| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - China & US versus North Korea
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


China & US versus North Korea

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2017 at 04:02
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

According to Henry Kissinger's book 'On China,' China, as the Middle Kingdom, has had client states for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So this relationship with North Korea, is not one that started in 1948, but goes back 100s of years basically.  So getting China to "flip" so to speak, is not likely, and might be unimaginable for China.

If the ultimate end game is regional domination then China needs allies from other parts of the world like Pakistan which it has bought and paid for. Don't you expect China to take over the entire region eventually? Won't that make the leader of NK and SK totally replaceable?

We live in ever changing world Franciscosan, anything is possible, especially in politics, look at your own country for example, who would have imagined......?

If China were to take over the entire region, would Korea even still exist as an independent country? But I don't think that the US would allow that, do you?

I read in todays newspaper that someone in the US is saying that the US should confront China over the South China Sea development. So, we go to them for help on NoKo on one hand, and then try to bully them on another?






Edited by toyomotor - 01 Jun 2017 at 04:04
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1058
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2017 at 04:25
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

According to Henry Kissinger's book 'On China,' China, as the Middle Kingdom, has had client states for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So this relationship with North Korea, is not one that started in 1948, but goes back 100s of years basically.  So getting China to "flip" so to speak, is not likely, and might be unimaginable for China.

If the ultimate end game is regional domination then China needs allies from other parts of the world like Pakistan which it has bought and paid for. Don't you expect China to take over the entire region eventually? Won't that make the leader of NK and SK totally replaceable?

We live in ever changing world Franciscosan, anything is possible, especially in politics, look at your own country for example, who would have imagined......?

If China were to take over the entire region, would Korea even still exist as an independent country? But I don't think that the US would allow that, do you?

I read in todays newspaper that someone in the US is saying that the US should confront China over the South China Sea development. So, we go to them for help on NoKo on one hand, and then try to bully them on another?





I don't think that will ever happen. I would expect US to allow China a very wide berth as the world shrinks. The China plan depends on US alliance and they would go to war with us before they surrender any control over the region IMHO of course.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2017 at 04:29
Yes, loss of face is a very big issue in the region. And preserving face, in the end, could just possibly lead to a confrontation, whether it be controlled or not. Japan is getting itchy feet over NoKo and an alliance between SoKo and Japan could happen.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2235
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2017 at 00:51
I think the South China Sea and North Korea are separate issues.  Although I suppose something in one are might complicate things in the other, right now they are not necessarily linked.

China _is_ the Middle Kingdom, they don't want to expand, they are in their mind, between the world and heaven.  Why would anyone close to heaven want to expand and get further away from heaven, closer to the barbarians?  It is okay for barbarians or semi'barbarians to be client kingdoms, but at least traditionally, that would not be okay for an ethnic Han Chinese.  That is traditionally, but still China is not that expansionistic, sure they want Taiwan, and they make a few islands in the South China Seas, and they beat up on Tibet and the Weggers, but in general they fight wars with India, Vietnam and in Korea to maintain their buffer states, they aren't real expansionistic.  They don't want to control these areas they just want to deny them to any other great power.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2017 at 01:58
Franciscosan
Quote I think the South China Sea and North Korea are separate issues.

I've never claimed to the contrary-but the lines blurr a little when on the one hand the US militarily opposes Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, while seeking Chinese aid, or at least neutrality over North Korea, if that's what's going on.

Quote China _is_ the Middle Kingdom, they don't want to expand, they are in their mind, between the world and heaven.
 

And heaven is where precisely, the Philipines? You must be joking, the building of man made islands and stocking them with military hardware is exactly that, expansionism.

Quote  That is traditionally, but still China is not that expansionistic, sure they want Taiwan, and they make a few islands in the South China Seas, and they beat up on Tibet and the Weggers, but in general they fight wars with India, Vietnam and in Korea to maintain their buffer states, they aren't real expansionistic.  They don't want to control these areas they just want to deny them to any other great power.

Frankly Franky, I can't understand where you're coming from. By creating the islands in the South China Sea, not only does China control the South China Sea routes to South East Asian countries, Korea and Japan, but it also creates jumping off places for military incursion into the Philipines and South East Asian countries to which it is opposed, surely you can see that? Or maybe not!!


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2235
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2017 at 01:09
We don't like to admit it, but Kim Jon Un has learned his lesson very well.  Momar Qaddafi decided to give up his weapons of mass destruction, the West gave some lukewarm support, but when the Arab Spring occurred, the West supported his ouster, eventually, he was dragged out of a ditch and shoot.  Kim Jon Un doesn't want this to happen to himself, and so he holds onto these weapons.  Perhaps if Qaddafi had done so, he or his family would still be in power.  Saddam Hussein apparently gave up his weapons (but was saying otherwise to Iran), and look how he ended up.  Assad played coy about giving up WMDs, maybe he has gotten rid of them, but then again maybe not.

I think that persecution of tyrants, no matter how tempting, does not tend to work out in the end.  What is more important, to get a tyrant to freely retire with a promise of no persecution?  or to have a tyrant hang on to the bitter end, knowing that if he relaxes his grip on the throat of the state, it will come back and bite him. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2017 at 03:33
Franciscosan

North Korea has fired off it's latest rocket, which, apparently, has the range to reach Chicago and Northern Australia.

This is a threat which can not be permitted to exist, IMO. I don't really car how or where JKU learned his lessons, but, it seems to me if he's not dealt a severe military blow now, he's going to hold the world to ransom, lift the embargoes on North Korea or I shoot, sort of thing.

Better a pre-emptive strike than return fire.

Whether or not China will join the US in any such attack onNorth Korea is problematic.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2017 at 09:08
Let me make 2 points about this situation.

Bush II was willing to go to war with Iraq on the mere supposition that they were in the process of ATTEMPTING to acquire nuclear bomb making materials. Now you can argue the merits of the intel. You can argue about our policy vis a vis a new government in Iraq or not. You can argue about whether Obama screwed up everything with his precipitous withdrawal. The basic premise of US policy is that we will not allow third world nations to acquire nukes. In the case of NK there is no doubt that they have the weapons and the delivery systems to use them. In fact ever since they built their first nuke they have had the wherewithal to hit the mainland US. They could and can put a nuke in Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, SD, Houston, New Orleans, Savanah, Charleston, Norfold, DC-Baltimore-Philly, NY or any of the Florida port cities. All they have to do is lease some tramp steamers send them out by circuitous routes and explode them in the harbors.

The other point refers to everyone's repeated concerns regarding Russia and China. If you look back to the original conflict which created this problem, Truman was hamstrung by the same fears as to how they could/would retaliate/respond. What everybody forgets is that Russia and China were both operating from a position of weakness. We did not know until will into the Khruschev era how weak the Soviet Union was following the devastation of WWII.

And China--well think about it. They sent just about every man in their military that they could possibly send into Korea and they were handled with relative ease. The best comparison that I can make is a boxer going 10 rounds with an opponent for a draw but only using the pinkie of his left hand to punch with. Can you imagine the result if the US had only deployed 3-4 more divisions, not to fight a holding action on the parallel but a war of maneuver aimed at cutting Chinese supply lines and trapping them in place.

If you compare Russian/Chinese strength now and in 1950, I assert that they are actually weaker now. Is there any concern, any at all in all of Europe that the Russians are even contemplating pouring through the Fulda Gap. They had enough problems taking on the Georgians and even though they took an undefended Crimea, so far they have only been able to take less than half of Ukraine. And if the US slapped an immediate ban on Chinese imports if nothing else it would solve the Chinese fertilizer problem--there would be a 10 year supply in the Chinese Politburo.

As an aside if you really want to mess with Putin's mind. Have Trump to tell the Joint Chiefs to rut through the US inventory and refurbish 50-100 IRBM's, send them to the Ukraine secretly. We would only be honoring our treaty obligations. We guaranteed their sovereignty if they would give up their nukes. Well their sovereignty has been violated so we're just giving them back what they gave up on our say so.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2017 at 03:30
AS,welcome back and thanks for a very insightful post.

Do you think that Russia would sit idly by and watch the US bring nukes to the Ukraine? Don't forget that there are many Russian nationals living in the Ukraine.

China, post WW2, has become a very important trading partner for some western countries. You bring two things into play here-
  1. China seeks to control the South China Sea, therefore it could control all military and trade shipping in the area, which is not acceprable to the other countries in the region. This needs to be dealt with as a matter of some urgency before it goes much further;
  2. The US, and must of the rest of the western world expects that China will act to restrain North Korea's increasingly provocative nuclear expansion. Conflict on one hand while begging favours on the other won't work!
It really is time for China to piss or get off the pot in relation to North Korea.

Less and less, major conflicts of the future will reply on boots on the ground, hand to hand combat and so on. The fight will be with technology, and which side has the best and the most will win, but we must ask, at what cost?

But, I agree with the general tenet of you post, Trump using these matters to take heat of his problems at home (of his own making) will not make them go away. 

Is the US still capable of taking the lead in the free world?




Edited by toyomotor - 31 Jul 2017 at 03:35
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2235
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2017 at 22:54
Ukraine got rid of its nukes and had the West decommission them, I doubt they would want some back these days.

When you say that, 'China will need to be dealt with' or some such phrase, let us be clear on what that means, you mean that "the United States is going to have to deal with China......"  But really it is probably better if the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea _deal_with_ China, and America stands in the background and looks ominous.  'Speak softly and carry a big stick' said Teddy Roosevelt, of course he really screwed up on Japan and Korea, and it wasn't until WWII that that got sorted out.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 01:17
Franciscosan
If you're going to quote me, please do so with accuracy, it isn't too hard.

Quote When you say that, 'China will need to be dealt with' or some such phrase, let us be clear on what that means, you mean that "the United States is going to have to deal with China......"

What I actually wrote was
Quote
  1. China seeks to control the South China Sea, therefore it could control all military and trade shipping in the area, which is not acceprable to the other countries in the region. This needs to be dealt with as a matter of some urgency before it goes much further;
Nowhere did I write or infer that the United States is going to have to deal with China. The countries you mention have a snowflakes chance in hell of influencing China, as you should know, not unless they were allied with a superpower, such as the USA.

Being the Leader of the Free World carries with it responsibilities, in this case, IMHO, to be firm with China over the South China Sea. How far will China be permitted to go? The Phillipines perhaps, snaring some of it's smaller islands, or the Indonesian Archeapelago? It's another take on the 1950's-60's Domino Theory.

If the USA can't or won't act, what will become of Asia first, and the rest of the world to follow? And, no, this is not Chicken Little thinking.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2235
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 02:03
I think you did not quite get my point, you _should_ directly talk about the US, because it is pretty clear that the US is implied for dealing with the issue.  It is like teenagers going on a beer run, but only one person has a car.  Everybody can abstractly say "there ought to be a beer run," but the fact is, there is only one possible driver.  If you don't get that person, there is no beer to attract the babes.

I think that "leader of the free world" is important, but frankly I don't think Trump finds it important.  He's looking how to make a buck on cheap.  He believes in playing erratic, and I think that will get us in trouble, which is why a second thread on Trump and foreign matters, is (I believe) warranted.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3906
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 03:29
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think you did not quite get my point, you _should_ directly talk about the US, because it is pretty clear that the US is implied for dealing with the issue.  It is like teenagers going on a beer run, but only one person has a car.  Everybody can abstractly say "there ought to be a beer run," but the fact is, there is only one possible driver.  If you don't get that person, there is no beer to attract the babes.

I think that "leader of the free world" is important, but frankly I don't think Trump finds it important.  He's looking how to make a buck on cheap.  He believes in playing erratic, and I think that will get us in trouble, which is why a second thread on Trump and foreign matters, is (I believe) warranted.

What part of my post did you not understand?

The Leader of the Free World should lead. But your president is not showing signs of leadership. Of course American involvement is implied. When it comes to defense of the worlds oceans etc, which other country can the west look to?

Surely, when discussing matters of international security, I don't have to be quite so specific when talking about defense matter, vis a vis North Korea, Russia, China et al, any such discussion, at this stage stage anyway, includes the USA. Whether or not the old alliances, treaties and agreements withstand the Trump storm, only time will tell.

As to whether or not we should maintain two threads is up to members.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.