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.

 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?

Well somebody aught to do it

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

By ''issue'' I meant a problem for North Korea's scientists. Not ''no problem to shoot down''.

 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.

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

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.

I still think y'all better cut down on the realist kool-aid, saving face is huge in Chinese culture.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

Look even the Germans are getting involved:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-03/germany-bids-to-reopen-north-korea-channels-to-halt-slide-to-war

This war is mostly likely happening, because I don't see either side backing down.

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.

Still chugging that realist kool-aid. The same arugments of economy were made prior to WWI, and see where that ended up.

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.

KTG17 wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Everyone would be screwed, basically.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.