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.

I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

I'd forgotten about that, and yeah, China would probably shelter them.

Like I said earlier, and adding to Seb's comment, China has privately said that it doesn't mind Korean unification because:

1) Better market for its goods, and the South will need a lot of goods and cheap labour to rebuild-the North

2) Part of any re-unification deal will involve the Americans getting told to get the hell out, in the politest diplomatic terms of course.

A Korean peninsular free of Uncle Sam will make China happy.

Why would US withdrawl have to be part of the deal? I thought SK and USA were total chums.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

North Korea side of the border is heavily mined, have good killing fields, and are under orders to shoot anyone heading to South Korea. 1996 a North Korean family was killed on the North Korean side of the border. Touched off a fire fight with South Korean ground forces that did not go any heavier then small arms and mortar fire. The entire DMZ went on a war footing (it happens a bit). The border with China is more porous.

 feeder wrote:
Why would US withdrawl have to be part of the deal? I thought SK and USA were total chums.

I think it was some idea that North Korea would be a partner in the deal, which assumes the government was still cohesive enough to demand such a thing. Which is unrealistic.

If the Koreas reunite, it will mean that North Korea has totally collapsed. And so nobody will be in place to demand the US leaves.

South Korea would likely want aid from the US to help in the reconstruction, at least on the side of maintaining order with military troops. But the US would maintain a military presence because of China.

China would probably demand it.

As much as they'd like to have a say in that, they wouldn't have any leverage in that event to demand that.

Depends on how fast they can move troops in to keep North Korea "stable"

They are going to move troops there fast.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

As Jihadin says, the border to the South is pretty hot. Whereas the border to China is patrolled, but it is nowhere near the intensity. As a result there’s established smugglers and routes that could be used by North Koreans making the decision to get out.

Anybody who thinks that the Americans won't be told where to go if Korea is re-united, has no understanding of Korean history.

They have been occupied numerous times in their history. The current situation is a continuation of that.

The Americans are in South Korea for obvious historical reasons.

If the North goes, that threat is removed. A united Korea, looking to establish friendly nations with a massive country on it's border, will seek to remove the US military, by friendly means of course.

US Military will agree - they have plenty of bases nearby - Guam, Okinawa etc etc

Publicly, this will be the story. Privately, Korea will have secret contingency plans drawn up for US forces to assist in the event of any trouble with China.

It's pragmatic, and entirely keeping with US/South Korean relations.

 Tyran wrote:
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.

Agreed. There is no logical reason for the US to be involved in another Pacific War. Frankly we didn't want to be involved in the last Pacific War...

Except we are "Pivoting towards Asia" strategically, so it looks like we are at least posturing for another Pacific War.

I don't think the pivot is supposed to be about starting wars.

I'm sure it isn't about starting wars as well. But it sure is a good way to get involved in them.

However, to be fair, any war in that region would probably get us involved anyway, so you might as well be ready for it.

You rationalized it better than I could have.

 Manchu wrote:
British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers.

Neither did the French. Or at the very least, the “colonial subjects” were to be kept second-class citizens indefinitely. Hence why the decolonization.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
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.

Agreed. There is no logical reason for the US to be involved in another Pacific War. Frankly we didn't want to be involved in the last Pacific War...

We don't want to be involved in any war. Doesn't mean there won't be logical reasons for it. If another pacific war comes about, it'll be for much the same reasons the last one did. One country gaining to much control of a space we can't have one power having control over.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers.

Neither did the French. Or at the very least, the “colonial subjects” were to be kept second-class citizens indefinitely. Hence why the decolonization.

No argument as to the reality. But in terms of idealism, the French wanted to integrate colonial peoples into the greater metropole of French culture. You can read a fair summary on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Civilising_mission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_%28French_colonialism%29

I have already learned about it in my history lessons at school, but your links only confirm that this was bs. A blatantly hypocrite excuse at best.

The largest problem with a US vs China war is nukes. I believe that any US vs China war would be a quick naval war. The US wouldn't dare to invade China.

Probebly goes for both sides.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Probebly goes for both sides.

China doesn't has any real capacity to threaten the USA. Invading the USA is practically impossible.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have already learned about it in my history lessons at school, but your links only confirm that this was bs. A blatantly hypocrite excuse at best.

Well, the point of the links was not to justify French imperialism, but to show that it was pursued according to integrationalist ideals. Those ideals resulted in a different structure than British imperialism.

I still believe the proportion of French people that actually wanted the people from the colony to become full French citizen was absolutely negligible.

Both the US and China are countries that anyone would be suicidal to invade by land. China's geography plays fantastically into a defensive war and wars of attrition are what armies like the PLA are best at. Meanwhile the US is utterly GIGANTIC and, which this hasn't been tested since the 18th century, I have a feeling any portion of this country would be equally hellish to occupy.

Meanwhile, our respective nations have every incentive to cooperate. For every war-crazy nationalist there are ten people who want to take home a bigger paycheck, buy cheaper goods, and not get shot at the end of the day. I think a better question would be, why does the US need continued "dominance" in the region? For good or for ill, much of East Asia's fate depends very heavily on internal developments within China. The US isn't going to be, or need to be, such a world power forever. This isn't because the US is doomed to collapse; it's because many countries that were once utterly dependent on one of two imperialistic superpowers for survival are now finally having time to come into their own.