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.

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).

In theory, but its more difficult.

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.

I thought that both the early US and Soviet space programs were pretty well known to be scientific excuses for developing ICBMs?

 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.

Or, in LBJ's case, literal dong waving.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/nikki-haley-to-china-cut-off-oil-to-north-korea-or-else.html

Oh... this would be quite an escalation.

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:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/nikki-haley-to-china-cut-off-oil-to-north-korea-or-else.html

Oh... this would be quite an escalation.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

The best way to handle North Korea is to ignore them.

 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...

Spetulhu wrote:

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 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..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Easy E wrote:

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.