proliferation could make sense. However, then escalating with a country that does have Nukes seems a bit of an odd way to show the proliferation is a good idea.
Maybe no one actually has a policy or plan after all!
Thankyou for that. I had memories of a Clinton deal where they gave energy to offset the nuclear program NK was pretending was for energy, that Bush scuttled. I wanted to use it in this thread to make much the same point that you did, but I wanted to confirm my memory of the detail before posting and I wasn't actually able to find anything on the deal itself. Probably because I was looking for a treaty and the Clinton deal wasn't a treaty. Thanks for bringing that in, and for reminding me of a lot of the details.
And yes, it is a bit rich for people to say nothing has been done by anyone on this issue, when a deal to end NK's plan was made and an inspection regime established, only for a latter US government to walk away from that deal.
So basically, the Republicans scuttled the NK deal around Nuclear Weapons and is now complaining about "kicking the can" down the road. Wow. Short memories indeed vis-a-vis nuclear deals and what happens when you break them. People just make nuclear weapons.
Maybe that is what they want? I do not know. Trump did talk about expanding the number of nuclear weapons in the world on the trail, and many people seemed pretty happy with the idea so the US wouldn't need to be the "world police" anymore. In that context, this policy of proliferation could make sense. However, then escalating with a country that does have Nukes seems a bit of an odd way to show the proliferation is a good idea.
Maybe no one actually has a policy or plan after all!
Thankyou for that. I had memories of a Clinton deal where they gave energy to offset the nuclear program NK was pretending was for energy, that Bush scuttled. I wanted to use it in this thread to make much the same point that you did, but I wanted to confirm my memory of the detail before posting and I wasn't actually able to find anything on the deal itself. Probably because I was looking for a treaty and the Clinton deal wasn't a treaty. Thanks for bringing that in, and for reminding me of a lot of the details.
And yes, it is a bit rich for people to say nothing has been done by anyone on this issue, when a deal to end NK's plan was made and an inspection regime established, only for a latter US government to walk away from that deal.
I have a feeling we wil want to keep the details of that deal bookmarked and ready to copy/paste for all eternity since the same argument will come back like a vampire in Malawi.
d-usa wrote: By the time they made it through the store they will be to tired to cause any trouble.
I feel like Ikea is the crucible upon which relationships are tested. Strong ones are hardened, but by the time you finally hit the registers... weak ones are shattered.
Oh come on we all know what is going to happen. The war on Isis is ending, afghan and such is aswell.
War is good for the economy and moral at home. Plus one country has been in war with another since..... 1800 ish. This will slowly but surely come to one conclusion.
The premises for this war shall be.
1: They threatened us first we need to strike before it is too late.
2: Their missles may contain weapons of mass destruction.
3: A very poorly worded speech to the public as to why they are in danger.
4: A failed missle will hit or nearly hit Japan.
5 An ally or us jet will be shot down very near the border.
6: We need to free the people from a tyrant.
Then we have war but it will be called a no boots on the ground war. Where South Korea and/ or Japan will be the main force but trained by others. These excuses have been used to start the last........ Like 6 wars of the top of my head.
Oh conspiracy theory time for fun. This is slowly but surely the way the illuminati or aliens want us to be controlled under one power. They will slowly but surely get us to remove all those nails that have their head too far out of the wood til we are all in line under one power. A United Nations no a United world doom doom doom.
Hel whats happening right now is how most of us play the war games we have.
1: Find a United problem.
2: Send in a show of force.
3: cut of the Econmy
4: Slowly bring more force into the area.
5: after starving them out and preparing for a fight wait for them to hit first. Then you are a defender not an agressor.
6: crush the opposing army that showed itself to strike.
7: tally up the goods.
So many edits sorry auto correct is correcting it after I click submit and changing one misspelled word into two or something else.
Yeah, we do loads of naval exercises over in SEA, especially with Korea and Japan. Really cool stuff to be honest, and Japan's new Asahi-class ASW DD just launched so that will be cool to see.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, we do loads of naval exercises over in SEA, especially with Korea and Japan. Really cool stuff to be honest, and Japan's new Asahi-class ASW DD just launched so that will be cool to see.
Navies are always undertaking exacises, training an such. The Pasific allies. Nato, EU and others regularly perform and trained. Together.
There important. They allow to test new tech. To put systems or see for example if a different crew layout is more effective.
Also develops new tactics for new ships Ie Japan's new ones.
Perfect chance to refine how you deploy them..
Training is very handy tool. It's not just a game with NK.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, we do loads of naval exercises over in SEA, especially with Korea and Japan. Really cool stuff to be honest, and Japan's new Asahi-class ASW DD just launched so that will be cool to see.
Navies are always undertaking exacises, training an such. The Pasific allies. Nato, EU and others regularly perform and trained. Together.
There important. They allow to test new tech. To put systems or see for example if a different crew layout is more effective.
Also develops new tactics for new ships Ie Japan's new ones.
Perfect chance to refine how you deploy them..
Training is very handy tool. It's not just a game with NK.
There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.
Tannhauser42 wrote: There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.
Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.
Tannhauser42 wrote: There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.
Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.
Can we remember that people both died in the collapse and would die from a release of highly radioactive dust in the atmosphere. The current governments are the reason the issue is not being resolved (acting like big bullies in the playground doesn't help), the people that would be affected will not be such people.
Tannhauser42 wrote: There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.
Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.
Can we remember that people both died in the collapse and would die from a release of highly radioactive dust in the atmosphere. The current governments are the reason the issue is not being resolved (acting like big bullies in the playground doesn't help), the people that would be affected will not be such people.
As those fatalities are axiomatic to the articles just posted and being discussed, I really don't think anyone has forgotten.
Tannhauser42 wrote: There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.
Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.
Can we remember that people both died in the collapse and would die from a release of highly radioactive dust in the atmosphere. The current governments are the reason the issue is not being resolved (acting like big bullies in the playground doesn't help), the people that would be affected will not be such people.
As those fatalities are axiomatic to the articles just posted and being discussed, I really don't think anyone has forgotten.
There was warnings and articles out before stating there had been subsidence, increased earthqaukes. There was changes in satailites imagery. Also earthquakes in a fairly stable region where alarming.
The last test badly damaged and took a test tunnel to collapse I remember.
China had warned of the mountain being weakened.
It seems they where correct.
And yes sad 200 enslaved people forced to work there had to die. Not good at all.
The nuclear issue is one that can scar land for generations Thoygh.
(also from a article I cannot remember. They banned people from the site entering Pyongyang. Secrets... Or that place more radioactive than we know.?
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
True. They where the hardly in good shape if he was a example. And the army is meant to the pick of rations etc. Being a border guard too.Better supplied?
What state the units who not pick of the system might be in, or worse civilians.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
True. They where the hardly in good shape if he was a example. And the army is meant to the pick of rations etc. Being a border guard too.Better supplied?
What state the units who not pick of the system might be in, or worse civilians.
I'm surprised nobody else has done this, so I'll post a link.
I remember one military expert saying that the reason why they don't like US/South Korean exercises (which privately the NK generals accept as making total sense from a military perspective) is that the North Koreans have to reply in kind, and it costs them valuable ammunition and food.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
True. They where the hardly in good shape if he was a example. And the army is meant to the pick of rations etc. Being a border guard too.Better supplied?
What state the units who not pick of the system might be in, or worse civilians.
I'm surprised nobody else has done this, so I'll post a link.
I remember one military expert saying that the reason why they don't like US/South Korean exercises (which privately the NK generals accept as making total sense from a military perspective) is that the North Koreans have to reply in kind, and it costs them valuable ammunition and food.
That makes sense. They have limited resources and fuel.
America can burn ships fuel, aircraft kerosene by the ton and just replace it.
North Korea... No. They still have wood powered trucks.
They often used when... You Don, t have ernough oil.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
The North Koreans have never really been in much of a position to fight, health concerns or no. Even during the Korean war, without maddive Chinese assistance they never would have survived. The same is true today, the NK army is no match for its adversaries, never has been, never will be.
Rather, the threat has always been that can can wreak great devastation onto South Korea in a very short time. When you have thousands of artillery pieces able to rain shells onto Seoul and its suburbs, it doesn't matter that your soldiers arent healthy, nobody is going to want to deal with that. Their entire defense strategy is basically to hold South Korea hostage, hoping nobody ever calls their bluff, because once that goes off, they're done.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
The North Koreans have never really been in much of a position to fight, health concerns or no. Even during the Korean war, without maddive Chinese assistance they never would have survived. The same is true today, the NK army is no match for its adversaries, never has been, never will be.
Rather, the threat has always been that can can wreak great devastation onto South Korea in a very short time. When you have thousands of artillery pieces able to rain shells onto Seoul and its suburbs, it doesn't matter that your soldiers arent healthy, nobody is going to want to deal with that. Their entire defense strategy is basically to hold South Korea hostage, hoping nobody ever calls their bluff, because once that goes off, they're done.
I don't disagree with this analysis, but if their average infantryman isn't up to the job, then is it not possible that their much vaunted mass artillery might be lacking as well?
Their guns might be old school, Cold War artillery, that's in dire need of maintenance, and therefore, not as effective as they should be.
Plus, US and South Korean military intelligence have to have some idea about where these guns are sited, what state they're in, and presumably, the US Air Force and Navy will have plans drawn up to take them out within minutes of war being declared...
Edit. I was watching Battle of The Bulge earlier, so my faith in US military intelligence is not 100%
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
The North Koreans have never really been in much of a position to fight, health concerns or no. Even during the Korean war, without maddive Chinese assistance they never would have survived. The same is true today, the NK army is no match for its adversaries, never has been, never will be.
Rather, the threat has always been that can can wreak great devastation onto South Korea in a very short time. When you have thousands of artillery pieces able to rain shells onto Seoul and its suburbs, it doesn't matter that your soldiers arent healthy, nobody is going to want to deal with that. Their entire defense strategy is basically to hold South Korea hostage, hoping nobody ever calls their bluff, because once that goes off, they're done.
I don't disagree with this analysis, but if their average infantryman isn't up to the job, then is it not possible that their much vaunted mass artillery might be lacking as well?
Their guns might be old school, Cold War artillery, that's in dire need of maintenance, and therefore, not as effective as they should be.
Plus, US and South Korean military intelligence have to have some idea about where these guns are sited, what state they're in, and presumably, the US Air Force and Navy will have plans drawn up to take them out within minutes of war being declared...
Edit. I was watching Battle of The Bulge earlier, so my faith in US military intelligence is not 100%
There are a gak ton of heavy guns though.
And we'll dug in. Even if they not accurate and some blow up or fail.
They could still do alot of damage in the time it takes them to scramble and attack the many hundreds of heavily armoured gun posts.
Nothing you listed involved NK sponsoring a terror group. NK isn't a state sponsor of terror. If you have any doubt about this, ask yourself why the Trump administration has labelled NK a state sponsor of terror - it is so they can enforce tighter sanctions on NK. This power exists so a country can pressure a nation in to abandoning its support for terrorism. But no-one at any point has even pretended that the US is trying to get NK to stop sponsoring any terror cells, because NK isn't sponsoring any terror cells.
No, it is so that tighter sanctions can bring NK to the negotiating table, to get them to give up their nuclear program. Nothing wrong with weakening NK to bring to the table, and prevent them building their nukes. But supporting that doesn't mean we should pretend it's really about terorrism.
Nothing you listed involved NK sponsoring a terror group. NK isn't a state sponsor of terror. If you have any doubt about this, ask yourself why the Trump administration has labelled NK a state sponsor of terror - it is so they can enforce tighter sanctions on NK. This power exists so a country can pressure a nation in to abandoning its support for terrorism. But no-one at any point has even pretended that the US is trying to get NK to stop sponsoring any terror cells, because NK isn't sponsoring any terror cells.
No, it is so that tighter sanctions can bring NK to the negotiating table, to get them to give up their nuclear program. Nothing wrong with weakening NK to bring to the table, and prevent them building their nukes. But supporting that doesn't mean we should pretend it's really about terorrism.
Huh?
The assassination of Kim Jong-nam with fething VX nerve gas in fething Malaysia... THAT had clear terror motives. Both towards their ex-pat and other nations.
You seem to getting stuck on the whole "who NK sponsering?" and forgetting that NK used to be on this list.
You're getting into the weeds of things... all this does, is to put NK back on that US Treasure Department terror list that simply enables further banking sanctions.
whembly wrote: The assassination of Kim Jong-nam with fething VX nerve gas in fething Malaysia... THAT had clear terror motives. Both towards their ex-pat and other nations.
It was a criminal act by a criminal government, and one that deserves sanctions. But that doesn't mean NK is sponsoring terror cells, which is the charge here, that you've tried to pretend is true.
You seem to getting stuck on the whole "who NK sponsering?" and forgetting that NK used to be on this list.
I'm not forgetting one fething thing. NK was on that list for the same reason this is happening - because it's a way to increase sanctions in order to force NK to the table to give up their nuclear program. And as I already said, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but supporting measures to force NK back to the table are totally different to pretending the justification behind it is actually true.
We can accept the realpolitik as worthy, without having to pretend the fiction used to get us there is valid. We can accept Santa Claus and his elves are watching is a good way to get kids to make their beds and clean their teeth, without having to pretend that Santa and his elves really are watching every kid all the time.
You're getting into the weeds of things... all this does, is to put NK back on that US Treasure Department terror list that simply enables further banking sanctions.
I literally just fething wrote that. You quoted me fething writing that;
"it is so they can enforce tighter sanctions on NK"
"it is so that tighter sanctions can bring NK to the negotiating table, to get them to give up their nuclear program"
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
The North Koreans have never really been in much of a position to fight, health concerns or no. Even during the Korean war, without maddive Chinese assistance they never would have survived. The same is true today, the NK army is no match for its adversaries, never has been, never will be.
Rather, the threat has always been that can can wreak great devastation onto South Korea in a very short time. When you have thousands of artillery pieces able to rain shells onto Seoul and its suburbs, it doesn't matter that your soldiers arent healthy, nobody is going to want to deal with that. Their entire defense strategy is basically to hold South Korea hostage, hoping nobody ever calls their bluff, because once that goes off, they're done.
I don't disagree with this analysis, but if their average infantryman isn't up to the job, then is it not possible that their much vaunted mass artillery might be lacking as well?
Their guns might be old school, Cold War artillery, that's in dire need of maintenance, and therefore, not as effective as they should be.
Plus, US and South Korean military intelligence have to have some idea about where these guns are sited, what state they're in, and presumably, the US Air Force and Navy will have plans drawn up to take them out within minutes of war being declared...
Edit. I was watching Battle of The Bulge earlier, so my faith in US military intelligence is not 100%
There are a gak ton of heavy guns though.
And we'll dug in. Even if they not accurate and some blow up or fail.
They could still do alot of damage in the time it takes them to scramble and attack the many hundreds of heavily armoured gun posts.
These days you have firefinder radar and GPS-guided counter-battery artillery, it shouldn't come down to squaddies storming gun posts...
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
He stole a jeep, managed to sneak across the most heavily guarded border in the world while getting shot 5 times and survived, while suffering from parasites and malnutrition and all that. If that is the general state of your average North Korean soldier, then I am quite worried for the US. That guy is really though. Harsh living conditions create great soldiers. And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
Well, hopefully that is a big step forward in solving the political nuclear problem that NK presents.
Assassinations?
Cross border kidnappings?
Sinking of SK ships?
Bombardment of SK island?
Firing missiles over Japan?
Need I go on?
What terrorist group is actually doing all of this, and how is North Korea sponsoring them?
?
NK government?
So there is no terrorist group?
Where is the definition that states a government is incapable of being a terrorist group? We've kind of been in a state of armed conflict with one such being for the last 16 years.
Where is the definition that states a government can be a terrorist group? Neither of these definitions exists in international law.
The default status of governments is governments. When a government does things like bombing people, assassinations and the like, these are warfare within or outwith the Geneva Code, or else technically illegal actions. For instance, the French Government sank a Greenpeace ship in New Zealand. That does not make the French Government a terrorist organisation. When the government breaks down, as in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, it is the legal right of the people to take up arms and defend themselves against invaders. This does not make the people a terrorist organisation.
The above is why we talk about state-sponsored terrorism. It defines the situation in which an active government sponsors a terrorist organisation such as the Contras in Nicaragua.
Loathsome though the NK government is, they are not sponsoring those kind of activities.
Which is why Somalian divisions are sweeping the globe, taking all before them. Seriously, this thing about how really harsh living conditions make the best soldiers is nonsense. Point to the richest countries, with the best fed, best educated population, and that's where you'll find the best quality troops.
And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
The wood truck doesn't do its job anywhere near as well, how could you even claim that? Why do you think there are no woodgas vehicles in places with access to ample supplies of petrol and diesel? Fashion? It's because it's not as good.
Such vehicles are fine for maintaining the bare minimum trade activity that goes on within NK's borders, but if they were relied on supply a sustained war effort they'd be at breaking point almost straight aways, even without attacks by allied air forces.
And while sticking up for North Korean kit is admirably loyal to your motherland that supplied the stuff, I guess, it's also a bit silly. Because 50 year old Soviet military surplus can not actually compete with 21st century cutting edge hardware. That's a sentence I actually had to type out.
What would be a challenge for the US and allies would be trying to locate that many NK firing positions, and taking them out before NK was able to inflict extensive casualties on civilian centres in SK. But that's a product of the tactical environment and the wildly varying objectives of the two sides, it is not a product of their kit having anything near parity.
Where is the definition that states a government is incapable of being a terrorist group?
I think the majority of people consider non-state actors to be the primary agents of terrorism, such as ISIS, AQ, IRA, etc vs state actors such as members of the regular armed forces. Something like Hezbollah vs the Iranian Army. I think US laws lets us claim that secret agents are "terrorists" if a government is acting in secret, and I guess that's how we are probably justifying the various inclusions of North Korea into the list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism". But even if we accept that a government can be a terrorist group, it's still stupid to include NK because they are not sponsoring anybody.
Iran is a state sponsor because they provide funding and training to Hezbollah. North Korea is not sponsoring a group of terrorists, North Korea is the one doing the actual stuff.
Edit: Now, I'm not saying that North Korea are good people or anything like that. Just saying that it seems silly to include them on this list. To me it feels like watching someone punch someone in the face, then charging the person that punched with "hiring someone else to punch someone for you".
We've kind of been in a state of armed conflict with one such being for the last 16 years.
We've been at war with the Country of AQ? I thought AQ and the likes not being a government and/or country is how we've been able to get away with not caring about the Geneva Convention?
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
He stole a jeep, managed to sneak across the most heavily guarded border in the world while getting shot 5 times and survived, while suffering from parasites and malnutrition and all that. If that is the general state of your average North Korean soldier, then I am quite worried for the US. That guy is really though. Harsh living conditions create great soldiers.
And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
He was escaping from one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth. Of course he was going to take 5 or 6 bullets to the chest if need be. He had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
He stole a jeep, managed to sneak across the most heavily guarded border in the world while getting shot 5 times and survived, while suffering from parasites and malnutrition and all that. If that is the general state of your average North Korean soldier, then I am quite worried for the US. That guy is really though. Harsh living conditions create great soldiers.
And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
Hrm, harsh living conditions dont necessarily create great soldiers. I doubt such a North Korean soldier could carry as heavy of a kit for as great a distance at as great a speed as their South Korean or US counterparts. Their immune systems would be compromised and more susceptible to disease reducing fighting strength and increasing the strain on logistics. There's a reason armies dont starve their troops and infect them with parasites, it really doesnt make them tougher.
One will notice the Japanese army of WW2 was treated to similar conditions, and was thoroughly brutalized by both the US military and the Red Army, where even the most horrific of combats were painfully one-sided affairs after the initial 100 days successes.
Adversity has its place in training. Long term chronic health problems do not.
Though yes, underestimating opponents is never a good idea. But acknowledging the realities should also be something to be kept in mind.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
The North Koreans have never really been in much of a position to fight, health concerns or no. Even during the Korean war, without maddive Chinese assistance they never would have survived. The same is true today, the NK army is no match for its adversaries, never has been, never will be.
Rather, the threat has always been that can can wreak great devastation onto South Korea in a very short time. When you have thousands of artillery pieces able to rain shells onto Seoul and its suburbs, it doesn't matter that your soldiers arent healthy, nobody is going to want to deal with that. Their entire defense strategy is basically to hold South Korea hostage, hoping nobody ever calls their bluff, because once that goes off, they're done.
I don't disagree with this analysis, but if their average infantryman isn't up to the job, then is it not possible that their much vaunted mass artillery might be lacking as well?
Their guns might be old school, Cold War artillery, that's in dire need of maintenance, and therefore, not as effective as they should be.
Plus, US and South Korean military intelligence have to have some idea about where these guns are sited, what state they're in, and presumably, the US Air Force and Navy will have plans drawn up to take them out within minutes of war being declared...
Edit. I was watching Battle of The Bulge earlier, so my faith in US military intelligence is not 100%
The artillery would almost certainly be destroyed in short order, and I'm sure many of the guns are either inoperable or unable to be used for one reason or another. But if even only a fraction are useable, thats still going to be more guns than at Verdun or the Somme, they could still inflict tens of thousands of casualties in a couple of days and put millions to flight and destroy potentially tens of billions of dollars of property in a couple of days. I doubt NK would be able to maintain offensive operations much longer than that, maybe a week at tops, but thats enough to do a lot of damage unfortunately.
As well, while the North Korean artillery might be outdated by today's standards they're still a good 40 or 50 years more advanced than the ones at the Somme, as well.
Which is why Somalian divisions are sweeping the globe, taking all before them. Seriously, this thing about how really harsh living conditions make the best soldiers is nonsense. Point to the richest countries, with the best fed, best educated population, and that's where you'll find the best quality troops.
They might have if they had many times the numbers they have, and had the weapons needed for waging modern war such as missiles, tanks and aircraft. It isn't being well-fed that makes the soldiers of richer countries better, it is being more numerous and having advanced weapons.
A soldier that grew up in a harsh environment will be more accustomed to hardships, hard labour, surviving on little food and surviving in difficult environments. Not to mention being more likely to come in contact with diseases and therefore having better resistances. But yeah, there is a tipping point. If conditions are so harsh people are basically starving, then people just get weakened instead of strengthened. But an appropriate amount of harshness makes people stronger. We see this all the time both in history and in the present day.
And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
The wood truck doesn't do its job anywhere near as well, how could you even claim that? Why do you think there are no woodgas vehicles in places with access to ample supplies of petrol and diesel? Fashion? It's because it's not as good.
Such vehicles are fine for maintaining the bare minimum trade activity that goes on within NK's borders, but if they were relied on supply a sustained war effort they'd be at breaking point almost straight aways, even without attacks by allied air forces.
I didn't claim that! Obviously a diesel truck doesn't perform as well as a wood truck. But both can get their job well enough that using one or the other isn't going to make a major difference. A truck is still a truck, no matter what it runs on. Wood trucks are sometimes used in Russia as well (especially in remote areas) and you don't really notice much of a difference with normal trucks.
The biggest disadvantages to wood gas is that the gasifier is really huge and heavy and takes up a lot of space and that the gasifier needs to run for a bit before you can go. Also, early wood gasifiers weren't efficient at all and needed constant attention to keep running. These things are why oil-based fuels have won out over gas-based fuels in general usage.
But in a long war, wood gas actually beats out diesel or other fuels eventually in terms of efficiency simply for the fact you are going to be running out of oil long before you are going to be running out of wood. That is why wood gasifiers suddenly became quite popular in WW2. Not that a war with North Korea would be a long war (unless China gets involved), but still.
And you are right that North Korea's truck capacity would be stretched to breaking point, but that is probably more due to them having relatively few trucks and trucks being targeted by US air strikes. Not so much due to the fact that some of their trucks run on wood gas.
sebster wrote: And while sticking up for North Korean kit is admirably loyal to your motherland that supplied the stuff, I guess, it's also a bit silly. Because 50 year old Soviet military surplus can not actually compete with 21st century cutting edge hardware. That's a sentence I actually had to type out.
I didn't say it could compete. It can not. It is 50 years old. It is not for nothing that the Soviet Union and Russia have always been constantly updating their weapon systems and designing new ones.
What I did say, is that those 50 year old guns and howitzers are still lethal. And that they can still do a lot more damage to a city like Seoul than anybody would like (well, except for the North Koreans I guess). Don't underestimate something simply because it is old. The difference in performance between a D20 howitzer and say, a M109 howitzer isn't all that big. Enough to want to upgrade if you can, but not enough to make the old gun suddenly not dangerous anymore. Especially when you are shooting at a target you can hardly miss.
sebster wrote: What would be a challenge for the US and allies would be trying to locate that many NK firing positions, and taking them out before NK was able to inflict extensive casualties on civilian centres in SK. But that's a product of the tactical environment and the wildly varying objectives of the two sides, it is not a product of their kit having anything near parity.
Agreed. But they do not need parity. They just need to do be able to inflict enough damage to make an attack on them too costly, and for that old weapons will do just fine.
I don't disagree with this analysis, but if their average infantryman isn't up to the job, then is it not possible that their much vaunted mass artillery might be lacking as well?
You don't need to be super physically fit to fire artillery. Their artillery is old, but old in this case means post WW2. And really all artillery advances since then have been almost all in the accuracy department. The guns themselves and the ammunition has not really changed much. US artillery rounds and North Korean rounds would be much the same as each other. The difference is we can put a 155mm shell within 10m of a target while North Korea might manage something worse. But that only matters with precision shooting, which is what the US has been focusing on for most of the last 50 years.
North Korea really just cares about a massive area bombardment, and for that their artillery is more than sufficient. The only real question is how much ammunition they have to sustain the bombardment. Even with scant resources, they've had 60 years to build up stockpiles.
A 60 year old 155mm Artillery piece is just as good for area bombardment as a modern 155mm artillery piece would be, assuming its been maintained correctly. Accuracy is not a concern. Plus, if you've had decades to zero in on a specific target you could match the accuracy of even a modern piece. The modern piece just zeros in on a new target faster, its not any more damaging once you get rounds on target.
Really what happens in the event hostilities break out again is the following.
North Korean artillery utterly devastates everything in range. Seoul gets pretty much leveled. Millions are dead from conventional and gas rounds. US air strikes neutralize the artillery quickly, but not in time to save the civilian population from getting devastated. The South Korean and US troops advance over the border and they will manage to roll over North Korean opposition due to the poor condition of their opponents. They'll be dug in bunkers, but they will run out of ammunition and food quite rapidly. It would likely be a slow process as drawing the battle out is to the US/South Korea's advantage as we can easily make sure North Korea cannot resupply their frontline with anything, and we can eliminate their artillery eventually with air/missile strikes. All North Korea will be able to do is kill civilians as they eventually starve to death.
This is discounting any Nuclear option North Korea uses. Any attempt to drop a bomb via aircraft would end in failure as anything that flies would get shot down immediately. While they likely do have a couple, as in 1 or 2, ICBMs with nuclear bombs, their options with that are limited. If they shoot at a South Korean target, they might actually be able to hit it. But aside from just raising the casualty rate for South Korea and the US, it wouldn't buy them anything as the US would simply flatten Pyongyang with a nuke in retaliation.
Either way, North Korea loses. But millions of South Koreans are killed. North Korea also likely sees most of its population die due to starvation and combat.
whembly wrote: The assassination of Kim Jong-nam with fething VX nerve gas in fething Malaysia... THAT had clear terror motives. Both towards their ex-pat and other nations.
It was a criminal act by a criminal government, and one that deserves sanctions. But that doesn't mean NK is sponsoring terror cells, which is the charge here, that you've tried to pretend is true.
You seem to getting stuck on the whole "who NK sponsering?" and forgetting that NK used to be on this list.
I'm not forgetting one fething thing. NK was on that list for the same reason this is happening - because it's a way to increase sanctions in order to force NK to the table to give up their nuclear program. And as I already said, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but supporting measures to force NK back to the table are totally different to pretending the justification behind it is actually true.
How is this, in any way different than what I described up thread?
We can accept the realpolitik as worthy, without having to pretend the fiction used to get us there is valid. We can accept Santa Claus and his elves are watching is a good way to get kids to make their beds and clean their teeth, without having to pretend that Santa and his elves really are watching every kid all the time.
If you think it's fiction now... was it fiction when they were on this list in the first place? IF the answer is yes, then your point stands. But, they were originally put on this list for a reason and dubya removed it in the hopes to garner some cooperation.
You're getting into the weeds of things... all this does, is to put NK back on that US Treasure Department terror list that simply enables further banking sanctions.
I literally just fething wrote that. You quoted me fething writing that;
"it is so they can enforce tighter sanctions on NK"
"it is so that tighter sanctions can bring NK to the negotiating table, to get them to give up their nuclear program"
feth.
[MOD EDIT - Rule 1 - Alpharius]
I think we're mostly in agreement with each other.
The divergence it seems is this nomenclature of the US Treasury's program called "State Sponsor of Terrorism™". Furthermore, it's accepted fact that the NK are working with other unsavory countries (ie, Iran) to advance their nuclear ambitions that easily fit this program's definition. Frankly, since we're at war with NK I find this objection of labeling a country that we're at war with as a sponser of terror, a US definition mind you, as somehow a dumb thing to do when all it really does is activate sanction measures that are already on the books in the US.
Now as to whether or not its good realpolitik... that remains to be seen.
Which is why Somalian divisions are sweeping the globe, taking all before them. Seriously, this thing about how really harsh living conditions make the best soldiers is nonsense. Point to the richest countries, with the best fed, best educated population, and that's where you'll find the best quality troops.
They might have if they had many times the numbers they have, and had the weapons needed for waging modern war such as missiles, tanks and aircraft. It isn't being well-fed that makes the soldiers of richer countries better, it is being more numerous and having advanced weapons.
A soldier that grew up in a harsh environment will be more accustomed to hardships, hard labour, surviving on little food and surviving in difficult environments. Not to mention being more likely to come in contact with diseases and therefore having better resistances. But yeah, there is a tipping point. If conditions are so harsh people are basically starving, then people just get weakened instead of strengthened. But an appropriate amount of harshness makes people stronger. We see this all the time both in history and in the present day.
And what does it matter whether a truck drives on wood or on diesel? They will do their job in both cases. And rusty howitzer may be rusty, but it is still lethal. Never underestimate an opponent just because his equipment isn't cutting-edge. He still might be able to do a lot of damage. Especially since a lot of North-Korean equipment is Soviet-made, and Soviet stuff is well known for being able to function even after a lot of abuse and lack of maintenance. That is how it was designed.
The wood truck doesn't do its job anywhere near as well, how could you even claim that? Why do you think there are no woodgas vehicles in places with access to ample supplies of petrol and diesel? Fashion? It's because it's not as good.
Such vehicles are fine for maintaining the bare minimum trade activity that goes on within NK's borders, but if they were relied on supply a sustained war effort they'd be at breaking point almost straight aways, even without attacks by allied air forces.
I didn't claim that! Obviously a diesel truck doesn't perform as well as a wood truck. But both can get their job well enough that using one or the other isn't going to make a major difference. A truck is still a truck, no matter what it runs on. Wood trucks are sometimes used in Russia as well (especially in remote areas) and you don't really notice much of a difference with normal trucks.
The biggest disadvantages to wood gas is that the gasifier is really huge and heavy and takes up a lot of space and that the gasifier needs to run for a bit before you can go. Also, early wood gasifiers weren't efficient at all and needed constant attention to keep running. These things are why oil-based fuels have won out over gas-based fuels in general usage.
But in a long war, wood gas actually beats out diesel or other fuels eventually in terms of efficiency simply for the fact you are going to be running out of oil long before you are going to be running out of wood. That is why wood gasifiers suddenly became quite popular in WW2. Not that a war with North Korea would be a long war (unless China gets involved), but still.
And you are right that North Korea's truck capacity would be stretched to breaking point, but that is probably more due to them having relatively few trucks and trucks being targeted by US air strikes. Not so much due to the fact that some of their trucks run on wood gas.
sebster wrote: And while sticking up for North Korean kit is admirably loyal to your motherland that supplied the stuff, I guess, it's also a bit silly. Because 50 year old Soviet military surplus can not actually compete with 21st century cutting edge hardware. That's a sentence I actually had to type out.
I didn't say it could compete. It can not. It is 50 years old. It is not for nothing that the Soviet Union and Russia have always been constantly updating their weapon systems and designing new ones.
What I did say, is that those 50 year old guns and howitzers are still lethal. And that they can still do a lot more damage to a city like Seoul than anybody would like (well, except for the North Koreans I guess). Don't underestimate something simply because it is old. The difference in performance between a D20 howitzer and say, a M109 howitzer isn't all that big. Enough to want to upgrade if you can, but not enough to make the old gun suddenly not dangerous anymore. Especially when you are shooting at a target you can hardly miss.
sebster wrote: What would be a challenge for the US and allies would be trying to locate that many NK firing positions, and taking them out before NK was able to inflict extensive casualties on civilian centres in SK. But that's a product of the tactical environment and the wildly varying objectives of the two sides, it is not a product of their kit having anything near parity.
Agreed. But they do not need parity. They just need to do be able to inflict enough damage to make an attack on them too costly, and for that old weapons will do just fine.
There is some degree of merit in both sides of the argument. For example, Turkish UK troops endured the tough conditions of the Koren War much better than the "soft" US garrison troops that started in the conflict. The US Marines, though, also had a much higher toughness in actions such as winter retreat from the Chosun Reservoir. There definitely is some kind of influence of toughness from upbringing and training, but it can be taken too far. The average North Korean is several inches shorter than his South Korean counterpart, thanks to the effects of the major famine in the 1990s.
That said, modern high-tech western armies tend to replace men with machines. The North Korean army is a very large army. They even have universal conscription for women since 2015! Unfortunately, the ability to pack more men into a given area often is merely a way of packing more targets into the area of effect of area effect weapons such as artillery barrage, napalm, heavy machine-gun fire, and the like.
There is some degree of merit in both sides of the argument. For example, Turkish UK troops endured the tough conditions of the Koren War much better than the "soft" US garrison troops that started in the conflict. The US Marines, though, also had a much higher toughness in actions such as winter retreat from the Chosun Reservoir.
We can't even agree on toughness within the US armed forces, let alone any foreign forces!
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
Just like they didn't have to worry about SE Asian peasants in pajamas, or illiterate Central Asian hill tribes, or poor Caribbean communists.
It's always funny to see the collective amnesia in the US. Very keen to show off their big expensive military but after a few years of flag-draped boxes coming home the public soon loses interest. Take a break for a few years to drum up some more nationalism, throw around a few inane buzzwords like `liberty` `tyranny` and the big `freedom` and the American public is soon ready to invade another sovereign nation again. Since WWII nobody has started - and lost - more wars, yet here they are again rattling the sabre.
The whole 'state sponsor of terrorism' would be funny if the US didn't have such a history of using this as an excuse to start slaughtering people. Nobody has sold more weapons to dangerous regimes, tinpot dictators and violent fractional groups than the US. They'll point to Iran all day, while their ally Saudi Arabia continues to stomp it's neighbour with a significant arsenal of predominantly American weapons.
There was that article a few days ago about that North Korean defector, a soldier, and his intestines were riddled with large parasites
If that's the general state of your average North Korean infantryman, then I don't think the US military has much to worry about.
Just like they didn't have to worry about SE Asian peasants in pajamas, or illiterate Central Asian hill tribes, or poor Caribbean communists.
While I'm certainly in no way advocating military action against North Korea, and in fact am very much against in currently, there is a difference between fighting extended guerilla conflicts against unconventional forces, and fighting against a woefully outdated and poorly prepared conventional state military that rests heavily on state control and a cult of personality that would be obliterated in short order in any real conflict. Could the North Koreans fight an extended guerilla war? Possibly, but that's not what they appear to have designed their military defense strategy around.
We can look at Iraq. The issue of the Iraqi military was obliterated quite quickly despite being very large, once engaged in open battle with Western forces, they were overmatched and destroyed in short order and the State control mechanisms failed very quickly. Any threat to neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait was swiftly removed. The problem issue was with long term occupation. In the case of North Korea, the former issue would have the problem of Seoul being in range of lots of artillery that would need to be dealt with, while the latter issue would be a very different thing, particularly if it involved re-unification with South Korea.
Iron_Captain wrote: They might have if they had many times the numbers they have, and had the weapons needed for waging modern war such as missiles, tanks and aircraft. It isn't being well-fed that makes the soldiers of richer countries better, it is being more numerous and having advanced weapons.
Soldiers perform better when they are physically healthy and well educated. I can't believe I had to type that, to be perfectly honest. It's such an obvious thing.
A soldier that grew up in a harsh environment will be more accustomed to hardships, hard labour, surviving on little food and surviving in difficult environments. Not to mention being more likely to come in contact with diseases and therefore having better resistances.
Harsh environments teach survival, that's true. On the battlefield survival means skulking to the back of the unit when the offensive is about to start, it means learning how to do as little as possible to risk your life without drawing the ire of your seniors. In other words, it teaches everything that an effective military will train out of its soldiers.
And poor health doesn't make you more resistant to disease, it makes you more susceptible. Poor health and disease outbreaks go hand in hand. That North Korean soldier had a gut full of parasites because he suffered poor nutrition.
But an appropriate amount of harshness makes people stronger.
There is a level of harshness needed to develop discipline. But you can apply that to your troops. That's basically what training is.
Whereas the problems that come from poverty, the physical weakness, the low levels of education, those are things you are stuck with and cannot fix, and it means you will be facing an uphill battle against troops from another country.
I didn't claim that! Obviously a diesel truck doesn't perform as well as a wood truck. But both can get their job well enough that using one or the other isn't going to make a major difference. A truck is still a truck, no matter what it runs on.
No, not all trucks are equal. Again I am just staggered that you would claim that. Better trucks have far greater load capacities, are able to move quicker, and across more difficult roads. There is no way you are ignorant of this.
But in a long war, wood gas actually beats out diesel or other fuels eventually in terms of efficiency simply for the fact you are going to be running out of oil long before you are going to be running out of wood.
That woodgas trucks will be needed by countries with poor oil access and reserves is not an argument in favour of NK, it is an admission that their strategic position means there logistics are weak and prone to collapse within days of open warfare.
Which is the exact point.
I didn't say it could compete. It can not. It is 50 years old. It is not for nothing that the Soviet Union and Russia have always been constantly updating their weapon systems and designing new ones.
What I did say, is that those 50 year old guns and howitzers are still lethal. And that they can still do a lot more damage to a city like Seoul than anybody would like (well, except for the North Koreans I guess). Don't underestimate something simply because it is old. The difference in performance between a D20 howitzer and say, a M109 howitzer isn't all that big. Enough to want to upgrade if you can, but not enough to make the old gun suddenly not dangerous anymore. Especially when you are shooting at a target you can hardly miss.
The difference in the two units, in terms of mobility and first round accuracy is huge. However I agree with you that in this situation, with the artillery pieces fortified and shooting at large civilian centres, those differences don't count for much.
Agreed. But they do not need parity. They just need to do be able to inflict enough damage to make an attack on them too costly, and for that old weapons will do just fine.
Yep, agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: How is this, in any way different than what I described up thread?
When asked what terrorism NK sponsored, you listed a bunch of crimes committed by NK itself, to state that was the terrorism that NK was sponsoring. That they were sponsoring themselves, or something.
That statement was wrong. As such, we should all just be honest and say the US claim that NK is sponsoring terrorism is a legal fiction, done so the US can tighten sanctions.
If you think it's fiction now... was it fiction when they were on this list in the first place? IF the answer is yes, then your point stands. But, they were originally put on this list for a reason and dubya removed it in the hopes to garner some cooperation.
That's right, it was a fiction done to increase pressure on NK and bring them to the table, which Bush removed as a reward for NK beginning some level of co-operation.
I think we're mostly in agreement with each other.
I think there is a clumsiness to this approach - with NK so clearly detested by everyone, including China, and universal concern for NK's nuclear program, it shouldn't be necessary to rely on a legal fiction to increase sanctions. But that same universal support for sanctions also means it doesn't really matter, everyone knows what the US is really trying to achieve and they're okay with that so it works okay.
What was the mod edit about? Funny picture? If it was good pm it to me.
The divergence it seems is this nomenclature of the US Treasury's program called "State Sponsor of Terrorism™". Furthermore, it's accepted fact that the NK are working with other unsavory countries (ie, Iran) to advance their nuclear ambitions that easily fit this program's definition.
Having links with countries who sponsors terror terror doesn't make you a sponsor of terror. That would make every country on Earth a sponsor of terror, because all countries have trade relations with countries that do some very unsavoury things.
The lessons of history are that troops from backward countries like Russia (1812, 1941) and Turkey (1914, 1951) are good at enduring miserable conditions that would reduce the morale of troops from developed countries like the UK or USA, whose troops are used to a higher "standard of living".
However, history also teaches that developed countries are much more capable of providing their troops with the logistics not to have to endure the peasant lifestyle that would cripple their morale.
The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
The above applies to conventional warfare. Insurgency is a different kettle of fish.
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
True, the DMZ/Seoul problem still exists. But I think Kilkrazy and Sebster were talking about the wider concept/war. So the moment fighting moves beyond the DMZ the 12 years of high school thing kicks in.
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
True, the DMZ/Seoul problem still exists. But I think Kilkrazy and Sebster were talking about the wider concept/war. So the moment fighting moves beyond the DMZ the 12 years of high school thing kicks in.
Yeah. Once things go beyond the miles of pre planned targets and into the mountains and valleys of South Korea.
The professional training and well supplied air, satilite and micro drone Intel systems soon play a big advantage.
Not that the NK lack training and schools. We may underestimate them but they are still a professional army and trained soldiers. Despite there logistical problems.
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
True, the DMZ/Seoul problem still exists. But I think Kilkrazy and Sebster were talking about the wider concept/war. So the moment fighting moves beyond the DMZ the 12 years of high school thing kicks in.
Yeah. Once things go beyond the miles of pre planned targets and into the mountains and valleys of South Korea.
The professional training and well supplied air, satilite and micro drone Intel systems soon play a big advantage.
Not that the NK lack training and schools. We may underestimate them but they are still a professional army.
North Korea has had some problems efficiently training as a professional army. Mainly training is hindered by a critical lack of almost everything, from spare parts to ammunition. Even large scale exercises are very much frowned upon in NK because they take a heavy toll on what little they have as well as food wise. Its why SK-US exercises work so well, forcing NK to respond in kind and drain much more valuable resources. However, it is hard to say how much actual live firing exercises North Korean soldiers get, which is a very important factor. Theory is worth a lot, but experience more so.
Kilkrazy wrote: The third lesson of history is that however tough or namby-pamby or parasite riddled/resistant you are, a 155mm shell on your head is bad news. The side that is better at targetting large amounts of destructive ordnance on to the enemy troops is likely to win.
This gets to the truth of the matter. And ultimately, wouldn't you prefer your side's artillery is being planned and directed by people who finished 12 years of school at a minimum?
True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
True, the DMZ/Seoul problem still exists. But I think Kilkrazy and Sebster were talking about the wider concept/war. So the moment fighting moves beyond the DMZ the 12 years of high school thing kicks in.
Yeah. Once things go beyond the miles of pre planned targets and into the mountains and valleys of South Korea.
The professional training and well supplied air, satilite and micro drone Intel systems soon play a big advantage.
Not that the NK lack training and schools. We may underestimate them but they are still a professional army.
North Korea has had some problems efficiently training as a professional army. Mainly training is hindered by a critical lack of almost everything, from spare parts to ammunition. Even large scale exercises are very much frowned upon in NK because they take a heavy toll on what little they have as well as food wise. Its why SK-US exercises work so well, forcing NK to respond in kind and drain much more valuable resources. However, it is hard to say how much actual live firing exercises North Korean soldiers get, which is a very important factor. Theory is worth a lot, but experience more so.
Yeah, and also drains valuable petrol, fuel. They have a limited supply. Little local and all via China. No petrol, aviation fuel etc no army.
Wood gas trucks seemed in use. That's one way to do it when fuel is not in surplus.
True. Though I and many others have likely underestimated at times. There generals have had 60+ years to sit round tabled. Plotting how to invade SK..
Yes they cannot train heavily in live fire or do mass tank exercises easily. But also there not totally incompatant. They indoctrinated constantly for war.l, that's all they know.
jhe90 wrote: Yeah, and also drains valuable petrol, fuel. They have a limited supply. Little local and all via China. No petrol, aviation fuel etc no army.
Wood gas trucks seemed in use. That's one way to do it when fuel is not in surplus.
True. Though I and many others have likely underestimated at times. There generals have had 60+ years to sit round tabled. Plotting how to invade SK..
Yes they cannot train heavily in live fire or do mass tank exercises easily. But also there not totally incompatant. They indoctrinated constantly for war.l, that's all they know.
Yeah, but even trucks get cannibalized for spare parts. NK equipment just gets more outdated and less reliable every year. What would still work during actual war time operations? How many shells are usable, are they all properly manufactured? Etc etc. Lots of question marks around actual performance.
Sure, they aren't incompetent, they are trained as well as possible under NK conditions and conscription is invasive and long term so most men (and recently women) will have had some training. But training and planning a war are very different from fighting it. Since the Korean War NK has known it doesn't stand a chance in a conventional conflict. With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
They're indoctrinated a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're fit to fight, especially for anything more than very brief time periods, and that indoctrination is not ironclad by any means.
Watching the reaction of the DMZ guards and the defector, their handling of weapons (muzzle flashing each other, casually laying live weapons on the ground and sitting around minutes after a live fire incident and still while in direct sight of the enemy), lack of coordination or cohesion, clear lack of orders or protocol, standing around in big clumps in the open, etc, they really did not give the appearance of a force fit for actual fighting. Thats not even getting into the resource issues.
jhe90 wrote: Yeah, and also drains valuable petrol, fuel. They have a limited supply. Little local and all via China. No petrol, aviation fuel etc no army.
Wood gas trucks seemed in use. That's one way to do it when fuel is not in surplus.
True. Though I and many others have likely underestimated at times. There generals have had 60+ years to sit round tabled. Plotting how to invade SK..
Yes they cannot train heavily in live fire or do mass tank exercises easily. But also there not totally incompatant. They indoctrinated constantly for war.l, that's all they know.
Yeah, but even trucks get cannibalized for spare parts. NK equipment just gets more outdated and less reliable every year. What would still work during actual war time operations? How many shells are usable, are they all properly manufactured? Etc etc. Lots of question marks around actual performance.
Sure, they aren't incompetent, they are trained as well as possible under NK conditions and conscription is invasive and long term so most men (and recently women) will have had some training. But training and planning a war are very different from fighting it. Since the Korean War NK has known it doesn't stand a chance in a conventional conflict. With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
Vaktathi wrote:They're indoctrinated a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're fit to fight, especially for anything more than very brief time periods, and that indoctrination is not ironclad by any means.
Watching the reaction of the DMZ guards and the defector, their handling of weapons (muzzle flashing each other, casually laying live weapons on the ground and sitting around minutes after a live fire incident and still while in direct sight of the enemy), lack of coordination or cohesion, clear lack of orders or protocol, standing around in big clumps in the open, etc, they really did not give the appearance of a force fit for actual fighting. Thats not even getting into the resource issues.
Yes, you have a point on shells and stuff hitting expiration dates.
Rockets, shells and ammo only good for so long before it's dangerous and less effective. Trucks wear out.
Some who North Korea still holds there things runnig. Salvage, and home made parts.
.
OK. And DMZ guards are Ment to one of the better equipped units too...
There the border guards and ones on show. OK that is rather telling if there potential best are so badly trained and displined.
The DMZ incident was a pretty good example of what too much rigorous training and indoctrination/loyalty/rigidness gets you. People who are so dependent on being told what to do by their superiors they kinda lose it/panic when presented with an new event. There seems to be little initiative and a lot of bewilderment.
Oh great, he fired his missiles again.
Higher, further, heavier payloads.
They are slowly, slowly getting able to hit more than just water.
Eventually at this rate he will reach mainland US. And then that would be scary if he could follow through with his threats.
jhe90 wrote: True but NK had also had thr same decades to plan, dig in, decoy and calculate vectors, angles and such for there own guns and rocket artillery.
There heaviest weaponry is likely very well emplacement, fortified and bunkered down or with air raid shelters and decoys positions.
Us same. There mobility might be alot weaker, logistics weaker but those fixed batteries and rocket brigades are a pretty potant danger.
That's a fair point, and I agree. I was speaking more in the general sense of troop quality from poor vs prosperous societies that the conversation had evolved towards.
In terms of NK, well there's no doubt their troop quality is a of a lower standard, and that's in part due to their poorer upbringing, but you are right they will still be extremely deadly firing from their dug in positions, because that's a role that doesn't really need much in terms of troop quality or modern tech to be effective.
Disciple of Fate wrote: With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
They don't need to last out long to cause major damage. Also you say about loss of allies but China has already stated they will defend them if US launches first strike attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Eventually at this rate he will reach mainland US. And then that would be scary if he could follow through with his threats.
Him vs trump both able to nuke each other.... :(
Threats. Trump is threatening all the time as well. What Kim wants is stay in power. US tries to attack and they will fire up(and have China as allies). US doesn't attack, NK isn't exactly going to make suicide by attacking first either. He's looking to stay in power. Not suicide.
Oh great, he fired his missiles again.
Higher, further, heavier payloads.
They are slowly, slowly getting able to hit more than just water.
Eventually at this rate he will reach mainland US. And then that would be scary if he could follow through with his threats.
Him vs trump both able to nuke each other.... :(
The thing is... if this new missile was to travel on a more standard trajectory it very likely could hit the east coast of the US.
How reliably, and could it do so with a heavier nuclear warhead? That's unknown. But NK has just developed a missile that can hit basically everywhere in the world.
We're likely going to find out how well the missile handles a nuclear warhead, as undoubtably NK is going to want to test that sooner rather than later.
Disciple of Fate wrote: With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
They don't need to last out long to cause major damage. Also you say about loss of allies but China has already stated they will defend them if US launches first strike attack.
I seriously don't consider the possibility of China taking such a huge risk to defend a country that has become such a burden. A good deal with the US and South Korea on the occupation of North Korea is far better than the economic disruption a war between the US and China would mean for the domestic economy. A kind of remove Kim and the nuclear threat and then let China step in as the protector of North Korea and take over type deal. Its all talk on the international stage. Unless you meant nuclear first strike, in which case the Chinese don't want to get contaminated by proximity.
But being more realistic, I think it might be getting a bit too late for an invasion. Every month NK gets closer to being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. It doesn't even have to hit the US, NK could hit SK or Japan and inflict massive casualties. Are all those Japanese and South Korean lives worth any possible US ones? As well as the fact that there seems to be little in the way of preparation going on by the US currently.
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton
Disciple of Fate wrote: With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
They don't need to last out long to cause major damage. Also you say about loss of allies but China has already stated they will defend them if US launches first strike attack.
I seriously don't consider the possibility of China taking such a huge risk to defend a country that has become such a burden. A good deal with the US and South Korea on the occupation of North Korea is far better than the economic disruption a war between the US and China would mean for the domestic economy. A kind of remove Kim and the nuclear threat and then let China step in as the protector of North Korea and take over type deal. Its all talk on the international stage. Unless you meant nuclear first strike, in which case the Chinese don't want to get contaminated by proximity.
But being more realistic, I think it might be getting a bit too late for an invasion. Every month NK gets closer to being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. It doesn't even have to hit the US, NK could hit SK or Japan and inflict massive casualties. Are all those Japanese and South Korean lives worth any possible US ones? As well as the fact that there seems to be little in the way of preparation going on by the US currently.
Indeed. China says they'll defend North Korea if they are defending, but I think that is a bluff. China would lose far more defending North Korea economically and militarily than they would lose simply letting North Korea fall and reunite with South Korea.
A bordering democracy, which is now dealing with integrating a 3rd world country into itself, is far better than having your economy collapse because you just lost your US, and likely European, markets. Plus all that US debt they hold which would go poof and become worthless.
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton
Astounding, simply astounding.
I'm not sure we can use that word about this administration any more.
I don't know much about rockets and speeds and trajectories, but in theory, if they were to launch something at the US, isn't it big enough to see and shoot outta the sky before it does any real damage? I mean, it takes a pretty long time to fly across the pacific, wouldn't that be enough time to intercept it?
Anti-missile missiles are a thing, yes, but the altitude and speed of ICBMs still make it difficult. In earlier days, British Gloster Meteor jets hunted down German V-missiles by flying up to them and nudging them off course with their own wings! They were reasonably worried that shooting a missile with 850kg of explosives down with high-explosive autocannon shells from a close distance might be detrimental to their own airworthiness.
That's not really an option anymore with supersonic speeds and near-space altitudes...
Necros wrote: I don't know much about rockets and speeds and trajectories, but in theory, if they were to launch something at the US, isn't it big enough to see and shoot outta the sky before it does any real damage? I mean, it takes a pretty long time to fly across the pacific, wouldn't that be enough time to intercept it?
ICBMs don't fly across the sea like a big cruise missile. A long range ICBM travels in a sub-orbital trajectory. So they travel higher than any plane can reach, and faster than any plane in order to be able to reach that height.
This is why many of the early rockets used to deliver satellites and people into space were re-purposed ICBMs (such as the R7 rocket family which formed the basis of much of the Russian rocket program).
Now a North Korean ICBM is likely much poorer quality than other countries, but ICBMs are quite fast.
After Launch, the missile actually enters space. It's roughly 150-400km above the Earth before it turns to head to the target. The middle phase it keeps gaining altitude, reaching up to 1200km above the Earth before heading down to the target. At which point it is moving at around 7km a second. Which is really really fast.
Modern ICBMs also typically launch multiple warheads, decoys, and chaff. A North Korean ICBM probably would only have a single warhead and maybe some chaff, but its possible they might have more. They are very very big, but their speed makes it tough to hit them with anything.
Thats why an anti-ICBM laser is sort of the ideal anti-missile weapon. It can get to the missile fast enough and long enough to actually shoot it down. Another missile can be fast enough, but accurately hitting a target moving that fast with another object moving that fast/faster is a tall order. If you hit it it's going down as the impact will shatter it, but you have to hit it.
d-usa wrote: I thought that both the early US and Soviet space programs were pretty well known to be scientific excuses for developing ICBMs?
Yes, and no.
As far as the governments were concerned, they were. Some of the scientists simply wanted to put stuff in space and developed ICBMs so their government with give them money to do it, and putting stuff in space was "testing" for the ICBMs.
So it was kinda both. Space Programs were excuses for testing ICBMs and ICBMs were excuses for having a space program. And of course the proverbial dong waving back and forth was a side bonus.
Disciple of Fate wrote: With the loss of its Cold War allies nuclear weapons are their only guarantee for a military stalemate. They just have to survive to the stage that the nuclear threat is credible enough. Its massive army is a enormously expensive and resource draining 'relic' in that sense.
They don't need to last out long to cause major damage. Also you say about loss of allies but China has already stated they will defend them if US launches first strike attack.
I seriously don't consider the possibility of China taking such a huge risk to defend a country that has become such a burden. A good deal with the US and South Korea on the occupation of North Korea is far better than the economic disruption a war between the US and China would mean for the domestic economy. A kind of remove Kim and the nuclear threat and then let China step in as the protector of North Korea and take over type deal. Its all talk on the international stage. Unless you meant nuclear first strike, in which case the Chinese don't want to get contaminated by proximity.
But being more realistic, I think it might be getting a bit too late for an invasion. Every month NK gets closer to being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. It doesn't even have to hit the US, NK could hit SK or Japan and inflict massive casualties. Are all those Japanese and South Korean lives worth any possible US ones? As well as the fact that there seems to be little in the way of preparation going on by the US currently.
Indeed. China says they'll defend North Korea if they are defending, but I think that is a bluff. China would lose far more defending North Korea economically and militarily than they would lose simply letting North Korea fall and reunite with South Korea.
A bordering democracy, which is now dealing with integrating a 3rd world country into itself, is far better than having your economy collapse because you just lost your US, and likely European, markets. Plus all that US debt they hold which would go poof and become worthless.
I would assume that in the unlikely event of an invasion of NK that China will have a place in determining what happens to NK. It certainly won't just let reunification happen, only with very specific terms. A more cynical part of me might think that Xi would quickly invade from the northern border to 'save' NK (as in the parts that haven't fallen yet) if China does not get to partake in decisions on the future. No war with the US is required to keep a slice of NK to seperate China and SK. If Chinese troops walk into NK territories to 'help' NK after Kim gets removed, would the US really start shooting at them just to gain the rest of the NK territories? Its what I would do if I were Xi, no real bloodshed required for China, the US gets what it wants, China loses a bothersome ally and gains a satellite state. Of course this is only if an invasion is inevitable.
Maybe, but then they might end up fighting North Korean soldiers too. They might be allies, but North Korea still has a fortified border with China, and the soldiers there might not welcome Chinese tanks rolling over the border and might mistake it for an invasion from the other side. It would play on their paranoia, especially if they are getting attacked from the south too.
And China wouldn't want anything to do with the humanitarian crisis that would come with occupying even part of North Korea. They'd have millions of starving uneducated peasants to deal with if they moved in and that would hurt their economy bad too.
A far more likely scenario is they simply sit a bunch of troops on the border and mow down anybody trying to cross it. Then later sell stuff to Korea as it rebuilds/reeducates it's new population. That's where the profit is for them.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe, but then they might end up fighting North Korean soldiers too. They might be allies, but North Korea still has a fortified border with China, and the soldiers there might not welcome Chinese tanks rolling over the border and might mistake it for an invasion from the other side. It would play on their paranoia, especially if they are getting attacked from the south too.
And China wouldn't want anything to do with the humanitarian crisis that would come with occupying even part of North Korea. They'd have millions of starving uneducated peasants to deal with if they moved in and that would hurt their economy bad too.
A far more likely scenario is they simply sit a bunch of troops on the border and mow down anybody trying to cross it. Then later sell stuff to Korea as it rebuilds/reeducates it's new population. That's where the profit is for them.
That's why a clever Chinese plan would pretend its coming to the aid of NK. With the country being invaded and possibly falling apart, with most troops involved against the US, a possible Chinese offensive might be several times easier. Its all about timing and/or framing. China has been planning for this for decades as well.
China installing a puppet regime to rule a NK satellite state would still be preferable to a wave of refugees crossing into China due to the US invasion and/or SK and US troops parked directly on the Chinese border. For China, US troops on the border is by far the worst outcome of a conflict. Geopolitically its moving in the complete opposite direction of the goals China holds. China wants the US further away, not closer. They can just get some other North Korean to starve and control the North Koreans with their help instead of Kim. I don't think they would feel any moral obligation to actually improve the lives of the North Koreans. They just don't want those people crossing into China or US troops on the border.
Just letting SK and the US have NK doesn't make sense at all when considering Xi's mindset, his actions and Chinese doctrine since he came to power. But he knows better than fighting the US to save Kim , there are easier solutions.
That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
There is a slight problem with that reasoning, going into North Korea does not mean having to let refugees into China. They could still "mow down" refugees while troops are crossing. A puppet regime can deal with the North Korean population, which is still far preferable from US troops on the border instead of just refugees. North Korea is pretty self sufficient (well keeping itself afloat) currently, if China has no moral qualms about treatment it wouldn't necessarily drain a lot of resources. They gain far less by being a 3rd party observer because that would have incredibly damaging geopolitical implications. If China cares about political pressure it wouldn't be pursuing certain policies like the South and East China Sea ones. When it comes to the integrity and safety of the Chinese state the CCP doesn't care about political pressure. Western economies need China almost as much as China needs them, so the US has as many problems starting a conflict. Hell, China and the US are already in indirect conflict in the South China Sea and in support of Japan over the Senkaku Islands. Reality dictates that the West isn't going to tank its own economy over if the guy in charge is called Kim or Pak.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Not gonna happen. China would settle with a US ally on their border before going to war, because the alternative is simply total economic(and then political) collapse.
Plus China should realize that if North Korea is eliminated, then the US would seriously scale down their forces in the region. The cold war ended a long time ago, and there is no longer any reason for direct conflict with China.
China, literally, cannot go to war with the US unless they are willing to destroy themselves in the process.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it. To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War. Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Agreed with the overal point. Although I don't think Xi will risk a direct war with the US over saving Kim's hide. China will likely have some sort of contingency plan in place to swoop in and secure a rump state without wanting to come into direct conflict. Of course the risk exists it might come to direct war, but for China to actually plan on it from the second one toe crosses the DMZ seems unlikely in a risk-benefit analysis. The best plan is still to just get across the border and into as much of North Korea as possible once a US invasion starts, let them declare mission accomplished taking out Pyongyang. All the while consolidating a new North Korean state that the US has no real casus belli against, stepping in as the mediator/peace keeper.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it. To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War. Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Not gonna happen. China would settle with a US ally on their border before going to war, because the alternative is simply total economic(and then political) collapse.
Plus China should realize that if North Korea is eliminated, then the US would seriously scale down their forces in the region. The cold war ended a long time ago, and there is no longer any reason for direct conflict with China.
China, literally, cannot go to war with the US unless they are willing to destroy themselves in the process.
The idea that the elimination of North Korea will lead to US troop reduction in Asia is a bit out there. Even now the US is making new allies and establishing new bases in East Asia that in no way can be argued are there to defend against North Korea. China knows better than to assume that the end of North Korea will mean less troops in the region. The whole Chinese doctrine is focused on strategically and politically pushing away possible US base locations as far as possible, not allow the possibility of them setting one up right on the border. China wants the US out of Asia, not just Korea. Both China and the US will suffer greatly from any conflict and the fact that they both have nuclear weapons means that it shouldn't be taken lightly.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Agreed with the overal point. Although I don't think Xi will risk a direct war with the US over saving Kim's hide. China will likely have some sort of contingency plan in place to swoop in and secure a rump state without wanting to come into direct conflict. Of course the risk exists it might come to direct war, but for China to actually plan on it from the second one toe crosses the DMZ seems unlikely in a risk-benefit analysis. The best plan is still to just get across the border and into as much of North Korea as possible once a US invasion starts, let them declare mission accomplished taking out Pyongyang. All the while consolidating a new North Korean state that the US has no real casus belli against, stepping in as the mediator/peace keeper.
Again, no. China walking into North Korea is a massive mistake on their part. They'd suddenly have to deal with millions of starved peasants fleeing into China.
They cannot keep the border closed and send troops over at the same time, you still have to send supplies back and forth to your own troops. Supplies which will get stolen by the starving masses. Still a humanitarian crisis which China has to deal with, and thats not something they could really deal with. Their only real option would be to seal the whole border with North Korea and shoot anything that tries to cross. Them crossing south would be disastrous even if no conflict was had with US forces. They'd be miring themselves in a bad situation for massive loss, when the better option is to accept the small loss of North Korea as a buffer state. Something which has no real purpose any more.
Haley's blurb:
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said China must stop exporting crude to North Korea, or "we can take the oil situation into our own hands."
Meaning... what? US going to drone the NK's oil stockpile?
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Agreed with the overal point. Although I don't think Xi will risk a direct war with the US over saving Kim's hide. China will likely have some sort of contingency plan in place to swoop in and secure a rump state without wanting to come into direct conflict. Of course the risk exists it might come to direct war, but for China to actually plan on it from the second one toe crosses the DMZ seems unlikely in a risk-benefit analysis. The best plan is still to just get across the border and into as much of North Korea as possible once a US invasion starts, let them declare mission accomplished taking out Pyongyang. All the while consolidating a new North Korean state that the US has no real casus belli against, stepping in as the mediator/peace keeper.
Again, no. China walking into North Korea is a massive mistake on their part. They'd suddenly have to deal with millions of starved peasants fleeing into China.
They cannot keep the border closed and send troops over at the same time, you still have to send supplies back and forth to your own troops. Supplies which will get stolen by the starving masses. Still a humanitarian crisis which China has to deal with, and thats not something they could really deal with. Their only real option would be to seal the whole border with North Korea and shoot anything that tries to cross. Them crossing south would be disastrous even if no conflict was had with US forces. They'd be miring themselves in a bad situation for massive loss, when the better option is to accept the small loss of North Korea as a buffer state. Something which has no real purpose any more.
Sorry, you're the one arguing China "mows down" refugees, but suddenly they can't "mow down" these people because they crossed the border? Why? Magic?
Losing all of the buffer isn't a geopolitical option to the CCP. It really isn't.
Haley's blurb:
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said China must stop exporting crude to North Korea, or "we can take the oil situation into our own hands."
Meaning... what? US going to drone the NK's oil stockpile?
All its oil is on China supply?
Umm unless they plan to intercept and blockade tankers from getting to NK?
That would be dangerous. There's still a land truck route anyway.
d-usa wrote: I thought that both the early US and Soviet space programs were pretty well known to be scientific excuses for developing ICBMs?
Yes, and no.
As far as the governments were concerned, they were. Some of the scientists simply wanted to put stuff in space and developed ICBMs so their government with give them money to do it, and putting stuff in space was "testing" for the ICBMs.
So it was kinda both. Space Programs were excuses for testing ICBMs and ICBMs were excuses for having a space program. And of course the proverbial dong waving back and forth was a side bonus.
Have you seen the shape of them with big rocket boosters.
There preverbial alright lol.
Grey Templar wrote: China says they'll defend North Korea if they are defending, but I think that is a bluff. China would lose far more defending North Korea economically and militarily than they would lose simply letting North Korea fall and reunite with South Korea. A bordering democracy, which is now dealing with integrating a 3rd world country into itself, is far better than having your economy collapse because you just lost your US, and likely European, markets. Plus all that US debt they hold which would go poof and become worthless.
If it's conventional war the Chinese will probably stay out of it and offer to help contain it afterwards, but if Trump launches nukes all bets are off. The main problem with nukes is that US ICBMs heading for NK won't look any different than US ICBMs heading for China until very late in their trajectory. If China doesn't trust that those missiles aren't coming for them they will have to launch their counterstrike to be sure. And Russian territory is also pretty close...
Grey Templar wrote: China says they'll defend North Korea if they are defending, but I think that is a bluff. China would lose far more defending North Korea economically and militarily than they would lose simply letting North Korea fall and reunite with South Korea. A bordering democracy, which is now dealing with integrating a 3rd world country into itself, is far better than having your economy collapse because you just lost your US, and likely European, markets. Plus all that US debt they hold which would go poof and become worthless.
If it's conventional war the Chinese will probably stay out of it and offer to help contain it afterwards, but if Trump launches nukes all bets are off. The main problem with nukes is that US ICBMs heading for NK won't look any different than US ICBMs heading for China until very late in their trajectory. If China doesn't trust that those missiles aren't coming for them they will have to launch their counterstrike to be sure. And Russian territory is also pretty close...
This was raised earlier in the thread, presumably any nuclear strikes against North Korea would be SLBMs in which case they can launch from the west relative to Korea which means the missiles aren't heading towards China.
Grey Templar wrote: China says they'll defend North Korea if they are defending, but I think that is a bluff. China would lose far more defending North Korea economically and militarily than they would lose simply letting North Korea fall and reunite with South Korea. A bordering democracy, which is now dealing with integrating a 3rd world country into itself, is far better than having your economy collapse because you just lost your US, and likely European, markets. Plus all that US debt they hold which would go poof and become worthless.
If it's conventional war the Chinese will probably stay out of it and offer to help contain it afterwards, but if Trump launches nukes all bets are off. The main problem with nukes is that US ICBMs heading for NK won't look any different than US ICBMs heading for China until very late in their trajectory. If China doesn't trust that those missiles aren't coming for them they will have to launch their counterstrike to be sure. And Russian territory is also pretty close...
This was raised earlier in the thread, presumably any nuclear strikes against North Korea would be SLBMs in which case they can launch from the west relative to Korea which means the missiles aren't heading towards China.
Personally I think US was even considering it they may have back channels to China.
Some form of agreement or channel would be made to ensure things did not end so.
Plus Kim does not have as many freinds like his father did. He regularly visited China and Russia to ensure and cultivate alliance etc.
The new Kim has rarely left NK for even the safe ally of China.
Necros wrote: I don't know much about rockets and speeds and trajectories, but in theory, if they were to launch something at the US, isn't it big enough to see and shoot outta the sky before it does any real damage? I mean, it takes a pretty long time to fly across the pacific, wouldn't that be enough time to intercept it?
Well, 1, that's why they don't fly over the pacific ocean. It's much faster to put a missile over the pole.
2) Not at the speeds an ICBM can achieve. Pyongyang to New York in 40 min is a number I've heard. I'd actually say that's lowballing it's velocity, but who knows with these Korean missiles?
Even if the US does a launch a first strike, it would almost certainly be conventional weapons only. We'd only use nuclear weapons if North Korea did first.
I would also hope that someone around when Trump pushes the button would also call Putin and Xi so Trump could tell them what was up, just to clarify. Though given that they are always watching they'd probably guess that we'd be launching a retaliation.
"So you are probably wondering about these missiles heading to North Korea. Well as you know North Korea attacked Seoul recently with a nuclear bomb and we can't let that stand. So we're sending them some of the best nuclear weapons in the world, it's gonna be uuuge, but don't you guyz worry, they're not coming for you. We're good friends after all..."
Necros wrote: I don't know much about rockets and speeds and trajectories, but in theory, if they were to launch something at the US, isn't it big enough to see and shoot outta the sky before it does any real damage? I mean, it takes a pretty long time to fly across the pacific, wouldn't that be enough time to intercept it?
Well, 1, that's why they don't fly over the pacific ocean. It's much faster to put a missile over the pole.
2) Not at the speeds an ICBM can achieve. Pyongyang to New York in 40 min is a number I've heard. I'd actually say that's lowballing it's velocity, but who knows with these Korean missiles?
Speed probably isn't an issue with a North Korean ICBM. It's more a question of accuracy and properly calculating the course so it doesn't break up on reentry. And weather it can actually leave the launch pad in the first place and doesn't blow up half way through the journey.
And I doubt they're even dreaming of ICBMs with multiple warheads to hit a dozen targets vs just one yet. They could maybe launch a half dozen ICBMs, while we could flatten all of North Korea with only a couple.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Honestly, in this day and age, with our techonological capabilities borders don't mean a ton to US forces.
Ask the Taliban how well their borders with no US forces kept us out.
China really would have nothing to gain by intervening. Nothing at all.
Indeed. We have the capability to land our conventional forces pretty much anywhere. We don't need a land base nearby to do that, it's a nice thing to have but it's far from necessary.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Honestly, in this day and age, with our techonological capabilities borders don't mean a ton to US forces.
Ask the Taliban how well their borders with no US forces kept us out.
China really would have nothing to gain by intervening. Nothing at all.
Borders don't mean a lot for force deployment like you say. Which is why China is also modernizing its navy and trying to gain islands in the South and East China Sea for A2/AD. US troops on the border might be more 'symbolic' to the US, but it sure as hell won't be for the CCP. China has a lot to gain from intervening, but that doesn't necessarily mean that China will have to fight the US. China has already shown no qualms about invading/going to war with fellow communist/allied states in its history.
Plus, Korea's historically been a tributary state, or some variation thereof, of China for a loooooooooong time. There's prestige involved, and prestige doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cold logic. Would the US stand for a Chinese intervention in Mexico to root out the cartels and restore law and order?
pismakron wrote: The best way to handle North Korea is to ignore them.
Yup! There is no compelling reason for us to do anything about NK.
aye, he is a wild card but China can have him by the balls and cut off all his fuel and coal if he goes too far. They have power to grind NK to a utter halt.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Plus, Korea's historically been a tributary state, or some variation thereof, of China for a loooooooooong time. There's prestige involved, and prestige doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cold logic. Would the US stand for a Chinese intervention in Mexico to root out the cartels and restore law and order?
If the Tillerson removal ends up going forward and CIA Dir. Pompeo is installed as SecState. You can expect a more aggressive stance on NK. Pompeo is hawkish and aligns more with Trump's positions on NK.
If SecTreas Mnuchin and SecDef Mattis honor the rumored Tillerson-Mnuchin-Mattis suicide pact that would also remove the 2nd most pro-NK talks figure in the Trump admin, Mattis. In that case I think it's fair to expect the US policy on NK to get really aggressive.
Should wait and see if Tillerson is still in office after the New Year.
Speed probably isn't an issue with a North Korean ICBM. It's more a question of accuracy and properly calculating the course so it doesn't break up on reentry. And weather it can actually leave the launch pad in the first place and doesn't blow up half way through the journey.
And I doubt they're even dreaming of ICBMs with multiple warheads to hit a dozen targets vs just one yet. They could maybe launch a half dozen ICBMs, while we could flatten all of North Korea with only a couple.
Well.... Grey, how wrong thou art, let me count the ways...
This new missile is much, much more technically advanced than anything they've fielded so far. Rather than use low tech solutions like fins and thrusters, this system gimbels the engines themselves. That takes a lot of know how just to get off the pad. And they did it.
Given other design elements, however, this weapon is most likely for a single super heavy warhead. Which means it landing pretty much anywhere is bad, as in over 8 megatons.
Two, most US anti missile systems intercept an ICBM in the mid-flight stage. So, speed is a serious factor.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Not gonna happen. China would settle with a US ally on their border before going to war, because the alternative is simply total economic(and then political) collapse.
Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains. An economy is easy to rebuild once the war is done. Losing Korea is a problem that is much harder to rectify. Economy is not the be-all and end-all. For China, improving their economy is only a way of restoring China's lost power, influence and status in the world. But sometimes a strong economy doesn't give you the influence you need. And that is when you must flex the military muscle, even if it is bad for the economy.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus China should realize that if North Korea is eliminated, then the US would seriously scale down their forces in the region. The cold war ended a long time ago, and there is no longer any reason for direct conflict with China.
Hah. Just ask the Russians how that went. The Cold War has never truly ended, the US is never going to leave. Quite the contrary, they will take any opportunity to expand their influence.
Grey Templar wrote: China, literally, cannot go to war with the US unless they are willing to destroy themselves in the process.
Aye, war would do a lot of damage to China, so it will seek to avoid a war with the US unless absolutely necessary. But the reverse is also true. War with China would destroy the US. And that is why, thank God, war in Korea is unlikely. The US and China will talk to each other and either find a diplomatic solution agreeable to both, or the status quo will endure.
Grey Templar wrote: That type of situation would still land a massive refugee crisis on China's lap. China shouldn't want to enter North Korea under any pretense, because that would open the gates for refugees to flee into China. Not to mention their troops doing this occupying would have to deal with people in North Korea itself begging for food and such. It would be far better for them to watch North Korea burn, and mow down anybody trying to flee across the border. They don't have to directly deal with starving peasants, which they would have to do if they got into China or if China occupied a portion of North Korea.
Installing a puppet would drain China of resources and put a lot of pressure on them politically. They gain far more by being a 3rd party observer, choosing not to jeopardize their current situation and simply watch and wait. They're too dependent on western economies buying their crap to have even an indirect conflict with the US and it's friends.
Basically, China could not install a new puppet in North Korea without having massive numbers of North Koreans flee over the border. Not while there is an active war going on further south.
Not intervening in North Korea would mean US forces and US allies on the Chinese border however. I am pretty sure China would see the entire world burn before letting that happen. This is their backyard, they can not afford to be an observer here. Their security and prestige are too much dependent on it.
To put it very simply, the US and South Korea will not be able to take any action against North Korea without getting Chinese approval first (unless they want conflict with China). The situation that arises after the fall of North Korea needs to be favourable for China. As long as keeping North Korea alive is more beneficial to Chinese interests than possible alternatives, China will keep protecting North Korea. Taking action against North Korea unilaterally is very likely to mean a repeat of the Korean War.
Luckily, this also means that an actual war in Korea is very unlikely. North Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would get destroyed. South Korea doesn't want to start a war because it would suffer massive casualties and devastation. The US doesn't want to start a war because it doesn't want to get in conflict with China. No one wants to start a war, therefore no war will get started unless someone does something really stupid.
Also, China entering North Korea doesn't automatically mean that the border is open for refugees. They can keep the border closed while letting troops cross at the same time.
Not gonna happen. China would settle with a US ally on their border before going to war, because the alternative is simply total economic(and then political) collapse.
Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains. An economy is easy to rebuild once the war is done. Losing Korea is a problem that is much harder to rectify. Economy is not the be-all and end-all. For China, improving their economy is only a way of restoring China's lost power, influence and status in the world. But sometimes a strong economy doesn't give you the influence you need. And that is when you must flex the military muscle, even if it is bad for the economy.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus China should realize that if North Korea is eliminated, then the US would seriously scale down their forces in the region. The cold war ended a long time ago, and there is no longer any reason for direct conflict with China.
Hah. Just ask the Russians how that went. The Cold War has never truly ended, the US is never going to leave. Quite the contrary, they will take any opportunity to expand their influence.
Grey Templar wrote: China, literally, cannot go to war with the US unless they are willing to destroy themselves in the process.
Aye, war would do a lot of damage to China, so it will seek to avoid a war with the US unless absolutely necessary. But the reverse is also true. War with China would destroy the US. And that is why, thank God, war in Korea is unlikely. The US and China will talk to each other and either find a diplomatic solution agreeable to both, or the status quo will endure.
If it came to a nuclear or major war between super powers, and throwing NK under a Bus.
Russia and China are I'd say rather likely to leave them to there fate.
jhe90 wrote: If it came to a nuclear or major war between super powers, and throwing NK under a Bus.
Russia and China are I'd say rather likely to leave them to there fate.
Really, during the Cold War we had not one, but two alliances designed to not throw anyone under the bus. Meaning the world might have ended in nuclear fire over tiny countries like Luxembourg or Iceland. NK has great value to China, it might not be worth fighting a war with the US over if it can be avoided, but only under strict conditions that will see major or even dominant Chinese influence in determining the future of NK after an invasion, granted China does not function as the bus NK will be run over by to prevent its loss to the US. The total disappearance of NK or a future in which China doesn't have a significant say in what happens to NK is unacceptable to the CCP.
Russia though? Russia has no real interest in preserving North Korea beyond NK functioning as a thorn in the side of the US, they won't step in directly like China might.
Based on all the reading I did this weekend and the comments out of the various Trump admin officials, I believe there is definitely a war with NK coming up. I believe there is a point of no return for the US, it hasn't come yet, but will sometime in 2018. I think all the various comments you are hearing from Trump, McMaster, and so on are legit. I think they are basically slowly prepping everyone that it is coming.
I don't see it happening in winter, as mobility is going to be a major thing if there is going to be a ground war, so if anything happens, I expect summer 2018 or fall the latest. When you start hearing about various US assets quietly shifting to the pacific, I think the writing will be on the wall.
I also believe, despite comments from their unofficial news outlets, China will sit it out. It right now has far more to lose than to gain going to NK's defense. While they might be able to fill every foot of North Korea with a Chinese soldier, they will lose every asset in the South China sea and their navy will be devastated. They know this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: [Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains. An economy is easy to rebuild once the war is done.
Wrong on both accounts. Do you know what keeps Xi up at night? In his own words: "employment". China's rise into the global superpower stage is dependent on stable growth. China is still a very poor country (per capital sits under $7k). China is dependent on importing vast commodities and materials that would come to a screeching halt, and they would be unable to export most of their goods. While you would probably have recessions in both the US and China, the US doesn't produce and export nearly as much to China. This means the US would be left unable to Chinese goods, but in turn China wouldn't be able to sell. Who wins that economically every time?
And what is going to happen when you have a crazy housing bubble burst, crazy rising corporate debt default, and massive unemployment shoot up involving a country of 1.4 billion people? Social upheaval. Their government knows this.
They will huff and puff but at the end of the day, they know that NK is a thorn in stability and wont risk losing their projects like One Belt One Road or their image rushing to the defense of Kim. Way too much to lose and very little to gain. After all, if Kim does survive, the problem of NK doesn't go away. There will just be a round 2.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I still think y'all better cut down on the realist kool-aid, saving face is huge in Chinese culture.
Yes, it is.
When choosing between a massive depression and losing a former-ally-which-has-become-a-major-annoyance, I think they'll choose to let North Korea fall.
They'll save more face by letting North Korea get annhilated vs entering into a no-win war which results in all of China's economic gains get flushed down the toilet. If the economy tanks, China would be facing internal strife and likely political revolution. They're already facing political issues with their citizens tasting the benefits of Capitalism and being lured to Democracy. If China entered a massive depression that would only accelerate the transition.
KTG17 wrote: Based on all the reading I did this weekend and the comments out of the various Trump admin officials, I believe there is definitely a war with NK coming up. I believe there is a point of no return for the US, it hasn't come yet, but will sometime in 2018. I think all the various comments you are hearing from Trump, McMaster, and so on are legit. I think they are basically slowly prepping everyone that it is coming.
I don't see it happening in winter, as mobility is going to be a major thing if there is going to be a ground war, so if anything happens, I expect summer 2018 or fall the latest. When you start hearing about various US assets quietly shifting to the pacific, I think the writing will be on the wall.
I also believe, despite comments from their unofficial news outlets, China will sit it out. It right now has far more to lose than to gain going to NK's defense. While they might be able to fill every foot of North Korea with a Chinese soldier, they will lose every asset in the South China sea and their navy will be devastated. They know this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: [Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains. An economy is easy to rebuild once the war is done.
Wrong on both accounts. Do you know what keeps Xi up at night? In his own words: "employment". China's rise into the global superpower stage is dependent on stable growth. China is still a very poor country (per capital sits under $7k). China is dependent on importing vast commodities and materials that would come to a screeching halt, and they would be unable to export most of their goods. While you would probably have recessions in both the US and China, the US doesn't produce and export nearly as much to China. This means the US would be left unable to Chinese goods, but in turn China wouldn't be able to sell. Who wins that economically every time?
And what is going to happen when you have a crazy housing bubble burst, crazy rising corporate debt default, and massive unemployment shoot up involving a country of 1.4 billion people? Social upheaval. Their government knows this.
They will huff and puff but at the end of the day, they know that NK is a thorn in stability and wont risk losing their projects like One Belt One Road or their image rushing to the defense of Kim. Way too much to lose and very little to gain. After all, if Kim does survive, the problem of NK doesn't go away. There will just be a round 2.
No, you are very wrong. You don't look at it from a Communist perspective. China is a totalitarian system ruled by the Communist Party. Preservation of Communist Party rule is the most important consideration in anything for China. Everything else is secondary to that. North Korea is one of the last remaining fellow Communist states in the world. Being complicit in its destruction by the US will lead to massive shockwaves throughout the Party and the country. If the Communists don't stand up to protect one of their own, it would give the Chinese people vary bad ideas about their own system. It would simply be too much risk. Economic damage is easily repaired. Its effects on the population can be softened in a variety of ways. Ideological damage on the other hand is virtually impossible to repair, and likely to lead to the collapse of Party rule. The legitimacy of the rule of the CCP is at stake here. Therefore, while China does not want to get in a full-fledged war with the US, it will act enough to prevent the US from enacting regime change in North Korea.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I still think y'all better cut down on the realist kool-aid, saving face is huge in Chinese culture.
Yes, it is.
When choosing between a massive depression and losing a former-ally-which-has-become-a-major-annoyance, I think they'll choose to let North Korea fall.
They'll save more face by letting North Korea get annhilated vs entering into a no-win war which results in all of China's economic gains get flushed down the toilet. If the economy tanks, China would be facing internal strife and likely political revolution. They're already facing political issues with their citizens tasting the benefits of Capitalism and being lured to Democracy. If China entered a massive depression that would only accelerate the transition.
China is already in a bit of an ideological crisis, yes. Letting one of the last remaining Communist states fall would be the final nail in the coffin of the CCP's legitimacy. Communism would be done for, and that would mean the end of Party rule. Compared to that, any other option would be the better one. If the economy tanks, China might face protesting people. But protesting people are easily done away with in a system like China. But if the Party loses its ideological legitimacy, then the Party will be torn apart from the inside, and revolution isn't just likely, it will be a certainty.
And this goes before mentioning the fact that China is obligated by treaty to respond in case North Korea is attacked by a foreign aggressor and has repeatedly stated its commitment to defend North Korea in case it is attacked. They simply can't risk losing all of their credibility.
Grey Templar wrote: They're already facing political issues with their citizens tasting the benefits of Capitalism and being lured to Democracy. If China entered a massive depression that would only accelerate the transition.
China has major social issues that will be problematic for some time to come. Due to the One-Child policy, you have a huge shortage of women, and the eldarly dependent on a single child's income for support, who typically live in the cities where the cost of living is high. So high a lot of children are being raised by grandparents, which is actually hurting their education system. And even though the Chinese have looked like Communist drones the last few decades to western eyes, they are actually a fractured people. It doesn't take much to get them fighting between themselves, which is why in all of its history, China has never been good at expanding its borders.
Because of typical communist rule eventually collapsing, and the fact the government is always lying about economic numbers (when do they ever NOT come in exactly as expected?), when the chips begin to fall, I believe the whole thing will collapse like a deck of cards. And the wealthy Chinese fear it. They have been scrambling to get their money out of the country for the last few years, much at the anger of their government. And unlike democracies, where frustration can result in voting a new president, party, or parliament into power, in a communist country there is no opposition, so the only thing left do to is violently overthrow the only thing that the people can blame. This is why economic growth and stability is so important, its the life-line to the communist party. And when they are overthrown, they will more than likely be arrested, which is why Tiananmen Square really happened: it was the fear of eventual arrest that motivated the powers that be to crush the protests before they go out of control.
So even today, with tight internet controls, government controlled news, etc etc, in GOOD economic times, goes to show how much they fear their own population. Its one thing to disrupt a decentralized rural economy, but now that something like half of the world's largest cities are in China, disrupting a centralized urban economy will devastate them.
No, you are very wrong. You don't look at it from a Communist perspective. China is a totalitarian system ruled by the Communist Party. Preservation of Communist Party rule is the most important consideration in anything for China. Everything else is secondary to that. North Korea is one of the last remaining fellow Communist states in the world. Being complicit in its destruction by the US will lead to massive shockwaves throughout the Party and the country. If the Communists don't stand up to protect one of their own, it would give the Chinese people vary bad ideas about their own system. It would simply be too much risk. Economic damage is easily repaired. Its effects on the population can be softened in a variety of ways. Ideological damage on the other hand is virtually impossible to repair, and likely to lead to the collapse of Party rule. The legitimacy of the rule of the CCP is at stake here. Therefore, while China does not want to get in a full-fledged war with the US, it will act enough to prevent the US from enacting regime change in North Korea.
I don't know if you are caught up on current events, but the rise of China's economic power didn't come from their communist system, it came from introducing western capitalist reforms (I am sure Mao has long since rolled over in his grave). Everyone knows that. You can't even call China a pure communist country anymore. Its just the way the government is organized and managed. NK is hardly communist either. As a matter of fact, the idiots call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are neither democratic nor a republic. There is no fellow communist state to rescue. Its one totalitarian regime faced with bailing out another. Besides, Vietnam is communist and the Chinese have no love for them, so that argument doesn't hold there either. It has everything to do with the Chinese NOT wanting a unified Korea that would be dominated by the US. That's all its about and why Mao sent troops into Korea to begin with. But Mao had little to lose back then, and China has a lot to lose today.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I still think y'all better cut down on the realist kool-aid, saving face is huge in Chinese culture.
Yes, it is.
When choosing between a massive depression and losing a former-ally-which-has-become-a-major-annoyance, I think they'll choose to let North Korea fall.
They'll save more face by letting North Korea get annhilated vs entering into a no-win war which results in all of China's economic gains get flushed down the toilet. If the economy tanks, China would be facing internal strife and likely political revolution. They're already facing political issues with their citizens tasting the benefits of Capitalism and being lured to Democracy. If China entered a massive depression that would only accelerate the transition.
China is already in a bit of an ideological crisis, yes. Letting one of the last remaining Communist states fall would be the final nail in the coffin of the CCP's legitimacy. Communism would be done for, and that would mean the end of Party rule. Compared to that, any other option would be the better one. If the economy tanks, China might face protesting people. But protesting people are easily done away with in a system like China. But if the Party loses its ideological legitimacy, then the Party will be torn apart from the inside, and revolution isn't just likely, it will be a certainty.
And this goes before mentioning the fact that China is obligated by treaty to respond in case North Korea is attacked by a foreign aggressor and has repeatedly stated its commitment to defend North Korea in case it is attacked. They simply can't risk losing all of their credibility.
And they'd fall even faster if they actually followed through with their treaty with North Korea. China will never risk a war over North Korea again, they simply cannot afford the inevitable loss to their economy. They may be prideful and have some cultural aversion to losing face, but Realpolitik would show that they wouldn't really lose much face over breaking their word with North Korea. They surely realize that they'd lose more face, and economic and political power, by upholding the treaty then simply disregarding it.
The Treaty made sense and might have had meaning back in the 60s and 70s, but that isn't the case today.
China cannot afford any economic upset, because if they have a major collapse their entire power structure will go with it.
Think of it this way, you have to decide between two countries to support. One exports bananas, the other exports oil. Who are you going to put before the other?
At the end of the day, its about money. When China was a simple farming country starving itself, well then it didn't have much to lose. But now they have hit some big money and everything their new society depends on involves keeping the flow of money going. North Korea cannot make up for the loss of revenue that China would lose going to war, and therefore the Chinese will eventually abandon them.
And who knows, maybe it will mean the US has to withdraw THADD batteries, or not deploy above a certain point once the war is over, I don't know. But concessions will be made I am sure.
Economic damage is more easily fixed than having US troops on the border. While China might have a plan on directly avoiding hostilities NK is still incredibly important. The economic argument is much much too generous in ignoring the incredibly important Realist and nationalistic perspective of the Chinese state. The CCP couldn't care less about communist NK (as their history shows they only intervened when NK would dissapear entirely, plus wars with Vietnam and the SU). Its also underestimating how easily the domestic population is riled up over nationalistic issues to avoid focus on domestic ones.
It has nothing to do with losing face in the end (although a factor), it has everything to do with the inconceivable notion of US troops on the border which China is desperate to avoid. Their actions in the South China Sea are already ignoring international law and risking a clash with the US. Those are tiny islands, NK is a massive land border and possible client state. There would have to be massive concessions about the future of NK.
Gonna jump in on this conversation, I think one thing y'all are also missing is credibility. What credibility do the Chinese have left if they don't honor their treaties? What country will ever take them seriously? That's irreparable damage done to the Chinese image.
On the other hand, yes, economic damage would be severe, but to pretty much every nation in the world, including China. The US would fall into a recession, so would China. The effects would be bad pretty much everywhere.
Another thing to note is that a war would not be that easily won against China without going nuclear. The US does have the advantage of technology and quality, but the Chinese army is still the world's largest standing army. There are a ton of numbers there which at the minimum will make for a very very bloody conflict with the US. The question is how localized could such a conflict be, and given current leadership, it probably would escalate pretty quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Still chugging that realist kool-aid. The same arugments of economy were made prior to WWI, and see where that ended up.
Absolutely. Before World War 1, there were a ton of economic interdependencies as well which fell apart really quickly.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Still chugging that realist kool-aid. The same arugments of economy were made prior to WWI, and see where that ended up.
To add from a Realist with a big R perspective letting the US just have NK makes very little sense. Everything the CCP is currently doing is aimed at closing the relative power gap between itself and the US. Trade deals and international diplomacy suffer from Chinese assertiveness, but China knows that as the second economy in the world it can't be easily ignored (even after a potential war). Why China suffers a loss to its soft power is because of a very Realist based approach. The South China Sea actions grant China the ability to increase its power at the expense of that of the US and its allies, showing US inability to enforce international law and applying pressure to negotiate with China directly instead of through a united front such as ASEAN or the US. Very much a hard power approach. Now all that activity in the South China Sea is aimed at keeping US troops as far away from the Chinese mainland in the future, so why would it make sense to just let the US gain a land border to put its troops on the Yalu River? That's the disconnect between the economic and influence/power argument, it doesn't give credit to the very Realist direction of foreign policy under the Xi presidency. Xi is much more hawkish than his predecessor.
Grey Templar wrote: They're already facing political issues with their citizens tasting the benefits of Capitalism and being lured to Democracy. If China entered a massive depression that would only accelerate the transition.
China has major social issues that will be problematic for some time to come. Due to the One-Child policy, you have a huge shortage of women, and the eldarly dependent on a single child's income for support, who typically live in the cities where the cost of living is high. So high a lot of children are being raised by grandparents, which is actually hurting their education system. And even though the Chinese have looked like Communist drones the last few decades to western eyes, they are actually a fractured people. It doesn't take much to get them fighting between themselves, which is why in all of its history, China has never been good at expanding its borders.
Because of typical communist rule eventually collapsing, and the fact the government is always lying about economic numbers (when do they ever NOT come in exactly as expected?), when the chips begin to fall, I believe the whole thing will collapse like a deck of cards. And the wealthy Chinese fear it. They have been scrambling to get their money out of the country for the last few years, much at the anger of their government. And unlike democracies, where frustration can result in voting a new president, party, or parliament into power, in a communist country there is no opposition, so the only thing left do to is violently overthrow the only thing that the people can blame. This is why economic growth and stability is so important, its the life-line to the communist party. And when they are overthrown, they will more than likely be arrested, which is why Tiananmen Square really happened: it was the fear of eventual arrest that motivated the powers that be to crush the protests before they go out of control.
So even today, with tight internet controls, government controlled news, etc etc, in GOOD economic times, goes to show how much they fear their own population. Its one thing to disrupt a decentralized rural economy, but now that something like half of the world's largest cities are in China, disrupting a centralized urban economy will devastate them.
Revolutions and overthrowings only happen when the army is on the side of the revolution or when it does nothing. The PLA however is controlled very tightly by the CCP. There will never be a successful revolution in China unless the CCP falls apart first, and then it will just be elements of the CCP elite vs other elements of the CCP elite. The people are pretty much a non-factor in totalitarian systems. They have no power, and if they get unruly you can deal with them in the same way as China has always dealt with them (see the Tianmen Square protests). Power comes from the barrel of a gun, as Mao Zedong once said. And the guns are in the hands of the CCP. And that is why ideological stability is more important than economical stability. Economic adversity doesn't directly affect the CCP's hold on power. An ideological crisis on the other hand? Not honouring treaties? Being submissive to the US? That will lead to internal bickering, dissent within the Party and ultimately maybe even the CCP falling apart. Much more dangerous than even a total economic collapse.
No, you are very wrong. You don't look at it from a Communist perspective. China is a totalitarian system ruled by the Communist Party. Preservation of Communist Party rule is the most important consideration in anything for China. Everything else is secondary to that. North Korea is one of the last remaining fellow Communist states in the world. Being complicit in its destruction by the US will lead to massive shockwaves throughout the Party and the country. If the Communists don't stand up to protect one of their own, it would give the Chinese people vary bad ideas about their own system. It would simply be too much risk. Economic damage is easily repaired. Its effects on the population can be softened in a variety of ways. Ideological damage on the other hand is virtually impossible to repair, and likely to lead to the collapse of Party rule. The legitimacy of the rule of the CCP is at stake here. Therefore, while China does not want to get in a full-fledged war with the US, it will act enough to prevent the US from enacting regime change in North Korea.
I don't know if you are caught up on current events, but the rise of China's economic power didn't come from their communist system, it came from introducing western capitalist reforms (I am sure Mao has long since rolled over in his grave). Everyone knows that. You can't even call China a pure communist country anymore. Its just the way the government is organized and managed. NK is hardly communist either. As a matter of fact, the idiots call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are neither democratic nor a republic. There is no fellow communist state to rescue. Its one totalitarian regime faced with bailing out another. Besides, Vietnam is communist and the Chinese have no love for them, so that argument doesn't hold there either. It has everything to do with the Chinese NOT wanting a unified Korea that would be dominated by the US. That's all its about and why Mao sent troops into Korea to begin with. But Mao had little to lose back then, and China has a lot to lose today.
The fact that China has adopted some modified Capitalist practices doesn't mean it suddenly isn't Communist anymore. China is still ruled by the iron hand of the Communist Party, and the Communist Party is still loyal to the ideals and goals of its founder, Mao Zedong. Within the CCP, the limited introduction of Capitalist practices is only seen as a step on the road to Communism, necessitated by having to survive in a Capitalist world. You can paste labels all you want, but China and North Korea still see themselves very much as Communist and present themselves as such to their people and to the outside world. They are very much still Communist, even if their variants of Communism have changed from the variants of Communism they practiced 50 years ago.
There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
KTG17 wrote: Think of it this way, you have to decide between two countries to support. One exports bananas, the other exports oil. Who are you going to put before the other?
Depends on what *your* country needs. If you're a petroleum exporter yourself, you support the bananas, who are presumably not competing with you.
I'll toss one thing out there, all this talk of war with NK seems to hinge on Trump still being in office next year. ATM it's starting to look like he's going to face the same charges as Tricky Dick Nixon.
KTG17 wrote: Think of it this way, you have to decide between two countries to support. One exports bananas, the other exports oil. Who are you going to put before the other?
Depends on what *your* country needs. If you're a petroleum exporter yourself, you support the bananas, who are presumably not competing with you.
I'll toss one thing out there, all this talk of war with NK seems to hinge on Trump still being in office next year. ATM it's starting to look like he's going to face the same charges as Tricky Dick Nixon.
Pfffffffffffft, the left and the media have been trying to impeach him since before he was even nominated. I don't buy into that garbage at all. And in the event it DOES happen, how do you think President Pence will handle things?
I don't know how China will fit into all of this, I just know that I don't have a Southeast Asia campaign ribbon... yet.
Iron_Captain wrote: Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains.
What's amazing is I am certain Iron_Captain writes stuff like that while having no idea what share of Chinese production is exported to the US. More than 4% of Chinese production is exported to the US.
If anyone doesn't quite get the impact of losing 4% from GDP, the impact of the GFC on the US was 2.7%. So the impact on China of losing that trade to the US would be 150% of the GFC, and that's before we considered the multiplier and how that 4% drives consumption and investment internally in China, so in total we're probably talking an impact on China that's going to be 3 times the GFC.
It simply absurd to try and talk down the damage to China from losing trade with the US.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
Besides the Chinese islands in the South China Sea have little inherent value currently as its a project for the future. Temporarily losing them is not a big deal, as China could be back weeks after a conflict. Unless.the US is going to occupy every rock and sandbank in the area.
Both the Islands amd NK are buffers to China against the US. What good is staying out of the war to save one buffer if you lose another? Its hard to see what Xi will do if it comes to war and he is given zero assurances.
Iron_Captain wrote: Unlikely. China's economy is more than robust enough. It is not entirely reliant on the US. It will hurt their economy a lot, but they will likely take short-term economic losses for long-term geopolitical gains.
What's amazing is I am certain Iron_Captain writes stuff like that while having no idea what share of Chinese production is exported to the US. More than 4% of Chinese production is exported to the US.
If anyone doesn't quite get the impact of losing 4% from GDP, the impact of the GFC on the US was 2.7%. So the impact on China of losing that trade to the US would be 150% of the GFC, and that's before we considered the multiplier and how that 4% drives consumption and investment internally in China, so in total we're probably talking an impact on China that's going to be 3 times the GFC.
It simply absurd to try and talk down the damage to China from losing trade with the US.
And in reverse US economy would suffer catastrophically from losing trade with China. It's economic MAD. And it's not like China doesn't have nukes of their own to use against US.
tneva82 wrote: And in reverse US economy would suffer catastrophically from losing trade with China. It's economic MAD. And it's not like China doesn't have nukes of their own to use against US.
Absolutely, economic MAD is a good way of putting it. I wasn't suggesting that the economic impact was purely to China, not by a long shot. I was just saying the argument that China wouldn't be affected was quite silly. Outside of that limited focus, yeah the US would also be screwed. In fact lots of other countries would also be screwed. Hell, here in Australia we'd suddenly find ourselves stuck in an awkward place between our #1 trading partner, and our #2 trading partner who is also our #1 alliance partner. Japan would also be screwed.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
Past decade or two of war on terror and more.
US and Nato forces are heavily battle hardened in senior ranks and has extensive recent combat experience with a strong pool of veteran reserves.
China has nothing like the recent combat experience.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you. The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again. The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.
And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.
There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.
China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.
And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.
There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.
China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.
The comparison to Iraq is not that great. Iraq was a different magnitude than China. What the real problem with a war with China in NK is is where the US draws the line. Will they do another round of 1950 and just focus on the war in the Korean peninsula? Or will they attack China proper? All the gear the US posseses is great, but only if they can actually finish the war. What if it ends up like the Vietnam War, with China as a secure base? Does the US risk the incredible economic/political/potential nuclear consequences of going after Chinese territory? The problem with China is that their country is politically better suited to long term and costly conflict, they just need to not lose. Any occupation attempt is doomed to fail, China is so vast that the CCP might never choose to capitulate. Not an unreasonable guess as the CCP has build an image of never bowing to foreign powers like the weak dynasties that sold out China.
KTG17 wrote: There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.
In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.
KTG17 wrote: Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.
China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me
KTG17 wrote: Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.
The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.
Some nice revisionist history there.
Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.
Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.
They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.
And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.
There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.
China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.
I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.
The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.
Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.
Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.
Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.
First of all, read a book on the Vietnam war. I hate hear the ignorance behind saying the US lost that war. The whole point of us fighting in that war was to stop the North from taking over the South, and while WE WERE THERE, they did not. It wasn't until AFTER the US left, did the North re-invade the South and took it over. The North Vietnamese DID NOT defeat the US military.
We are not questioning China's abilities in certain areas. They can field far more troops than the US can, and invading the Chinese mainland would be foolish. But in a narrow area like Korea it would be a big enough bloody affair to give them a black eye, their economy would be devastated, they would face social upheaval at home, and lose everything in the South China Sea and everything they are building to support their Maritime Silk Road.
KTG17 wrote: The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.
Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.
Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.
Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.
Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.
You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.
China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?
On Vietnam, the US neither won nor lost that war strictly from a military point. A war with China is going to end up the same way, you can't invade them just like North Vietnam due to Chinese escalation. The US risks massive damage too, with no guarentee that the CCP would lose power. Its a lose lose for the US either way, same as China if they go full out in Korea.
KTG17 wrote: The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.
Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.
Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.
Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.
Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.
You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.
China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?
In the event of China entering the conflict regarding Korea, we'd have to take pains to not hit the mainland, unless militarily necessary. We don't need to do that to hurt them though. Their naval might will not be enough to meet us on open water, so they'll be penned up, just like the German's were, against the British. We can effect a crippling blockade. Marine and Airborne strikes on their remote islands, hitting their base in Africa, and taking any major economic holdings they have in other parts of the world would be a huge blow to their prestige, where they'd be utterly incapable of retaliating. Conflict on the Korea front, N. Korea will be spent by the time China mobilizes enough forces to push in. That would be about the same exact time that the entire US military will be mobilized, and our much greater logistical capability will be putting several brigades on the ground per day, while we'd quickly establish air dominance over China's significantly older Air Force. In the end, it would be economics that sealed the deal, as others have repeatedly said. Shutting down the sea lanes will utterly cripple China within a matter of weeks. They just don't have the self-sustaining economy that they had in the 19th century and earlier that made them such a tough nut to crack.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.
You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.
China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?
Those islands, which they are trying to claim to keep the US away, will be no more of a defense right now than any of the island the Japanese had during WWII. China does not have a system in place yet for them to properly support each other. Those islands will be lost in a war today one by one, especially after the Chinese navy is lost. So then what?
The Chinese are very patient. They worship Sun Tzu. And I highly doubt Sun Tzu is going to advise getting into a fight with a more powerful opponent when you have more to lose.
I am not denying that they wont want US troops in Northern Korea, but if they see that the US is bent on removing Kim, and I think we are heading that way, then they will step aside for certain assurances. After all, if they said, "We'll defend Kim if the US attacks first, but he is on their own if he attacks them first," then they have already accepted a situation that would have US troops in North Korea. So for me, there is obviously some wiggle room, and once everyone see's the US is going on with it, then there will probably be some behind-door agreements.
I am trying to look at this as objectively and rationally as possible. I just think the Chinese have way too much to lose. Losing face over Korea is one thing. Having their military knocked back into the 1930s is going to be a much greater loss of face.
KTG17 wrote: The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.
Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.
Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.
Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.
Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.
You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.
China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?
In the event of China entering the conflict regarding Korea, we'd have to take pains to not hit the mainland, unless militarily necessary. We don't need to do that to hurt them though. Their naval might will not be enough to meet us on open water, so they'll be penned up, just like the German's were, against the British. We can effect a crippling blockade. Marine and Airborne strikes on their remote islands, hitting their base in Africa, and taking any major economic holdings they have in other parts of the world would be a huge blow to their prestige, where they'd be utterly incapable of retaliating. Conflict on the Korea front, N. Korea will be spent by the time China mobilizes enough forces to push in. That would be about the same exact time that the entire US military will be mobilized, and our much greater logistical capability will be putting several brigades on the ground per day, while we'd quickly establish air dominance over China's significantly older Air Force. In the end, it would be economics that sealed the deal, as others have repeatedly said. Shutting down the sea lanes will utterly cripple China within a matter of weeks. They just don't have the self-sustaining economy that they had in the 19th century and earlier that made them such a tough nut to crack.
In the end economics go both ways with no clear assurance that any other country will observe a blockade. Plus the CCP is tenacious. Its not going to be easy to crack them regardless. Politics and economics will be decisive, the military can only do so much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.
You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.
China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?
Those islands, which they are trying to claim to keep the US away, will be no more of a defense right now than any of the island the Japanese had during WWII. China does not have a system in place yet for them to properly support each other. Those islands will be lost in a war today one by one, especially after the Chinese navy is lost. So then what?
The Chinese are very patient. They worship Sun Tzu. And I highly doubt Sun Tzu is going to advise getting into a fight with a more powerful opponent when you have more to lose.
I am not denying that they wont want US troops in Northern Korea, but if they see that the US is bent on removing Kim, and I think we are heading that way, then they will step aside for certain assurances. After all, if they said, "We'll defend Kim if the US attacks first, but he is on their own if he attacks them first," then they have already accepted a situation that would have US troops in North Korea. So for me, there is obviously some wiggle room, and once everyone see's the US is going on with it, then there will probably be some behind-door agreements.
I am trying to look at this as objectively and rationally as possible. I just think the Chinese have way too much to lose. Losing face over Korea is one thing. Having their military knocked back into the 1930s is going to be a much greater loss of face.
They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.
My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?
Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.
My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?
Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.
Lets look at a possible situation where China gets involved:
1) US declares ultimatum. NK gives the middle finger.
2) US mobilizes. NK mobilizes. China warns the US.
3) US declares last and final ultimatum. NK says go stuff yourselves. China warns US.
4) US bombing starts. And I assume the South Korea army mobilizes too. Fighting all along the border, but NK buckles pretty quickly.
5) China responds - whether it be sending ground troops to North Korea, or attacking bases, ships, or troops with aircraft, maybe even with their navy too.
What do you think the reaction of the American people is going to be? Its going to be pretty much in line with how it felt about the Japanese. Now everything Chinese becomes a target. Hitting the mainland short of the North Korean border (like bases, staging areas, etc) is possible, but do you think the US is going to leave those islands and their navy intact? No, the US Navy is going to hunt down every Chinese ship and sink it. Marines will capture the islands, and the US Air Force will control the air space in the South and East China seas. There will be very little fighting in the Chinese mainland, but now there will be no shipping in or out of the South China sea, and China will have to rely on land routes. The US will sanction China, and China will be unable to process any transactions in US dollars. Their stock market will crash. Debt (already at scary levels) will explode, the Yuan will devalue as they CCP prints helicopter money, inflation goes crazy while housing busts, and so on and so on. Any company doing any business like manufacturing will have to move operations elsewhere, which will cause all sorts of unemployment. When a ceasefire is called, the US will be in possession of anything they captured, like those islands. Do you think the US is just going to give them back? No, they will use them as the US uses Okinawa and other former captured territories, for awhile at least. And yes, at some point the Chinese can try to take them back, but then what? To start the whole thing all over again?
Someone mentioned China's aircraft carrier(s), which are really not that impressive. They don't even know how to use them yet. But they are important symbols to the Chinese image. While we care about our aircraft carriers, we care more about the sailors on them. China isn't as concerned with the rank and file. The loss of those carriers, the islands, and so on, will be a big hit on their growing prestige. And for what? To keep Kim in power?
I don't see the Chinese really taking the US on until they are ready militarily to occupy Taiwan, and they are nowhere near ready for that. Everything they are building now is to allow them to do that one day, and to lose all this work over NK is just foolish to me.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.
My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?
Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.
Lets look at a possible situation where China gets involved:
1) US declares ultimatum. NK gives the middle finger.
2) US mobilizes. NK mobilizes. China warns the US.
3) US declares last and final ultimatum. NK says go stuff yourselves. China warns US.
4) US bombing starts. And I assume the South Korea army mobilizes too. Fighting all along the border, but NK buckles pretty quickly.
5) China responds - whether it be sending ground troops to North Korea, or attacking bases, ships, or troops with aircraft, maybe even with their navy too.
What do you think the reaction of the American people is going to be? Its going to be pretty much in line with how it felt about the Japanese. Now everything Chinese becomes a target. Hitting the mainland short of the North Korean border (like bases, staging areas, etc) is possible, but do you think the US is going to leave those islands and their navy intact? No, the US Navy is going to hunt down every Chinese ship and sink it. Marines will capture the islands, and the US Air Force will control the air space in the South and East China seas. There will be very little fighting in the Chinese mainland, but now there will be no shipping in or out of the South China sea, and China will have to rely on land routes. The US will sanction China, and China will be unable to process any transactions in US dollars. Their stock market will crash. Debt (already at scary levels) will explode, the Yuan will devalue as they CCP prints helicopter money, inflation goes crazy while housing busts, and so on and so on. Any company doing any business like manufacturing will have to move operations elsewhere, which will cause all sorts of unemployment. When a ceasefire is called, the US will be in possession of anything they captured, like those islands. Do you think the US is just going to give them back? No, they will use them as the US uses Okinawa and other former captured territories, for awhile at least. And yes, at some point the Chinese can try to take them back, but then what? To start the whole thing all over again?
Someone mentioned China's aircraft carrier(s), which are really not that impressive. They don't even know how to use them yet. But they are important symbols to the Chinese image. While we care about our aircraft carriers, we care more about the sailors on them. China isn't as concerned with the rank and file. The loss of those carriers, the islands, and so on, will be a big hit on their growing prestige. And for what? To keep Kim in power?
I don't see the Chinese really taking the US on until they are ready militarily to occupy Taiwan, and they are nowhere near ready for that. Everything they are building now is to allow them to do that one day, and to lose all this work over NK is just foolish to me.
My guess for step 5, China invades NK too to preserve a buffer.
The exact same happened in 1950, the US didn't go after China. Nothing like the war with Japan. China will try to keep escalation low. As for navy and islamds? More where those came from, most of its outdated or easily replaced anyway. The assets at the periphery aren't that valuable. Its unlikely the PLAN will even leave its mainland ports where it has air defences, no reason to sail out. As for shipping? There could still very well be. The US has no real right to stop neutral ships, if it does that will be very damaging politically. The China US sanction way goes both ways. Both countries will suffer immensly with no assurance that other countries will back US sanctions. Its not going to be a cakewalk for the US.
As for those islands? Keep them, China can and will build more. No need to take them. In the future when the PLAN is modernized they will be far too exposed for the US to hold anyway. Sinking US carriers is also a significant blow to US prestige. The Chinese cpuld more easily brush off a few tiny islands and the loss of a practice carrier. Which one is riskier for prestige?
Its not about Kim to China, its about NK. You could knock off Kim any day as log as the Chinese keep NK. Any deal will likely involve the removal of Kim amd nuclear weapons but an independent NK. There are many ways to avoid direct conflict, so I think its unlikely. China just helping invade if the US is set on invading or sneak occupying from the back seems more likely
Iron_Captain wrote: I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.
First of all, read a book on the Vietnam war. I hate hear the ignorance behind saying the US lost that war. The whole point of us fighting in that war was to stop the North from taking over the South, and while WE WERE THERE, they did not. It wasn't until AFTER the US left, did the North re-invade the South and took it over. The North Vietnamese DID NOT defeat the US military.
We are not questioning China's abilities in certain areas. They can field far more troops than the US can, and invading the Chinese mainland would be foolish. But in a narrow area like Korea it would be a big enough bloody affair to give them a black eye, their economy would be devastated, they would face social upheaval at home, and lose everything in the South China Sea and everything they are building to support their Maritime Silk Road.
Yes, and the Soviets did never lose the war in Afghanistan .
The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.
And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.
tneva82 wrote: And in reverse US economy would suffer catastrophically from losing trade with China. It's economic MAD. And it's not like China doesn't have nukes of their own to use against US.
Absolutely, economic MAD is a good way of putting it. I wasn't suggesting that the economic impact was purely to China, not by a long shot. I was just saying the argument that China wouldn't be affected was quite silly. Outside of that limited focus, yeah the US would also be screwed. In fact lots of other countries would also be screwed. Hell, here in Australia we'd suddenly find ourselves stuck in an awkward place between our #1 trading partner, and our #2 trading partner who is also our #1 alliance partner. Japan would also be screwed.
Everyone would be screwed, basically.
Indeed.
Which is why I think that in the event of a US invasion of North Korea that China would stand by and do nothing. It's a no-win situation for them to enter a conflict they would lose, even if it would hurt their enemy a lot too.
They'd be far better off just sitting idle and keeping peaceful relations with the US. Xi isn't stupid, he knows what the consequences would be and I think would choose the logical path of staying out of the conflict. At least directly.
They'll send troops to the border to keep the refugees from streaming into China, under pretense of making sure the US doesn't just keep going once they get to the border. They'll force their way into talks regarding the rebuilding of Korea and try to get some concessions, and likely will get a lot of them.
So, if there were to be a war with NK and china getting involved even in a small part, what would happen to the gaming industry? Seems like almost much every modern board game with a few exceptions is produced in China and then shipped out on big boats. What would it to do companies like CMON or Fantasy Flight, or even GW?
Necros wrote: So, if there were to be a war with NK and china getting involved even in a small part, what would happen to the gaming industry? Seems like almost much every modern board game with a few exceptions is produced in China and then shipped out on big boats. What would it to do companies like CMON or Fantasy Flight, or even GW?
That really depends on how the war goes. Theoretically neutral countries and ships should still be able to trade with China if its just a Korean affair with the two involved. Practically it depends on all the logistics being kept in place and no interdiction occuring. It could be a massive problem for the companies involved depending on how easy it is to set up shop elsewhere. The smaller the business the more it would suffer I assume. GW might have enough resources to take the hit and start elsewhere.
Iron_Captain wrote: The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.
And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.
How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?
Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.
Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.
The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.
BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.
Pfffffffffffft, the left and the media have been trying to impeach him since before he was even nominated. I don't buy into that garbage at all. And in the event it DOES happen, how do you think President Pence will handle things?
There's a difference between media squawking and his own cabinet members turning stoolie on him to special prosecutors. And, while the leftist news doesn't cover this much, as it does not fit their agenda, there are conservative groups who would toast marshmallows as Trump burned as well.
I don't know how China will fit into all of this, I just know that I don't have a Southeast Asia campaign ribbon... yet.
Well, first of all, you wouldn't get one then, either. Southeast Asia is, well, south of the proposed area of operations. It goes about as far north as Burma.
I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.
What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.
Iron_Captain wrote: The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.
And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.
How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?
Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.
Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.
The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.
BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.
Yes. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan by simply conscripting a few million men and sending them into the mountains to murder the feth out of every Afghani. The US could have won the Vietnam war if it had nuked Hanoi and sent a few extra million soldiers. They could have. But they didn't. And so they lost. The Soviet Union or the US never fully committed to those wars, true. They were not a total war like the Great Patriotic War was. And neither was the previous Korean War. And neither will be the next. That would ridiculous. A total war is incredibly disruptive to a country. You only commit to fight a total war when there is an existential threat, when your territory is being invaded. You don't fight total wars simply because you want to remove some regime you don't like in a far-away country.
Also, even after Truman slashed the military budget, the US military budget at the time of the Korean War was still higher than it is today (in relative terms of course):
Spoiler:
And just in case you are wondering, China's military budget at that time was an insignificant fraction of the US's budget. Money and material only get you so far in a war.
I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.
What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.
Definitely. But China isn't stupid. They do not want war. They won't attack the US first and they will not attack US territory. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear. They will only strike if the US strikes them or North Korea first. A strike on North Korea is a strike on China. China is bound by treaty to defend North Korea. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear as well.
Iron_Captain wrote: The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.
And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.
How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?
Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.
Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.
The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.
BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.
Yes. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan by simply conscripting a few million men and sending them into the mountains to murder the feth out of every Afghani. The US could have won the Vietnam war if it had nuked Hanoi and sent a few extra million soldiers. They could have. But they didn't. And so they lost. The Soviet Union or the US never fully committed to those wars, true. They were not a total war like the Great Patriotic War was. And neither was the previous Korean War. And neither will be the next. That would ridiculous. A total war is incredibly disruptive to a country. You only commit to fight a total war when there is an existential threat, when your territory is being invaded. You don't fight total wars simply because you want to remove some regime you don't like in a far-away country.
Also, even after Truman slashed the military budget, the US military budget at the time of the Korean War was still higher than it is today (in relative terms of course):
Spoiler:
And just in case you are wondering, China's military budget at that time was an insignificant fraction of the US's budget. Money and material only get you so far in a war.
I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.
What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.
Definitely. But China isn't stupid. They do not want war. They won't attack the US first and they will not attack US territory. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear. They will only strike if the US strikes them or North Korea first. A strike on North Korea is a strike on China. China is bound by treaty to defend North Korea. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear as well.
Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.
I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.
What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.
Not in the MAGA era. One side will blame the other, parasitic politicians will claim that it's all the other guys fault, and at least one side will turn Vichy. I mean, seriously, you have Der Fuehrer, President Treason in the White House
Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.
Aye, the Chinese have made their position perfectly clear. If North Korea attacks anyone and starts a war, they are on their own and the US can do whatever it wants to them. But if the US or anyone else attacks North Korea first, then China will get a bit angry. It is a smart move from the Chinese, aimed to ensure that there will be no war. North Korea won't dare to attack or start a war without Chinese back-up, and South Korea and the US don't want to attack North Korea or start a war if it gets them in trouble with China. Ergo no war, yay!
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.
Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.
Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.
So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.
Which is why I think that in the event of a US invasion of North Korea that China would stand by and do nothing. It's a no-win situation for them to enter a conflict they would lose, even if it would hurt their enemy a lot too.
They'd be far better off just sitting idle and keeping peaceful relations with the US. Xi isn't stupid, he knows what the consequences would be and I think would choose the logical path of staying out of the conflict. At least directly.
They'll send troops to the border to keep the refugees from streaming into China, under pretense of making sure the US doesn't just keep going once they get to the border. They'll force their way into talks regarding the rebuilding of Korea and try to get some concessions, and likely will get a lot of them.
I agree the odds of China and the US fighting each other over NK would be close to zero. The loss of trade and the cost of fighting China next to their border would be too great for the US to start a war with NK. And if NK attacked and the US had to respond, then the cost to China of fighting the US would be far too great for them to fight.
That said, if the US did fight NK China won't do nothing. Simply because its on their border, they need to have a significant say in what happens there. Imagine if China invaded Mexico- the US would have no choice but to get involved, to make sure the outcome was acceptable to their own border security.
So China would at the very least be placing peacekeeping troops in NK. And it would be done with some extremely tense negotiations with the US, hopefully with a deal in principal completed before US troops actually landed on NK soil.
Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.
And, to be honest, there's another way to win besides asymmetrical war. It's the same way the US and Russia won WW2 against Germany and Japan. Be able to shrug off losses of men and material. Something that the entire history of land war in Asia says China excels at this. For all the things that modern armies can do, they not built for sustained warfare. Effectively it's 'win right now or lose entirely'. China can just pile up bodies until a 'modern' army exhausts itself.
There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out.
A little disingenuous there because saying that Iraq outnumbered the US is the same as China outnumbering the US is suggesting that the difference between the Earth and moon in mass is the same as the difference between Jupiter and Earth. It's the scale of the difference. and frankly, you stole the majority of your strategies from Germany, a country that was defeated. So do not presume that because the US military can walk over tinhorn dictators, it can walk over anyone.
BaronIveagh wrote: A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.
Chosin was at the back end of 1950, the war concluded in 1953. That's like arguing Germany won WWII because they had a decisive victory at Kiev in 1941.
And, to be honest, there's another way to win besides asymmetrical war. It's the same way the US and Russia won WW2 against Germany and Japan. Be able to shrug off losses of men and material. Something that the entire history of land war in Asia says China excels at this. For all the things that modern armies can do, they not built for sustained warfare. Effectively it's 'win right now or lose entirely'. China can just pile up bodies until a 'modern' army exhausts itself.
Being able to out produce the enemy was the US assumption for its military strategy in to 1970s. The US assumed that with the US and its NATO allies holding 4 of the 5 major industrial regions of the world (at that time) if war started they would be able out produce the Soviets and win. Then they realised that was a terrible idea. Studying the Israeli conflicts, in which vast quantities of material was destroyed in a matter of days, they realised there was simply no time to kickstart military industry, the scale of destruction would mean any conventional operations would be decided in a couple of days, one way or another. This means any conventional war would be won or lost with the gear you had at the start of fighting. This is the reason the US shifted to building up a much more expensive standing army from the mid-70s onwards.
If fighting broke out in NK, China's nearby industry would only be an advantage if heavy conventional fighting in the air and on land lasted for months, maybe even years. And it won't, one way or another air superiority will be established within days. Fighting on the ground won't resolve that quickly, but it won't be stretching out until China can crank out new lines of military production.
So if China decides to send forward large infantry forces as it did last time in NK, just think about how much war has changed. What modern air and power artillery can do to infantry that aren't burrowed in, but are trying to to advance in force.
sebster wrote: So if China decides to send forward large infantry forces as it did last time in NK, just think about how much war has changed. What modern air and power artillery can do to infantry that aren't burrowed in, but are trying to to advance in force.
China doesn't even need to give the guys weapons. Just send a million soldiers over to surrender, then a million more the next day, and the next. South Korea will buckle under the load of POWs and probably agree to discuss peace shortly.
Pfffffffffffft, the left and the media have been trying to impeach him since before he was even nominated. I don't buy into that garbage at all. And in the event it DOES happen, how do you think President Pence will handle things?
There's a difference between media squawking and his own cabinet members turning stoolie on him to special prosecutors. And, while the leftist news doesn't cover this much, as it does not fit their agenda, there are conservative groups who would toast marshmallows as Trump burned as well.
Doesn't change the fact that we've been hearing this same rhetoric with no actual grounds for impeachment in sight, and it still doesn't answer how President Pence would act if Trump WAS impeached. Impeachment won't magically undo the election. and won't get that party out of the oval office unless you are planning on impeaching several people.
I don't know how China will fit into all of this, I just know that I don't have a Southeast Asia campaign ribbon... yet.
Well, first of all, you wouldn't get one then, either. Southeast Asia is, well, south of the proposed area of operations. It goes about as far north as Burma.
So North Korea doesn't fall under the Southeast Asia blanket? If so, whatever campaign ribbon it will be. I go where I'm deployed. Period. My feelings on the matter are irrelevant unless it's an unlawful order.
Just Tony wrote: Doesn't change the fact that we've been hearing this same rhetoric with no actual grounds for impeachment in sight, and it still doesn't answer how President Pence would act if Trump WAS impeached.
We've had two people turn state's witness, including Trump's NSA. Exactly what they've given Mueller, and what Mueller has from other sources is unknown, because Mueller hasn't released that stuff yet. This doesn't mean Mueller has a locked case on Trump, but concluding that we haven't seen what Mueller's got yet, therefore Mueller has nothing and its all okay is some amazing thinking.
Impeachment won't magically undo the election. and won't get that party out of the oval office unless you are planning on impeaching several people.
Exactly. And I would have thought the lack of any political gain for Democrats from impeachment would cause people to realise the investigation of Trump must not be a simple political game, but is probably because people believe he did some illegal stuff that needs to be investigated. But that hasn't happened, because reasons.
My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind. Once they actually have the process legitimately started and not just more Yahoo hit piece articles, THEN I will take it seriously. And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK. However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.
I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.
What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.
Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.
Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.
Aye, the Chinese have made their position perfectly clear. If North Korea attacks anyone and starts a war, they are on their own and the US can do whatever it wants to them. But if the US or anyone else attacks North Korea first, then China will get a bit angry.
It is a smart move from the Chinese, aimed to ensure that there will be no war. North Korea won't dare to attack or start a war without Chinese back-up, and South Korea and the US don't want to attack North Korea or start a war if it gets them in trouble with China. Ergo no war, yay!
Neat way indeed.
It warns NK and comity to treaty at same time.
Perfect balence for China.
Also fits modern situation, China does not hav as good relations with the 3rd Kim. So more Stern attitude is expected.
Just Tony wrote: My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.
Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.
And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.
If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.
However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.
Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.
Just Tony wrote: My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.
Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.
And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.
If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.
However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.
Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.
If US Territory, bases or ships are attacked they have no choice but to combat operations or strong diplomatic and economic measures against them.
Just Tony wrote: My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.
Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.
And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.
If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.
However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.
Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.
If US Territory, bases or ships are attacked they have no choice but to combat operations or strong diplomatic and economic measures against them.
Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending. Kim might as well shoot himself to save everyone some time if attacking the US is really a consideration of his. The reason behind the latest issue is the development of nuclear weapons out of self preservation.
A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.
Time out. This is an incorrect statement. First of all, you can't judge a war on a single battle. Second, the Korean war was started when the North invaded the south. The US got involved to remove the north from the south, which it did. Where it screwed up was believing an arrogant McArthur in the the Chinese would stay out of the war. Since McArthur wasn't prepared to fight them, they had to retreat to South Korea.
The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.
The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.
A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.
Time out. This is an incorrect statement. First of all, you can't judge a war on a single battle. Second, the Korean war was started when the North invaded the south. The US got involved to remove the north from the south, which it did. Where it screwed up was believing an arrogant McArthur in the the Chinese would stay out of the war. Since McArthur wasn't prepared to fight them, they had to retreat to South Korea.
The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.
The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.
People, you have to read some books.
Also post WW2.
?People saw reason to support that war but things had been pretty rough even in US.
People would not have liked another multi year ear dragging on ans on for years and many many lives.
Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.
I am saying the US will fight the Chinese in such a way that the US fought the Japanese. The Japanese had an expansive empire in Asia. They had assets all over the place. Did the US just go right for Japan? No. They took out its navy, captured it islands, and broke up their military in pieces as the war went on. The same would happen in the South China sea. What military is going to allow aircraft and ships to operate from remote bases from behind them?
Keep in mind that the Korea war took place a few years after the greatest war in history, and we have nothing like that going on now. Whatever wars the US has been fighting or helping to fight in limited capacity the last 15 years is nothing compared to what will be involved in a war with China. It will galvanize the US, I can assure you.
Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, most in the US Government see NK was their biggest threat. A couple of years ago I attended a dinner with this guy:
And some asked him who he thought the greatest threat to the US was, and he even mentioned it was Kim. So this issue just didn't pop its head now, its been brewing for years. And every step of the way since Clinton, the US has tried the carrot approach to stop NK from developing the bomb, then miniaturizing it, then making a missile that could reach the US, then putting a bomb on it, and it has failed EVERY step of the way. If the US has decided this is not an option it can live with, and carrots, sanctions, China, and everything else hasn't worked, what else is it going to do? If I hear 'more diplomacy' then its from people that haven't been paying attention. And this is why you keep hearing the drum beats to the march of war. We didn't hear these a few years ago. We are coming to the point of no return.
And if you things are difficult now, imagine how much easier it was lets say 20 years ago. Before we were just worried about artillery hitting Seoul. Then it was a nuke. Now its a single missile. Imagine how its going to be if they have 50 of said missiles? So, yes, something is going to happen, since nothing else has worked.
Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.
I am saying the US will fight the Chinese in such a way that the US fought the Japanese. The Japanese had an expansive empire in Asia. They had assets all over the place. Did the US just go right for Japan? No. They took out its navy, captured it islands, and broke up their military in pieces as the war went on. The same would happen in the South China sea. What military is going to allow aircraft and ships to operate from remote bases from behind them?
Keep in mind that the Korea war took place a few years after the greatest war in history, and we have nothing like that going on now. Whatever wars the US has been fighting or helping to fight in limited capacity the last 15 years is nothing compared to what will be involved in a war with China. It will galvanize the US, I can assure you.
Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.
Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.
Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate). The Chinese successfully frustrated US war goals while achieving their own. That is 'beating' by the definition of the word:
Verb beat (third-person singular simple present beats, present participle beating, simple past beat, past participle beaten or beat)
5. (transitive) To win against; to defeat or overcome; to do better than, outdo, or excel (someone) in a particular, competitive event.
Jan had little trouble beating John in tennis. He lost five games in a row.
No matter how quickly Joe finished his test, Roger always beat him.
I just can't seem to beat the last level of this video game.
I also never claimed that the loss of trade with the US wouldn't impact China much. I have repeatedly stated that it would hurt China massively, and that it is one of the reasons China will go a long way to avoid war with the US. What I did dispute is that the loss of trade would completely destroy China, and the idea that economy is the biggest motivator that drives Chinese foreign policy (it isn't).
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.
So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.
Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, most in the US Government see NK was their biggest threat. A couple of years ago I attended a dinner with this guy:
And some asked him who he thought the greatest threat to the US was, and he even mentioned it was Kim. So this issue just didn't pop its head now, its been brewing for years. And every step of the way since Clinton, the US has tried the carrot approach to stop NK from developing the bomb, then miniaturizing it, then making a missile that could reach the US, then putting a bomb on it, and it has failed EVERY step of the way. If the US has decided this is not an option it can live with, and carrots, sanctions, China, and everything else hasn't worked, what else is it going to do? If I hear 'more diplomacy' then its from people that haven't been paying attention. And this is why you keep hearing the drum beats to the march of war. We didn't hear these a few years ago. We are coming to the point of no return.
And if you things are difficult now, imagine how much easier it was lets say 20 years ago. Before we were just worried about artillery hitting Seoul. Then it was a nuke. Now its a single missile. Imagine how its going to be if they have 50 of said missiles? So, yes, something is going to happen, since nothing else has worked.
Yeah I get the reasoning behind why NK is the 'greatest' threat (of course not actual greatest, but just the biggest problem of this time). The problem with NK is that the US doesn't want to go to war, SK certainly doesn't which complicates things further. Even Trump has been in office for almost a year and no preparation has been made in the face of a ticking clock. To be realistic, I think its already crossed the point of no return, even if NK isn't yet a threat to the US it is to two major regional allies. The drums of war have been beaten every few years but nothing ever happens. I don't think something can still be done militarily speaking as the cost is so prohibitive. Plus MAD still applies even to NK. We just have to come to terms with a nuclear North Korea.
Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.
Its getting to the point where I am beginning to think that you either are blind, or unable to follow a train of thought. There is also a lot you don't see to know about the US. I don't have a lot of time to explain it or go into details, but what is worse, I feel like if I did, you are going to keep falling back onto the same argument, which is going to waste my time.
So here we go: you got me. Here's what you have convinced me of what will happen. The US will attack NK, China will attack US forces, and the US will pack its bag and go home.
Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.
Its getting to the point where I am beginning to think that you either are blind, or unable to follow a train of thought. There is also a lot you don't see to know about the US. I don't have a lot of time to explain it or go into details, but what is worse, I feel like if I did, you are going to keep falling back onto the same argument, which is going to waste my time.
So here we go: you got me. Here's what you have convinced me of what will happen. The US will attack NK, China will attack US forces, and the US will pack its bag and go home.
That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.
So you are arguing that US Forces will expose its rear and flanks to the Chinese Navy and Air Force operating from the South China sea?
What inept fool can we appoint to lead our forces with a strategy like that?
In the 1950s China had neither an air force, nor navy, let alone overseas assets to operate from. If you think the US isn't going to go about destroying any threat to its movement on the seas, especially if China attacks the US first, you are out of your mind. And never once did I say that the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I am saying the Chinese getting involved would be at the cost of losing everything outside their mainland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars
Lol well until the Chinese start guaranteeing the security of Europe, stationing troops there, and footing most of the bill for NATO, they will fall in line and support the US in some capacity.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.
Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.
Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate).
To be fair, the goal of the UN intervention was never to defeat NK, just to save SK. Defeating NK was just an objective added later when it became clear the NK army was devastated. In a sense the failure of the NK invasion of SK frustrated the original war goals of Mao, Stalin and Kim, so no one got what they wanted.
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.
The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.
China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.
So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.
Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.
So you are arguing that US Forces will expose its rear and flanks to the Chinese Navy and Air Force operating from the South China sea?
What inept fool can we appoint to lead our forces with a strategy like that?
In the 1950s China had neither an air force, nor navy, let alone overseas assets to operate from. If you think the US isn't going to go about destroying any threat to its movement on the seas, especially if China attacks the US first, you are out of your mind. And never once did I say that the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I am saying the Chinese getting involved would be at the cost of losing everything outside their mainland.
No, read my point. China has no interest in escalation because it is to weak. If anything they will be most desperate to prevent escalation from outside the Korean peninsula like they did during the original Korean War. Both sides will watch each others movements like hawks but try to avoid hostile actions outside of the Koreas at all cost.
You seem to be unaware that the PRC actually restrained its air force during the Korean War, that isn't the Chinese claiming that, that was Omar Bradley. The PRC held back exactly to prevent escalation.
Other remarks contradicted MacArthur’s recurrent complaint about the advantage the Chinese derived from the administration’s refusal to grant him permission to bomb targets beyond the Yalu River in China. Democrat Walter George of Georgia, echoing MacArthur’s assertion that “China is using the maximum of her force against us,” said it was unfair that MacArthur had to fight a limited war while the Chinese fought all out.
Omar Bradley responded that George was quite mistaken—and, by implication, that MacArthur was quite misleading. The Chinese were not fighting all out, not by a great deal. “They have not used air against our front line troops, against our lines of communication in Korea, our ports; they have not used air against our bases in Japan or against our naval air forces.” China’s restraint in these areas had been crucial to the survival of American and U.N. forces in Korea. On balance, Bradley said, the limited nature of the war benefited the United States at least as much as it did the Chinese. “We are fighting under rather favorable rules for ourselves.”
I never claimed you said the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I'm saying escalating the war outside of the Korean peninsula would be extremely costly for no reason, even without invading the mainland.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.
Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.
Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate).
To be fair, the goal of the UN intervention was never to defeat NK, just to save SK. Defeating NK was just an objective added later when it became clear the NK army was devastated. In a sense the failure of the NK invasion of SK frustrated the original war goals of Mao, Stalin and Kim, so no one got what they wanted.
That is an alternative point of view I can get behind. In that sense it is even more of a stalemate with both sides frustrating each other's objectives.
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.
The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.
Valid points, but it is difficult to give an assessment of precisely how effective North Korean guerilla warfare would be. The population could fanatically resist any invasion, or they could welcome them as liberators. Given the fact there is so little information about North Korea, it is difficult to be certain.
China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.
So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.
Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.
I am not so certain. China needs European money, but Europe needs Chinese money just as much. Freezing Chinese assets will collapse European economies. I really think it is going to depend on who the aggressor is. If North Korea or China is the aggressor, then Europe will probably come to the aid of the US, probably through freezing Chinese assets and indirect military support. If the US or South Korea is the aggressor, then Europe will have no obligation to aid the US and most likely won't do so (European politicians will not have forgotten the resistance against participating in earlier US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after all). A US victory is in European interests, but not that much. Europe has little in the way of interaction with North Korea. It doesn't threaten North Korea and is not threatened by it. European nations have little to gain or lose from a war in Korea either way. Securing trade and interaction with China is a bigger geopolitical interest for Europe than the defeat of North Korea.
The Chinese airforce was no better equipped than the NK one, which is why Mao begged Stalin for air support. I don't care what Bradley may have known at the time, its what we all know now. So when I say they had no air force, I am exaggerating, but I wouldn't think including a few squadrons of Migs and a whole bunch of obsolete aircraft as an airforce comparable to what the US would consider a threat then (especially with a 10-1 shootdown success rate) let alone what the Chinese have today.
Oh I am sure the Chinese had some riverboats too. Damn, I said they had no navy I was wrong on that too.
If you believe that if a war breaks out between China and the US, that the US will just sail by these islands and not do anything, we'll just note the date and time of these arguments and check back later.
That is an alternative point of view I can get behind. In that sense it is even more of a stalemate with both sides frustrating each other's objectives.
Everyone who wants to comment on that war should read this book first. One of the critical issues the book points out is how unprepared the US was to go to war, and the lesson learned was to not be so unprepared again. You can say what you want about the industrial military machine, but a lot of it stems from the lessons learned in this war.
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.
The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.
True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.
Valid points, but it is difficult to give an assessment of precisely how effective North Korean guerilla warfare would be. The population could fanatically resist any invasion, or they could welcome them as liberators. Given the fact there is so little information about North Korea, it is difficult to be certain.
Yes that is hard estimating, but the geographic conditions aren't nearly as favourable the North Koreans as the North Vietnamese. But even with population support sustainability would be questionable. How effective could NK be to sustain a guerrilla war without outside support? I assume they have prepared a great deal for the eventuality, but reality is hard to guess at. Having SK support is also invaluable as a factor as the South Vietnam government wasn't nearly as helpful.
Iron_Captain wrote: China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.
So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.
Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.
I am not so certain. China needs European money, but Europe needs Chinese money just as much. Freezing Chinese assets will collapse European economies. I really think it is going to depend on who the aggressor is. If North Korea or China is the aggressor, then Europe will probably come to the aid of the US, probably through freezing Chinese assets and indirect military support. If the US or South Korea is the aggressor, then Europe will have no obligation to aid the US and most likely won't do so (European politicians will not have forgotten the resistance against participating in earlier US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after all). A US victory is in European interests, but not that much. Europe has little in the way of interaction with North Korea. It doesn't threaten North Korea and is not threatened by it. European nations have little to gain or lose from a war in Korea either way. Securing trade and interaction with China is a bigger geopolitical interest for Europe than the defeat of North Korea.
Sure, we are economically interlinked. Freezing Chinese assets and trade won't make economies collapse, but it certainly will be the worst economic crisis in history. Or the cynical option would of course be to hold China to ransom while freezing assets, they certainly need their trade with Europe when engaged in a costly conflict with the US. No need to stop trading just because of a little asset freezing right? It depends on a lot of factors, but damage can be contained to an extent by smart manoeuvring. Europe will likely be divided in the case of an actual conflict, just like with Iraq as you said. Most European countries are in no position to directly offer any support. Even indirect support might be unlikely, not much that Europe has on offer the US doesn't have. Even planes and tanks that would need replacing first are likely very difficult due to issues with not being familiar with how to operate and service them.
A US victory in NK is important to Europe not because it only defeats NK, its important because it further cements the dominant position of the US in the world and by extension its European allies. It chips away at the regional system China has set up and delays its possible future in which it directly challenges the US and by extension Europe over the hegemonic position in East Asia or even the World. Trade and economic interaction with China will continue because we just need each other. But there are significant advantages in undermining China to postpone any possible hegemonic transition. It means the prolonged preservation of Western values and standards on the international stage. Something China is also keenly aware of as an opponent of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: The Chinese airforce was no better equipped than the NK one, which is why Mao begged Stalin for air support. I don't care what Bradley may have known at the time, its what we all know now. So when I say they had no air force, I am exaggerating, but I wouldn't think including a few squadrons of Migs and a whole bunch of obsolete aircraft as an airforce comparable to what the US would consider a threat then (especially with a 10-1 shootdown success rate) let alone what the Chinese have today.
Oh I am sure the Chinese had some riverboats too. Damn, I said they had no navy I was wrong on that too.
If you believe that if a war breaks out between China and the US, that the US will just sail by these islands and not do anything, we'll just note the date and time of these arguments and check back later.
My point was that if war broke out between the US and China in Korea they would avoid escalation. Not war in general. Be snarky all you want.
The 10:1 thing? All sides claimed high succes versus less casualties. Pilot reports aren't that reliable when it comes to claiming 'kills'. The Soviets claimed a 3:1 rate, so which side is right? The Chinese had quite a reasonable air force, you claimed it had none which is just false.
Let's not go all Tom Clancy and try to write Red Dragon Rising or some such.
Ultimately, in the here and now the US is going to do exactly jack all, except talk tough. NK is going to do the same, and we will get no closer to any actual resolution.
I am okay with that, because Containment is the only reliable and proven method of winning.
War with NK would be over extremely quick in combat terms, the political and diplomatic fallout would be the 'war' that dragged on for years. There's no reason to believe NK could conduct anything resembling an effective or long-term defense against the US military. As previously established the real concern is how much damage they do to civilians in SK on their way out.
How China would perform in a war against the US is irrelevant because China won't go to war with the US, nor will the US go to war with China. Economic MAD would be number one on a long list of reasons not to. We could theorize how Australia would perform against the US and it would be on similar levels of fiction.
kronk wrote: What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?
Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?
Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: War with NK would be over extremely quick in combat terms, the political and diplomatic fallout would be the 'war' that dragged on for years. There's no reason to believe NK could conduct anything resembling an effective or long-term defense against the US military. As previously established the real concern is how much damage they do to civilians in SK on their way out.
How China would perform in a war against the US is irrelevant because China won't go to war with the US, nor will the US go to war with China. Economic MAD would be number one on a long list of reasons not to. We could theorize how Australia would perform against the US and it would be on similar levels of fiction.
Yes, but what comes after the invasion is incredibly important to China. Still guessing they quickly move in to claim what they can.
As for resistance? Maybe a guerilla effort. Nothing that will dislodge an occupation with patience.
kronk wrote: What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?
Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?
Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.
Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?
kronk wrote: What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?
Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?
Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.
Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?
I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.
The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.
True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?
The Six Day War was everything but equal. It is a horrible example because the Israeli attack was a surprise attack. A war where one side gets to knock out all of the equipment of the other side before the war begins isn't equal. That is why the concept of first strike or preemptive strike is so important. Getting the drop on your opponent is a massively powerful advantage. And that is before getting into a massive difference in training, leadership, morale, discipline etc. Claiming the Six Days War is equal simply because the Arabs had equal or larger numbers is like claiming a US-North Korea war is equal because the North Koreans have more soldiers. One side is so massively superior to the other that it is anything but equal. Numbers and material are important in war, but they are only effective when coupled with good leadership. The Falklands is also not a very good example of a modern war, because it was fought in a remote location with very limited forces. And the Indo-Pakistani war may have been over quickly, but the Iran-Iraq war went on for almost 8 years. As I said, a war can be over quickly or it can grind on for very long. That was true for warfare in the past and it is equally true for modern warfare. It is not so that all modern wars are over quickly. Claiming that is to be ignorant of the realities of military conflict. Also, if you run out of planes in a matter of days you have been doing something wrong and likely deserve losing the war (or the opponent was much stronger or better prepared(In which case I guess you have also been doing things wrong)).
sebster wrote: You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.
Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.
Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.
The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.
True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?
The Six Day War was everything but equal. It is a horrible example because the Israeli attack was a surprise attack. A war where one side gets to knock out all of the equipment of the other side before the war begins isn't equal. That is why the concept of first strike or preemptive strike is so important. Getting the drop on your opponent is a massively powerful advantage. And that is before getting into a massive difference in training, leadership, morale, discipline etc. Claiming the Six Days War is equal simply because the Arabs had equal or larger numbers is like claiming a US-North Korea war is equal because the North Koreans have more soldiers. One side is so massively superior to the other that it is anything but equal. Numbers and material are important in war, but they are only effective when coupled with good leadership. The Falklands is also not a very good example of a modern war, because it was fought in a remote location with very limited forces.
And the Indo-Pakistani war may have been over quickly, but the Iran-Iraq war went on for almost 8 years. As I said, a war can be over quickly or it can grind on for very long. That was true for warfare in the past and it is equally true for modern warfare. It is not so that all modern wars are over quickly. Claiming that is to be ignorant of the realities of military conflict.
Also, if you run out of planes in a matter of days you have been doing something wrong and likely deserve losing the war (or the opponent was much stronger or better prepared).
That's why the combination of the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War is so important. Both were between roughly equal forces material and size wise and both sides had the surprise once. Yet both were short conflicts. The gap between the Arab militaries and the Isreali military was not that huge. The same differences in leadership, morale and training will apply between any potential US and China war. The Falklands was a good example of two modern forces clashing with state of the art air forces at the time, once the air war was won by the British further operations by the Argentinians quickly became unsustainable. The Falklands was a great and perhaps the only example of a modern war involving mainly air and sea forces. Just because it was limited in scope does not devalue the time required and material lost, in less then two months the Argentinians lost almost half of their air force. That's an incredible blow.
The Iran-Iraq War is an example of a modern war with decently modern material. But with terrible training, execution and leadership. It was an example of Iran winning the material war, but with the rest of the army being so fething awful (due to the Iranian Revolution) they couldn't capitalize on those successes. The war was realistically over after the first year, both sides just didn't want to quit nor had the materiel or expertise to do anything about it. Which is very unlikely in the case of the US or any actual modern military, any competent military would have won the Iran-Iraq War much quicker.
You're not running out of planes in a matter of days, but weeks and months. Take into account that for modern military equipment the rate of production is at most dozens or perhaps over a 100 a year you can't even afford to lose a single plane a day (even if the pilots survive). Modern military hardware can't be produced for attrition warfare. The opening offensive will be decisive for either air force. Just like in the Iran-Iraq war. Plus most countries couldn't even dream of building their own advanced aircraft.
kronk wrote: What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?
Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?
Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.
Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?
I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.
If he fired a Nuke and it hit its target and nuked SK.
I'm pretty sure any agreement with China would be invalid and general allowance to open up with everything Allied forced got on NK would be open..
China can only protect them so far, and is only willing to defend against a attack initiated by another party.
kronk wrote: What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?
Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?
Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.
Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?
I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.
If he fired a Nuke and it hit its target and nuked SK.
I'm pretty sure any agreement with China would be invalid and general allowance to open up with everything Allied forced got on NK would be open..
China can only protect them so far, and is only willing to defend against a attack initiated by another party.
There first strike would void thr terms.
The Kim family could die in a hole for all the CCP cares. What they want is NK, if an idiot in charge risks that by nuking people China won't object to his or her removal as long as a subservient NK could be preserved. If Kim starts nuking people China itself might be first in line to end it.
The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.
Not nearly to the degree of Chosin. While the various Chinese offensives ultimately failed due to logistical failures and lack of air cover, the UN was back-footed until it withdrew south of Seoul.
The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.
You misunderstood me. As i said, if anyone 'won' it was China (this does imply that I'm dubious if anyone can be said to have won). This is not just a military statement. China gained significant standing in world politics from this, as well as demonstrating that it could, without much modern equipment, at least equal the military might of western industrialized nations, by effectively gaining a massive amount of ground in a single effective operation.
Back to modern Korea: I'd like to remind everyone claiming that NK would surrender out of hand like Iraq that previous situations like the Sokcho submarine incident, and the Gangneung submarine infiltration incident, resulted in a lot of dead bodies and only one prisoner between both incidents.
Iron_Captain wrote: China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate). The Chinese successfully frustrated US war goals while achieving their own.
What you've tried to do is define US victory as conquest of North Korea, and Chinese victory as merely restoring the border on the 38th parallel. This is another work of fantasy by you.
The US and supporting nations undertook the war on the backing of a UN resolution, which called for NK to withdraw behind the 38th parallel. It is true that once that objective was achieved, mission creep set in and the US pushed in to NK. But that's also true of China - who once they forced out the US troops continued to push and took Seoul. After this the Chinese continued to launch offensives pushing past the 38th parallel in to SK.
Trying to claim that the US sole objective was taking the whole peninsula, while the only Chinese objective was restoring NK is a ridiculous claim.
I also never claimed that the loss of trade with the US wouldn't impact China much. I have repeatedly stated that it would hurt China massively
You described it as 'a short term economic loss'. Your words. Again, we're talking about an event where the immediate impact is 150% of the GFC just from the immediate loss of trade. Then you add in flow on effects and impacts to investment, and we're looking at something more like 3 to 5 times the GFC, to which you'd then add financial system shocks. Describing that as a short term economic loss is ridiculous.
Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that.
Probably by actually reading what I wrote.
Anyhow, your vision of China and/or the US sending troops in to foreign territory to maintain a low intensity, attritional war is very silly.
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain.
Europe likes international stability. If you're confused about this, note the sanctions that Europe is maintaining on Russia, in response to Crimea and Ukraine.
China needs European money, but Europe needs Chinese money just as much. Freezing Chinese assets will collapse European economies.
Okay, so China losing 4% of its GDP when trade with the US ends is 'a short term economic loss'. But Europe freezing Chinese investments would be economic collapse for Europe. What the hell is this?
What you've tried to do is define US victory as conquest of North Korea, and Chinese victory as merely restoring the border on the 38th parallel. This is another work of fantasy by you.
And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.
"Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces."
That does sound an awful lot like the objective was the destruction of Communist North Korea, not the restoration of the 38th Parallel.
Oh, and Iron Captain and I are agreeing on something. You may want to mark this down on your calendar.
BaronIveagh wrote: And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.
Two things;
1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.
2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.
BaronIveagh wrote: And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.
Two things;
1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.
2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.
I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.
BaronIveagh wrote: And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.
Two things;
1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.
2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.
I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.
BaronIveagh wrote: And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.
Two things;
1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.
2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.
I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.
Glad to see you come around finally.
They tried but the terrain of Korea, Hills, valleys is ideal defensive terrain in areas. Both sides fought a bloody slog from hill to hill, only to end up where they started.
Both sides could have carried on but it would just be a endless carry on of death with no real stalemate broken.
BaronIveagh wrote: True, but your accusation against Iron Captain of making the whole idea up is disingenuous.
I didn't accuse him of making stuff up. I said his argument, in which China's absolute goal was restoring the border along the 38th parallel, while the US absolute goal must be total conquest of the peninsula, was a fantasy. It was a fantasy because both sides would have taken the whole peninsula if they could, and both sides had to settle for something less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.
Cool, credit it to you for coming around to another point of view.
Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.
The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.
sebster wrote: Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.
The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.
There could be arests over the whole pacific region.
sebster wrote: Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.
The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.
sebster wrote: Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.
The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.
Is Nuke technology that far behind? Probably not.
Not likely.
Or worse even finished weapons. Though being caught as one who gave terror group a nuke is basically classed as your own. And thus you pay also. Heavily.
They might. China recent sanctions and closures reportly cost them some 30% total foreign income. Add some tourist flights from US closing, and other stuff. There foreign currency income is cut severely.
China may not provide protection to them if caught selling nuke tech though. That would be a very serious regional issue.
North Korea crashed missile into its own city during failed test
Forget reaching the US mainland, one errant North Korean missile went rogue last year and crashed into a city not far from the capital, Pyongyang, according to a report.
A Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile turned itself into a very-short-range rocket when it failed during a test flight on April 28, 2017, and slammed into the city of Tokchon, according to The Diplomat magazine.
The missile, which was launched from the Pukchang airfield, flew just 24 miles before taking a nosedive and striking a complex of industrial or agricultural buildings, the mag reported.
According to a US government source with knowledge of the hermit kingdom’s weapons program, the missile’s first-stage engines failed after about a minute of flight.
The location of the missile’s impact was revealed exclusively to The Diplomat, which said it corroborated the flub using commercially available satellite imagery from April and May 2017.
Although the images show that the explosion caused heavy damage in the heavily populated area, there is no way to tell if it led to casualties.
Had the missile successfully completed its test flight, it would have landed in the northern part of the Sea of Japan, near the Russian coast.
Various media outlets around the world reported about the failed test — the third involving the Hwasong-12 — at the time, but details about where the missile fell remained a mystery until now.
Fearing such a flop, North Korean despot Kim Jong Un chose the remote seaside resort town of Sinpo as the test site of the first two failed launches in April.
The reclusive regime now uses several new test sites, including Pyongyang’s Sunan Airport, which also serves as the country’s civil aviation hub and entry point for most non-Chinese visitors, according to the International Business Times.
Despite several failures, a Hwasong-12 was successfully test launched on May 14 — leading the way for the introduction of the Hwasong-14/KN20 intercontinental ballistic missile.
North Korea’s aggressive missile testing ratcheted up tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.
During a televised speech, Kim declared: “The United States can never fight a war against me and our state. It should properly know that the whole territory of the US is within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office, and this is just a reality, not a threat.”
Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!
feeder wrote: Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!
North Korea managed to missile it self. Well that's a turn up for the books. Missiles fail from time to time. There weapons a are pretty experimental.
I guess thr missile designer has come to a bad end. Or the engineers.
Assuming that's not bogus news US got preeeetty close of nuking itself
Or howabout blowing up missile on their base 1980 resulting in casualties?
Goldsboro and Damascus were very real. (We have to watch footage about both here) However, the Damascus incident was a FAE explosion, not a nuclear one, because someone fumbled a bolt that fell and punctured a fuel line.
feeder wrote: Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!
North Korea managed to missile it self. Well that's a turn up for the books. Missiles fail from time to time. There weapons a are pretty experimental.
I guess thr missile designer has come to a bad end. Or the engineers.
I don't think so. Those people are probably too valuable to simply off because of a mistake. Better to simply cover the whole thing up or blame it on the CIA.
feeder wrote: Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!
North Korea managed to missile it self. Well that's a turn up for the books. Missiles fail from time to time. There weapons a are pretty experimental.
I guess thr missile designer has come to a bad end. Or the engineers.
I don't think so. Those people are probably too valuable to simply off because of a mistake. Better to simply cover the whole thing up or blame it on the CIA.
Probbly be only time Kim showed mercy, he is hardly a forgiving figure.
His track record with own family and other senior officials is bloody and he even killed his own brother, and they caught potential assasins in China after another reletive during a security sweep for some big event.
After the LDP's crushing victory in Oct. 2017's well timed snap elections, Abe is confident in accelerating the long promised revision of the Japanese constitution.
ISE, Mie Prefecture--Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Jan. 4 indicated that his New Year’s resolution is to take the next big step toward revising the Constitution.
The prime minister said he will instruct the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to present draft revisions to the Diet this year.
“The Constitution represents the way this nation should be and its ideal state,” Abe said at his first news conference of 2018 after visiting Ise Jingu shrine here. “It is time to fully present to the public a Constitution that serves as a hope for new times and to deepen public debate toward constitutional revision.”
He said that “popular sovereignty, protection of basic human rights and pacifism will remain the basic principles” in the draft of the revised Constitution.
But he stressed that it is only natural to hold talks on how Japan should be in response to the changing times.
Japan’s pacifist Constitution went into force in 1947 and has never been amended. Changes to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds of members of both Diet houses and a majority in a national referendum.
Abe did not specify when he would file a motion for a vote in the Diet or when he wanted to hold a national referendum.
“I would like to leave all related matters to the LDP,” he said.
He also avoided giving a clear-cut answer on whether he will seek a third term as LDP president, when his current term expires in September.
“I am ready to focus my attention on the ordinary Diet session to generate results,” he said, referring to the session that starts later this month. “I will think about what I should do after that.”
I don't think so. Those people are probably too valuable to simply off because of a mistake. Better to simply cover the whole thing up or blame it on the CIA.
Taking a page from Russia's last missile mistake then? 'The missile spontaneously launched and hit the wrong target. No one was injured.'
I don't think so. Those people are probably too valuable to simply off because of a mistake. Better to simply cover the whole thing up or blame it on the CIA.
Taking a page from Russia's last missile mistake then? 'The missile spontaneously launched and hit the wrong target. No one was injured.'
To be honest I don't know what incident you are referring to. But all missiles fail every now and then. Even reliable designs (well, relatively reliable, missiles are never very reliable) can fail. Like this one:
But yeah. Covering it up is a good idea. Having missile failures reflects badly on your military, and a military can't really afford to appear weak. So military accidents are often covered up or ignored as much as possible.
whembly wrote: So... with the latest missile developments that is almost an ICBM, that can theoretically now reach Alaska and Hawaii...
Now what?
Keep in mind, that we're technically still at war... only that it's "on pause" now. So no formal agreement from UN or US Congress is needed to re-engage. (egads!!!)
There are no good options... is... letting NK become fully nuclearized (sp?) the best option?
Seems to me, is that if we want to force China/RU to de-nuclearize NK... maybe the best card on the table for the US is to threaten support for Japan (or, more provocatively Taiwan) to build their own ICBM nukes?
Acquiescence the South China Sea to China in return for their help to de-nuclearize NK?
Re-engaging hostilities at the 38th parallel just seems too knarly.
I'm sure this has been said to death.
But any action against the DPRK will result in death, pain and destruction for South Korean citizens. I doubt much will really happen to anyone else. It's the worst situation to be in, and there is no easy solution. We should have finished the job in 53.
whembly wrote: So... with the latest missile developments that is almost an ICBM, that can theoretically now reach Alaska and Hawaii...
Now what?
Keep in mind, that we're technically still at war... only that it's "on pause" now. So no formal agreement from UN or US Congress is needed to re-engage. (egads!!!)
There are no good options... is... letting NK become fully nuclearized (sp?) the best option?
Seems to me, is that if we want to force China/RU to de-nuclearize NK... maybe the best card on the table for the US is to threaten support for Japan (or, more provocatively Taiwan) to build their own ICBM nukes?
Acquiescence the South China Sea to China in return for their help to de-nuclearize NK?
Re-engaging hostilities at the 38th parallel just seems too knarly.
I'm sure this has been said to death.
But any action against the DPRK will result in death, pain and destruction for South Korean citizens. I doubt much will really happen to anyone else. It's the worst situation to be in, and there is no easy solution. We should have finished the job in 53.
More support for Japan actually plays into Chinas hands. It pisses off US SE Asian regional allies and acts to destabilise. NK gets a free propaganda card for the masses.
Pushing the Taiwan angle does the same, only its the Taiwainese population who then worry that a 'puppeted leadership allied to the US threatens their safety'.
“I think President Trump deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I want to show my gratitude,” he told reporters in Seoul. “It could be the result of US-led sanctions and pressure.”
Perhaps praising Trump is a way of tying the famously narcissistic president to the talks, give him credit so he has a vested interest to see them succeed. Maybe the rhetoric does work? Regardless Moon Jae-In himself has made several in-roads into getting the talks to this point and should be credited for his domestic and international handling of the situation.
“This initial round of talks is for the improvement of relations between North and South Korea,” [PM Moon Jae-In] said. “Our task going forward is to draw North Korea to talks aimed at the denuclearisation of the North. That is our basic stance, and that will never be given up.”
Another thing to take away is the initial talks are not about denuclearisation, something the Trump admin has been very adamant that be the topic of discussion. Tillerson suggesting that the initial talks not be focused on the nuclear issue is what got him in the dog house with Trump. Despite the aggressive rhetoric coming out of Trump's twitter account, which Western media fixates on for domestic reasons, it's clear the Trump admin is actually flexible on it's stated positions.
Take aways:
-North Koreans thrown a bone or two
-South Koreans taking the lead
-Chinese buy in with the Four Principles for Peace and Security -Flexible US policy playing a partner role
I am shocked to here that De-nuclearization is a Trump policy. On the campaign trail, he talked about the opposite. He was a proponent of proliferation.
Easy E wrote: I am shocked to here that De-nuclearization is a Trump policy. On the campaign trail, he talked about the opposite. He was a proponent of proliferation.
Denuclearisation of the peninsula has been the policy goal for South Korea, the PRC and the US from the beginning. Idk what your point is besides that Trump made wild and outlandish campaign statements. I can find crazy quotes too:
Donald Trump, May 1st, 2016 wrote:"We can't continue to allow China to rape our country, and that's what they're doing"
But that's clearly not how Trump interacts with the Chinese. Debate on the viability of denuclearisation has been ongoing in the US gov't with various officials weighing in publicly one way or another, but the policy of a nuke free Korean peninsula has been the official US policy since Bush the Elder pulled them out in accordance with the '92 Joint Agreement.
It's also worth mentioning the renegotiation of the South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) is in process. A deal that Trump likes to threaten to walk away from but in practice is more interested in renegotiating. Part of praising Trump may be to influence those negotiations. The US unsurprisingly is pushing for small tweaks which can be packaged as "wins" rather than fundamentally altering the free trade agreement between both countries:
The Hankyoreh wrote:Automobiles and automobile parts are already duty-free areas. Sources reported that the US focused its demands on the abolition of “non-tariff barriers” to imports of US automobiles, including safety regulations by South Korean authorities and environmental regulations on emissions. The current FTA sets quotas allows imports of up to 25,000 vehicles per business even when the automobiles do not meet South Korean safety standards as long as they meet the US’s. The US hopes to eliminate or raise the quota.
In terms of place-of-origin regulations subject to preferential tariffs, the US reported made the sensitive demand to procure parts from a specific country – namely the US – for use at Hyundai-Kia’s factories in Ulsan and in the US. It also proposed tougher place-of-origin standards on steel items, ostensibly to prevent cheap Chinese steel from being exported indirectly to the US through South Korea.
Analysts said the US’s focus on specific items and “implementation” of the current FTA rather than amendment of its terms suggests a conclusion that its best strategy is to achieve reductions in trade imbalances.
“The increase in the US’s trade deficit is less about the FTA per se than differences in the two countries’ microeconomic and macroeconomic environments, including their economic growth rates and industry structures,” said one South Korean trade official. Indeed, the US appears to view it as more beneficial to tweak place-of-origin regulations and non-tariff barriers in the large-deficit items of automobiles and steel than to alter the current phased tariff abolition or reduction schedule.
The fact that South Korea’s trade surplus with the US dropped sharply from US$23.2 billion in 2016 to US$17.9 billion last year without any changes to the amendment was cited as a factor in the US’s adoption of a strategy focused on practical gains in specific areas.
With US President Donald Trump adhering to an “America first” position, South Korean trade authorities have accepted a reduction in the trade surplus with the US as inevitable during his term, and are focusing more on addressing trade issues such as US import regulations affecting South Korean steel, washing machines, and solar panels. The Office of the Minister for Trade announced shortly after the first round of negotiations that the South Korean side has “raised the investor-state dispute system and trade remedies as areas of interest.”
The guy is a seasoned diplomat. Not only does it seem plausible, but I would go as far as to say the most plausible explanation is that he's tossing out praise of Trump to get on his good side. It costs him next to nothing to make a statement like that but it can have a dramatic impact on how the US acts via the President. Trump is well known for his narcissism and it's incredibly easy to manipulate him on that front so I don't see any reason why SK wouldn't be interested in doing so. Doubly so because Trump is liable to change positions in a heartbeat if he gets angry at something/someone, so it pays to be on his good side.
But President Moon Jae-In isn't a seasoned diplomat he was former President's Roh Moo-hyun's chief of staff until his suicide but otherwise has been a legislative politician.
Moon was elected 8 months ago in a highly contentious election, that's what makes his apparent regional foreign policy savviness impressive.
I understand it's hard for Americans to process news that's not screenshots of Trump's twitter account. But like the saying goes actions speak louder than words. When the rhetoric says one thing and the actions say another, like public statements from the White House supporting a strike on North Korea then quietly cancelling joint war games targeting North Korea a month later. Something is happening behind the curtain. The fact the US is looking like the junior partner in initiating the talks and has accommodated South Korean requests are good things.
You're right, 'seasoned diplomat' was an inaccurate term to use. Still, he is obviously a man who knows what he's doing. Then I suppose in his position he'd have to be.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
While this line of thinking is all fine and well, what have the North Koreans actually conceded? What progress has been made?
So far they have pushed through their nuclear program as fast as possible, or even faster because of US rhetoric. Meanwhile President Moon was elected on a more diplomatic approach towards NK, so that meant the goals of SK and the US were running counter for the greater part of the Trump administration so far.
The threat of war/downfall always existed in the minds of NK ever since the beginning of the end of communism in a great many countries. Especially the Bush Jr. admin with the axis of evil talk, the spreading/imposing of democracy that was going on by force and calling it a rogue state made NK even more nervous. That is exactly when they incredibly sped up nuclear research and conducted their first nuclear weapons test during the Bush presidency. So what Trump is doing really isn't that different, the only element he has injected is some ridiculous public personal feud.
So North Korea has been faced with a tense presidency 2/3 times in the 21st century. Also the total annihilation thing shows exactly why this is an incredibly stupid move, as you assume the Trump admin is willing to let tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians in allied countries die just so he doesn't have to look weak with some food aid or other minor concessions? Its not like were talking about handing NK the keys to the world. Its not going to stop nuclear development either, as this total annihilation rhetoric is the absolute perfect example of why they need nuclear weapons.
So why would you make a deal to hand over your only serious leverage with a President who promised total annihilation and war on multiple occasions. Nuclear NK was inevitable, getting into a screaming match with them was never going to bring any progress to a country that already had an irrational fear of being invaded before Trump.
It also doesn't help that the record on treatment of aspiring nuclear regimes by the large powers after they give up the effort is...not great.
Gaddafi have up his WMD programs...and ended up dead less than a decade later. Ukraine gave up its former USSR nukes to Russia...and now has lost its easternmost towns and Crimea. Saddam had his programs destroyed and then shut down most of them and still ended up dead because of them. Iran agreed to a deal and the next US president to rotate in has done nothing but talk about how that deal is bad and needs to be rescinded.
If I were Kim Jong Un, I'd be pushing those nukes as fast as possible too. The track record for those that play ball is...not good.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
Do remember that during those 50 years they had USSR nukes to protect them.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
Do remember that during those 50 years they had USSR nukes to protect them.
And had a more genuine alliance with China. Who now protect them bit not as genuine allience. They are even backing sanctions against Kim and his regime.
The two are no longer exactly freinds and close allies.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
While this line of thinking is all fine and well, what have the North Koreans actually conceded? What progress has been made?
So far they have pushed through their nuclear program as fast as possible, or even faster because of US rhetoric. Meanwhile President Moon was elected on a more diplomatic approach towards NK, so that meant the goals of SK and the US were running counter for the greater part of the Trump administration so far.
The threat of war/downfall always existed in the minds of NK ever since the beginning of the end of communism in a great many countries. Especially the Bush Jr. admin with the axis of evil talk, the spreading/imposing of democracy that was going on by force and calling it a rogue state made NK even more nervous. That is exactly when they incredibly sped up nuclear research and conducted their first nuclear weapons test during the Bush presidency. So what Trump is doing really isn't that different, the only element he has injected is some ridiculous public personal feud.
The sudden advances North Korea made in its nuclear weapons program are not entirely linked to US policy though. North Korea has been preparing for war with the US and pursuing nuclear weapons for a long time already, even under the more benign US administrations, but it was never very successful. The most recent developments are linked to developments in the war in Ukraine, which has allowed North Korea to finally build a (somewhat) reliable delivery system. That made nuclear weapons something that North Korea could actually use to really hurt the US in case of war, turning nukes from a theoretical possibility into NK's most promising weapon. I can imagine that the development of ICBMs is what drove North Korea's recent development of heavier nukes more than anything.
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
While this line of thinking is all fine and well, what have the North Koreans actually conceded? What progress has been made?
So far they have pushed through their nuclear program as fast as possible, or even faster because of US rhetoric. Meanwhile President Moon was elected on a more diplomatic approach towards NK, so that meant the goals of SK and the US were running counter for the greater part of the Trump administration so far.
The threat of war/downfall always existed in the minds of NK ever since the beginning of the end of communism in a great many countries. Especially the Bush Jr. admin with the axis of evil talk, the spreading/imposing of democracy that was going on by force and calling it a rogue state made NK even more nervous. That is exactly when they incredibly sped up nuclear research and conducted their first nuclear weapons test during the Bush presidency. So what Trump is doing really isn't that different, the only element he has injected is some ridiculous public personal feud.
The sudden advances North Korea made in its nuclear weapons program are not entirely linked to US policy though. North Korea has been preparing for war with the US and pursuing nuclear weapons for a long time already, even under the more benign US administrations, but it was never very successful. The most recent developments are linked to developments in the war in Ukraine, which has allowed North Korea to finally build a (somewhat) reliable delivery system. That made nuclear weapons something that North Korea could actually use to really hurt the US in case of war, turning nukes from a theoretical possibility into NK's most promising weapon. I can imagine that the development of ICBMs is what drove North Korea's recent development of heavier nukes more than anything.
Oh no I didn't mean to imply that they are linked to US policy. I'm just saying all the belligerent rhetoric likely pushed North Korea to accelerate certain aspects such as possibly testing. They would have gotten there eventually, but the Bush and Trump presidency have given them additional motivation to develop it fast.
As for heavier nukes being a consequence of ICBM tech. Its hard to say, its the chicken and the egg problem. Heavier nukes might have already been usable on short range missiles to an extent, but we don't know how far along with miniaturization the NK are/were. Furthermore Ukraine kicked off in 2014, but North Korea already detonated a relatively heavy device in 2013 (which was roughly in line with the one in early 2016). So its likely that building 'heavy' nukes wasn't so much the issue for North Korea, it was the delivery mechanism/miniaturization. But from earlier tests it seems that heavy nuclear weapons were already mostly developed before getting long range ICBMs, not the other way around.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
While this line of thinking is all fine and well, what have the North Koreans actually conceded? What progress has been made?
So far they have pushed through their nuclear program as fast as possible, or even faster because of US rhetoric. Meanwhile President Moon was elected on a more diplomatic approach towards NK, so that meant the goals of SK and the US were running counter for the greater part of the Trump administration so far.
The threat of war/downfall always existed in the minds of NK ever since the beginning of the end of communism in a great many countries. Especially the Bush Jr. admin with the axis of evil talk, the spreading/imposing of democracy that was going on by force and calling it a rogue state made NK even more nervous. That is exactly when they incredibly sped up nuclear research and conducted their first nuclear weapons test during the Bush presidency. So what Trump is doing really isn't that different, the only element he has injected is some ridiculous public personal feud.
The sudden advances North Korea made in its nuclear weapons program are not entirely linked to US policy though. North Korea has been preparing for war with the US and pursuing nuclear weapons for a long time already, even under the more benign US administrations, but it was never very successful. The most recent developments are linked to developments in the war in Ukraine, which has allowed North Korea to finally build a (somewhat) reliable delivery system. That made nuclear weapons something that North Korea could actually use to really hurt the US in case of war, turning nukes from a theoretical possibility into NK's most promising weapon. I can imagine that the development of ICBMs is what drove North Korea's recent development of heavier nukes more than anything.
Oh no I didn't mean to imply that they are linked to US policy. I'm just saying all the belligerent rhetoric likely pushed North Korea to accelerate certain aspects such as possibly testing. They would have gotten there eventually, but the Bush and Trump presidency have given them additional motivation to develop it fast.
As for heavier nukes being a consequence of ICBM tech. Its hard to say, its the chicken and the egg problem. Heavier nukes might have already been usable on short range missiles to an extent, but we don't know how far along with miniaturization the NK are/were. Furthermore Ukraine kicked off in 2014, but North Korea already detonated a relatively heavy device in 2013 (which was roughly in line with the one in early 2016). So its likely that building 'heavy' nukes wasn't so much the issue for North Korea, it was the delivery mechanism/miniaturization. But from earlier tests it seems that heavy nuclear weapons were already mostly developed before getting long range ICBMs, not the other way around.
Yeah, you may be right. I had forgotten about that 2013 test, it seems to have been almost as big as the ones in 2016.
Apart that without NK having weapons to hit US it's basically just matter of time before US comes down hard. All it takes is SK/US alliance end(and nothing lasts forever) and US has little reason to not repeat Iraq there.
It's a matter of time? There was 50 years prior to nuclear weapons, where North Korea conducted significantly more provacative acts then they've done recently, and we didn't "come down hard".
That's a war no one wants, and nukes has nothing to do with it.
While its true what you say, this administration might not be the best for the North Koreans to depend on. Personally even if the conditions for denuclearisation are there, which I believe aren't there, I would not take that step with one of the most publically hostile administrations. Yeah NK does it too, but the direct insight into Trump's mind when he tweets things like that should make anyone reluctant to make a deal. What would be the guarentee?
Oddly enough, I actually think that that is the reason we have made significantly more progress in the last year regarding North Korea than we have in the last 20.
North Korea has to this point been blessed with a string of US presidents who were really passive on the whole issue, and were predictable in how they'd react. Bluster against North Korean provocation and then back down to a compromise. Trump wasn't doing any of that. His unpredictability and short temper have, for once, put North Korea on the backfoot. North Korea was and is faced with a US which might actually decide to give them a spanking, unlike the last 50 years where it's been tense but relatively safe for North Korea to keep poking the proverbial bear.
North Korea might have realized that they can't simply keep poking the US to get some concessions and foreign aid because instead they might actually get total annihilation.
In some ways, being unpredictable can be a good thing. It actually forces your opponents to concede more than they might otherwise have done.
While this line of thinking is all fine and well, what have the North Koreans actually conceded? What progress has been made?
So far they have pushed through their nuclear program as fast as possible, or even faster because of US rhetoric. Meanwhile President Moon was elected on a more diplomatic approach towards NK, so that meant the goals of SK and the US were running counter for the greater part of the Trump administration so far.
The threat of war/downfall always existed in the minds of NK ever since the beginning of the end of communism in a great many countries. Especially the Bush Jr. admin with the axis of evil talk, the spreading/imposing of democracy that was going on by force and calling it a rogue state made NK even more nervous. That is exactly when they incredibly sped up nuclear research and conducted their first nuclear weapons test during the Bush presidency. So what Trump is doing really isn't that different, the only element he has injected is some ridiculous public personal feud.
The sudden advances North Korea made in its nuclear weapons program are not entirely linked to US policy though. North Korea has been preparing for war with the US and pursuing nuclear weapons for a long time already, even under the more benign US administrations, but it was never very successful. The most recent developments are linked to developments in the war in Ukraine, which has allowed North Korea to finally build a (somewhat) reliable delivery system. That made nuclear weapons something that North Korea could actually use to really hurt the US in case of war, turning nukes from a theoretical possibility into NK's most promising weapon. I can imagine that the development of ICBMs is what drove North Korea's recent development of heavier nukes more than anything.
Oh no I didn't mean to imply that they are linked to US policy. I'm just saying all the belligerent rhetoric likely pushed North Korea to accelerate certain aspects such as possibly testing. They would have gotten there eventually, but the Bush and Trump presidency have given them additional motivation to develop it fast.
As for heavier nukes being a consequence of ICBM tech. Its hard to say, its the chicken and the egg problem. Heavier nukes might have already been usable on short range missiles to an extent, but we don't know how far along with miniaturization the NK are/were. Furthermore Ukraine kicked off in 2014, but North Korea already detonated a relatively heavy device in 2013 (which was roughly in line with the one in early 2016). So its likely that building 'heavy' nukes wasn't so much the issue for North Korea, it was the delivery mechanism/miniaturization. But from earlier tests it seems that heavy nuclear weapons were already mostly developed before getting long range ICBMs, not the other way around.
Yeah, you may be right. I had forgotten about that 2013 test, it seems to have been almost as big as the ones in 2016.
If they test any more nukes the test site is at risk of collapse and releasing radiation and radioactive materials from the previous testing.
Its been rendered unstable to some sources, collapses. Higher seismic readings and quakes. Signs of aras that have collapsed or slid.
The previous one collapsed other test tunnels a crossing to reports. One came down on miners.
Major radiation issues. Deformed babies. Dying trees, dry Wells in the region. People sick from unknown ailments.
It does not sound very good there. The mountain may have already have lost containment already once.
Cut it out with the siege towers of quotes guys, please, next comment you keep on the chain reaches the two digits already and it is horrible to load up on a mobile phone with little data at this point.
Lord Kragan wrote: Cut it out with the siege towers of quotes guys, please, next comment you keep on the chain reaches the two digits already and it is horrible to load up on a mobile phone with little data at this point.
I cut it down a bit. But DakkaDakka being so unwieldy on a mobile is exactly why I avoid cutting down the pyramid, as its an absolute chore to fix quotes when cutting.
Lord Kragan wrote: Cut it out with the siege towers of quotes guys, please, next comment you keep on the chain reaches the two digits already and it is horrible to load up on a mobile phone with little data at this point
Quotes for the quote god! More posts for his throne!
Give up nuclear ambitions?
.
