Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You'd be surprised at China's attitude towards a united Korea, from what I've read on the subject.

They won't say it in public, but behind the scenes, a united Korea is not a problem for China, so long as US troops get the hell out of there.

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sining wrote:
I think that if it came to N.Korea collapsing, S.Korea would probably absorb N.Korea but China would rather take over N.Korea than let that happen

I think its the opposite.

China wants NK as a buffer state. They do NOT want to deal with the mess themselves. They'll let NK get reabsorbed before they take control of that territory and its clusterfeth of problems.

China wants Korea, they had a war about it before (China vs Japan for Korea as a buffer from the other).
If NK collapses it'll become a part of China more likely. Just more land for them to use.

Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

It isn't just the rebuilding work, it's also the integration of North Korean citizens into the South Korean state...and cleaning up all those land mines in and around the DMZ.

Really the best thing for everyone, except the North Korean leadership*, would be for the North Korean leadership to stop being crazy. It should acknowledge the legitimacy of South Korea (South Korea would need to follow suit), stop making threats that no one really takes seriously, and start engaging in international commerce.


*And possibly China. I'm sure a fair number of PRC officials and citizens enjoy the fact that NK annoys the West.

Indeed. North Korea is a convenient distraction, but not one they're willing to take responsibility for.

They'd sooner lose their puppet state than actually absorb it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

I was thinking more of the land than the people. The only ones it'd be a good thing to are the north Koreans.

 Tyran wrote:
South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

Similar sentiments were expressed with the fall of the Berlin wall and German re-unification. If there's a will, there's a way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

It isn't just the rebuilding work, it's also the integration of North Korean citizens into the South Korean state...and cleaning up all those land mines in and around the DMZ.

Really the best thing for everyone, except the North Korean leadership*, would be for the North Korean leadership to stop being crazy. It should acknowledge the legitimacy of South Korea (South Korea would need to follow suit), stop making threats that no one really takes seriously, and start engaging in international commerce.


*And possibly China. I'm sure a fair number of PRC officials and citizens enjoy the fact that NK annoys the West.

The North Koreans could never acknowledge the south - it goes against their entire raison d'etre

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The North Koreans could never acknowledge the south - it goes against their entire raison d'etre

The raison d'etre of the North Korean leadership is to stay in power, largely because they're afraid of what would happen if they lost power.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

Similar sentiments were expressed with the fall of the Berlin wall and German re-unification. If there's a will, there's a way.

The economic difference between NK and SK is far larger than the difference between East and West Germany. Also both West and East were in favor of reunification and there never was a war between them.

If we want to reunify them Germany way, we need to convince the North Koreans (have fun trying to negotiate with their Glorious Leader).

The other way would be wait for NK to collapse, but then they will be even worse economically speaking, and that's considering there isn't a war.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

I was thinking more of the land than the people. The only ones it'd be a good thing to are the north Koreans.

The land isn't worth much, especially when it comes with a destitute and uneducated population and has almost no modern infrastructure.

North Korea also doesn't have a ton of notable natural resources either.

A ghetto makes a nice buffer zone, but it doesn't make a nice new state.

 Ketara wrote:
I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

You seem to be committing yourself to mincing words, apparently for the sake of revisionism. (What is the motivation, I wonder?) British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire. Whether the acquiring land itself was the goal (I agree it was not) is immaterial to the point of the British desire for British empire.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

I think you are absolutely correct here. No one benefits when these 2 powers clash. US might hold a military edge but china would ramp up production to a such a high rate if a war started it would be to most devastating war this world has ever seen. Lets hope this can be settled diplomatically.

Unlikely. WWII will remain the worse unless gak really hits the fan, and as China lacks the ability to invade America (it simply doesn't have ships or planes to do so), and America could only control the coastal cities (which while would do severe economic damage, there's no way in hell they can take the Chinese mainland with its nightmarish terrain)... that's probably as far as the war would go. I doubt nukes would be involved, and more likely it would just be a redux of the Korean War with America and China trading blows through proxy.

China is limited to being a local tyrant. They do have a lot of industrial capacity, but they wouldn't be able to mimic what the US did in WW2. The US would be able to take out any attempts to ramp up the production of a navy before China was able to make one capable of facing the US.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

You seem to be committing yourself to mincing words, apparently for the sake of revisionism. (What is the motivation, I wonder?) British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire. Whether the acquiring land itself was the goal (I agree it was not) is immaterial to the point of the British desire for British empire.

Agreed!

And if I didn't know better, I'd say this was some sort of Troll Thread and/or Long Game involving the Ultimate English Revenge on The Colonies?!?

 Ketara wrote:
There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

honestly, we won't have to do much more then what we are doing now. Creating strong alliances and arming them. No one in Chinas vicinity really likes them too much.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

honestly, we won't have to do much more then what we are doing now. Creating strong alliances and arming them. No one in Chinas vicinity really likes them too much.

No one in that part of the world likes the neighbors too much, SK hates Japan even more than China.

Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

 Manchu wrote:
[ British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire.

Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

Regardless, the original point (far, far back now) was to differentiate between the current Chinese motivations with regards to territorial acquisition in the South China Sea, and the motivations for the acquisition of territory under the British Empire(as it was pointed at as if it was some sort of excuse for contemporary Chinese actions). And I personally have no dog in the historical fight beyond that which anyone else has (arguing with strangers on the internet for fun ), I'm primarily a naval historian of the period, not an Empire one. But if you want to get into Christopher Bell v Nicholas Lambert on Fisher's reform policies, I'm your man!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

As long as they label everything as 'self-defence' equipment, they can more or less do anything they like. And the only reason they need do that is for domestic political purposes, beyond the immediate headlines, the Japanese renaming their military would have little effect on it's current composition.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

It does, but most people are in favor of rearming. And the US imposed limitations expired a long time ago.

Basically anybody who cared or had the power to prevent Japanese militarization is dead or no longer cares.

 Ketara wrote:
Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

You did misunderstand. Specifically, you decontextualized my point from our conversation. In context, the interests at issue are resources and markets outside of the British isles in the Americas, Asia, Africa. Securing them meant claiming territory on the basis of economic and military might. How again is this not empire?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

It does, but most people are in favor of rearming. And the US imposed limitations expired a long time ago.

Basically anybody who cared or had the power to prevent Japanese militarization is dead or no longer cares.

I think Japan should have a referendum on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
[ British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire.

Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

Regardless, the original point (far, far back now) was to differentiate between the current Chinese motivations with regards to territorial acquisition in the South China Sea, and the motivations for the acquisition of territory under the British Empire(as it was pointed at as if it was some sort of excuse for contemporary Chinese actions). And I personally have no dog in the historical fight beyond that which anyone else has (arguing with strangers on the internet for fun ), I'm primarily a naval historian of the period, not an Empire one. But if you want to get into Christopher Bell v Nicholas Lambert on Fisher's reform policies, I'm your man!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

As long as they label everything as 'self-defence' equipment, they can more or less do anything they like. And the only reason they need do that is for domestic political purposes, beyond the immediate headlines, the Japanese renaming their military would have little effect on it's current composition.

The self-defence argument can only stretch so far. The last thing we need is a Far East arms race. Things are bad enough with a Middle East arms race, without adding Far East to the mix.

A lot of you guys are making the point that that re-unification would be incredibly difficult, and that’s true. West Germany pretty much lost a decade in re-integrating East Germany, and North Korea is far more of a mess than East Germany ever was, and South Korea for all its modern qualities is still a long way from having the resources and capabilities of West Germany.

So yeah, it’d be a mess that’d set back South Korea a long way. But what you have to remember is that if unification ever became an option, there’s no alternative where South Korea won’t be piling in a load of cash and manpower. Even ignoring the historic, cultural and familial ties, having a collapsing state on your border is going to cause all kinds of problems, not least to security. Facing that, South Korea will no choice but to deploy troops. Once troops are there, South Korea will inevitably take a lead in establishing stability in North Korea, and then in rebuilding North Korea. From there, it’s clear that South Korea will be sinking vast resources in to North Korea no matter what.

Whether economic integration is still a step too far is an interesting question, but one that’s far from clear once you consider that no matter what, North Korean collapse will ask a hell of a lot of South Korea.

 sebster wrote:
A lot of you guys are making the point that that re-unification would be incredibly difficult, and that’s true. West Germany pretty much lost a decade in re-integrating East Germany, and North Korea is far more of a mess than East Germany ever was, and South Korea for all its modern qualities is still a long way from having the resources and capabilities of West Germany.

So yeah, it’d be a mess that’d set back South Korea a long way. But what you have to remember is that if unification ever became an option, there’s no alternative where South Korea won’t be piling in a load of cash and manpower. Even ignoring the historic, cultural and familial ties, having a collapsing state on your border is going to cause all kinds of problems, not least to security. Facing that, South Korea will no choice but to deploy troops. Once troops are there, South Korea will inevitably take a lead in establishing stability in North Korea, and then in rebuilding North Korea. From there, it’s clear that South Korea will be sinking vast resources in to North Korea no matter what.

Whether economic integration is still a step too far is an interesting question, but one that’s far from clear once you consider that no matter what, North Korean collapse will ask a hell of a lot of South Korea.

Well, what you said will also apply to China. There is going to be a lot of negotiations between China and SK when NK collapses.

 Ketara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The fact remains that Britain certainly did have a great desire for empire and fulfilled that desire with great success.

Define 'desire for Empire'.

I agree that they believed their Empire was a good thing. Often quite passionately. I would agree that they took actions to continue the existence of that Empire.

I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

Sorry that is just stupid, Yes the Empire may not been the goal, but in those days the empire had a lot of enemies, and to keep the mighty sea fleet and army running they needed resources and make sure they had their hand in contested area's but to say great brittain had no interest in enlarging its area of influence is just naive IMHO (might have a little over reacted there )

On another point, don't underestimate the Vietnamese, The Americans and Chinese have experienced that in ancient and recent times.

Just to add to the thread.

China would be a horrid foe to fight. This isn't the Boxer Rebellion anymore. China had involvement in the Korean Conflict and we saw how that went. Somewhere though, I am sure the U.S would draw a line in the sand.

I echo the sentiment above about MacArthur, and I am sure the U.S Marines that fought in the Pacific would roll in their graves too if they saw how the world was today.

D-USA nailed the thread in one sentence.

USA vs China is a war that no one wants (aside of the usual crazies). It wouldn't be nice for anyone, it would be a lose-lose scenario and there is always the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

 Tyran wrote:
Well, what you said will also apply to China. There is going to be a lot of negotiations between China and SK when NK collapses.

Definitely, even if they didn’t want to have a major say in a remodelled North Korea (which I doubt), they’d have no choice. The border to China is already quite porous, and so if North Korea collapsed there would be vast numbers of refugees pouring in to China. China would have no choice but to play a part to stabilise the situation.