| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Will China Support North Korea for long?
  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.


Will China Support North Korea for long?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Will China Support North Korea for long?
    Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 10:46
Many in china are calling for econimic reforms in NK and are saying with minimal reforms the country could become self suffienct. Apparently there is a divide between politicians in China with one faction agreeing to help a fellow socialist government at all costs and another whom is believing their far to much trouble to deal with anymore. What side do you think will eventually make the decision in Chinese politics?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/China-Nudges-North-Korea-to-Reform-With-Limited-Success--115650129.html

Pretty interesting article and brings up a lot of debate about the future of China and North Korea.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 13:25

China will continue to support North Korea, at least in the near future. As I stated in other posts, China cannot afford to spread its influence, and vigorously achieve national goals. The Korean peninsula however is one of the few places where China has any voice in international geopolitics.

"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 14:08
Moved to the Geopolitical Institute forum.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 03:10
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

China will continue to support North Korea, at least in the near future. As I stated in other posts, China cannot afford to spread its influence, and vigorously achieve national goals. The Korean peninsula however is one of the few places where China has any voice in international geopolitics.


I'd say china has extreme influence and power. The US government owes them billions if not more.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 05:19

The US Government "owes" China not a penny, after all the purchase of T-paper is an investment gamble and in a sense represents "insurance" upon which American investors in the Chinese economy can fall back upon in the event the "Chinese Economic Miracle" implodes! But, Joe, if you are so certain that "bonds" reflect extreme influence and power, I have an impressive collection of Russian bonds issued between 1908 and 1914 you might be interested in purchasing.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 05:45
NK is the best boogeyman in the world. Why should China change its policies?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 09:29
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

NK is the best boogeyman in the world. Why should China change its policies?
 
Al-Jassas

Cause their militarily weak, poor and starving. The Chinese basically support them.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 09:41
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The US Government "owes" China not a penny, after all the purchase of T-paper is an investment gamble and in a sense represents "insurance" upon which American investors in the Chinese economy can fall back upon in the event the "Chinese Economic Miracle" implodes! But, Joe, if you are so certain that "bonds" reflect extreme influence and power, I have an impressive collection of Russian bonds issued between 1908 and 1914 you might be interested in purchasing.


I bet you could convince somebody of their "worth" and that all you have to do is "take them to a Russian embassy" even though their a 100 years old. Somebody might believe it.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 11:36
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

 
I'd say china has extreme influence and power. The US government owes them billions if not more.

 
This is really not a problem for the United States. In a country which has a net worth of 35 trillion, owing a few billion is not worth mentioning. The American economy is larger than the next 4 biggest economies combined, at the time Americans are not worried - and they shouldn't be.
 
Being an export economy is okay as long as you have multiple nations who require your goods. However, in a time where your goods are not needed, or by some inflicting reason the importing nation does not buy from you, your economy drops - far. When the United States rides over a dip, the Chinese drive over a cliff. And this is increasingly bad when your country (China) is actually 2 countries at bitter odds.


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 11 Feb 2011 at 11:38
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 18:08
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

NK is the best boogeyman in the world. Why should China change its policies?
 
Al-Jassas

Cause their militarily weak, poor and starving. The Chinese basically support them.
 
Obviously you misunderstood me. Supporting NK was and still is the cheapest strategic option China has to frighten its neighbours and add another headache to US policy makers.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 17:43

The boogeymen analogy is reasonablly correct. North Korea will remain a headach for the US and a lot of it's ally for the foreseeable future, and give China leverage in the talks involving NK.

 
As for cost of support , it really depend on how much the actual cost is, from the outside we really don't know since neither places are really transparent with their government to begin with and obviously on this subject even more so. NK is also siphoning aid from South Korea and the UN so it's not like China's really the only one commiting resource there, on the other hand I've heard that Chinese goods have quite a monopoly inside North Korea which might off set some of the costs.
 
As for militarily weak, that really depends on what your comparing them to,  and you must also understand the fact that Seoul is sitting right next to the Border, so even if the South "wins" a war against the north (most analysis think that in a conventional war the South have an advantage but not an overwhelming one), there's a very very good chance that their Capital, home to 10 freaking million citizens (and half of the SK's ppl live around the Seoul area) and one of the top 10 important financial hub in the world, could be destroyed.
 
In the end, a NK implosion would do China little good, first they have to deal with a massive refugee problem, then they face the problem of them now likely to be directly bordering a country with US bases.  As long as the cost to prop up the North remains lower then the potential cost of dealing with such situation persist , it's probable that China will continue to help out the Kim family. And it really has far less to do with any idealogical thing then a simple geopolitical thing. 
 
(For example, that Israel and the US both are very sad to see Egypt turning from a dictatorship to a democracy. the irony yes?)
 
 
 


Edited by RollingWave - 28 Jul 2011 at 17:47
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 18:01
Actually, i think NoKo has become a liability to China since the 90's, rather than as an asset is some sort of fictional modern deterrence.

Would the Chinese protect the North Koreans, yes, but only if they were invaded. However, if the North Koreans were too finally succumb to their own hubris, then i doubt the Chinese would do anything to help them. Especially if,  ( and most importantly) the South Koreans and (least importantly) the Americans were to work with the Chinese step by step in helping the north transition to a more proficient South Korean model of governance.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 23:14
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Actually, i think NoKo has become a liability to China since the 90's, rather than as an asset is some sort of fictional modern deterrence.

Would the Chinese protect the North Koreans, yes, but only if they were invaded. However, if the North Koreans were too finally succumb to their own hubris, then i doubt the Chinese would do anything to help them. Especially if,  ( and most importantly) the South Koreans and (least importantly) the Americans were to work with the Chinese step by step in helping the north transition to a more proficient South Korean model of governance.
 
IMO the PRC would have no problem with the demise of NK, BUT its absorption by SK is not likely to be supported by China until the US has no military presence there.  One of China's longer term geopolitical goals is the removal of US military presence in north Asia.
 
Korea, historically and culturally has been a tribute kingdom of China.  The Chinese will look forward to a re-establishment of dominance, certainly economically.  They do not see a US presence as desirable in any way, and will wait as long as it takes for that to wither away.  China is not going to help the US do anything on the Asian mainland.  The less presence and the less influence for the US, the more advantageous it is for China.
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 28 Jul 2011 at 23:15
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 12:12
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Actually, i think NoKo has become a liability to China since the 90's, rather than as an asset is some sort of fictional modern deterrence.

Would the Chinese protect the North Koreans, yes, but only if they were invaded. However, if the North Koreans were too finally succumb to their own hubris, then i doubt the Chinese would do anything to help them. Especially if,  ( and most importantly) the South Koreans and (least importantly) the Americans were to work with the Chinese step by step in helping the north transition to a more proficient South Korean model of governance.
 
IMO the PRC would have no problem with the demise of NK, BUT its absorption by SK is not likely to be supported by China until the US has no military presence there.  One of China's longer term geopolitical goals is the removal of US military presence in north Asia.
 
Korea, historically and culturally has been a tribute kingdom of China.  The Chinese will look forward to a re-establishment of dominance, certainly economically.  They do not see a US presence as desirable in any way, and will wait as long as it takes for that to wither away.  China is not going to help the US do anything on the Asian mainland.  The less presence and the less influence for the US, the more advantageous it is for China.
 
That is generally correct, though I wouldn't say that they won't help ANYTHING with the US in Asia, simply that their medium term goal is to be the preeminent power of East and South East Asia and whatever the US want from them here they'd certainly need to make concession towards that end, and if they want to push for the reverse (which they are anyway, see the epic irony in recent days of Vietnam and the US working together in the South China Sea issue) China will most likely do tit for tat and do equally annoying things for the US.
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 13:47
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Many in china are calling for econimic reforms in NK and are saying with minimal reforms the country could become self suffienct....


That's quite curious. Many in the U.S. are calling for economic reforms in that country, too. For instance, start to expend less that what the country produce... Confused
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 15:02
Rolling Wave and Pikeshot, I believe you two have summed up the situation admirably. Until the U.S. decides to withdraw, China has no real incentive for going against its present policy of regime support. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 15:06
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

  
IMO the PRC would have no problem with the demise of NK, BUT its absorption by SK is not likely to be supported by China until the US has no military presence there.  One of China's longer term geopolitical goals is the removal of US military presence in north Asia.
 
True, they aren't especially thrilled by our presence, then again the Chinese ought to have thought that one over before their bloody intervention back in 1950 helped to prop up such a bacward regime right on their dorrstep! Rather ironic actually. What i was thinking, is that after the more important role the South Koreans, any effort at a stabliity or a move to a smooth transition will involve China's engagement with the US and it's forces in the area at the very least, whether they like it or not. If they choose in not engaging with the US in being the agents of our own removal from the penisula and the South Koreans, (after the possible scenario of assimilating the North, hypothetically speaking that is) were to further insist on us remaining as a deterrent to the Chinese expansive influence, then the Chinese, who are usually known for their longsighted vision, will have nobody to blame but themselves in choosing too remain disengeged in integrating and pooling all efforts at resolving the issue of North Korea.
 
Quote
Korea, historically and culturally has been a tribute kingdom of China.  The Chinese will look forward to a re-establishment of dominance, certainly economically.  They do not see a US presence as desirable in any way, and will wait as long as it takes for that to wither away.  China is not going to help the US do anything on the Asian mainland.  The less presence and the less influence for the US, the more advantageous it is for China.
 
 
And that lack of help in resovling issues worked so well for the Soviets. I am not disagreeing with you Pike, as i think your right, but that ytpe of formula doesn't usually see us finally being able to bring our people home from the Asian mainland. In fact, by not multilaterally engaging with all of the other Asian/Pacific powers and failing to reassure them of their benign presence, the Chinese will be it's own eventual  author of further isolation for itself with it's neighbors, as well as us remaining in the region as a counter balance to their unknown quality of power.
 
sigh... I don't know about you pikeshot, but if we ever get a chance to disengage from most of the world and let some other power play the policing stooge, then we ought to take that opportunity, don't you think?
 
BTW... i am glad to see you are still here.Smile
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2011 at 17:39
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 
True, they aren't especially thrilled by our presence, then again the Chinese ought to have thought that one over before their bloody intervention back in 1950 helped to prop up such a bacward regime right on their dorrstep! Rather ironic actually. What i was thinking, is that after the more important role the South Koreans, any effort at a stabliity or a move to a smooth transition will involve China's engagement with the US and it's forces in the area at the very least, whether they like it or not. If they choose in not engaging with the US in being the agents of our own removal from the penisula and the South Koreans, (after the possible scenario of assimilating the North, hypothetically speaking that is) were to further insist on us remaining as a deterrent to the Chinese expansive influence, then the Chinese, who are usually known for their longsighted vision, will have nobody to blame but themselves in choosing too remain disengeged in integrating and pooling all efforts at resolving the issue of North Korea.
 
Ehhh, the thinking back in the 50s was completely different than that of today, the Korean war and China's entrance into it was a very complex matter of political thinking.
 
For one thing, at that point there were legitimate concerns on the Chinese side that the US lead coalition's real intention was to just keep on rolling into Manchuria after they finished the North Koreans off,  hell MacArthur REALLY did thought about that.  (Though Trumen didn't, but then again Trumen got convinced by MacArthur's arguement more than a few times)
 
The second part is China's own internal state, MacArthur had originally thought that China would not enter the war because it had just finished a bloody civil war, but the reality was the opposite, because China finishing it's civil war was not the same as say... the US finishing WW2.  the CCP at that point had a huge army from absorbing a ton of KMT defectors and surrendered troops. in short it had too many military men and no battle field, and no resource to properly draw them down without risking further trouble (espeically in a country that had just saw 4 decades of warlordism).  So for the CCP Korean war was actually a way to by some time and space for them to estbalish more firmly in China.
 
Like others pointed out, if th US exchanges certain terms with China it is more than possible that the PRC would withdrawl support from the North and even actively blow it up, but those terms would probably first and foremost start wtih withdrawing US bases from not just Korea, but also Japan, something I doubt any US politician that can win national support would seriously consider, not to meantion that South Korean and espeically Japan would actively work to sabatoge such possibilities. (South Koreans might legitimately consider reunification as enough of an incentive to switch to a more China leaning alligiance, but there's no real gain here for Japan and hence this is why everyonce in awhile you see Japanese politician do what appears to be stupid provoktions against China to keep the situation at least a little bit tense.)
 
 
So in short, everyone involved is doing their geopolitical calculations quite rationally at this point.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by RollingWave - 29 Jul 2011 at 17:43
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2011 at 01:29
Panther,
 
I don't keep up with the professional journals much any more (or much of anything else I guess).  There have been papers published by the Naval institute and the journals of the NWC and the AWC talking about what you mention above.
 
US physical military presence abroad will be less important going forward - and a hell of a lot less expensive in times of financial problems and restrictions.  At some time I can see Germany not wanting a US military presence on her territory.  My view has been that no US presence should ever be in the Balkans as the US has no interests there.  The Med has been forsaken by the USN long since as no longer being of major US strategic importance.  So much for Europe.
 
Asia was always the "bugaboo" of US strategists. Almost 100 years ago the War Dept warned about any engagement on the Asian mainland as not being possible or sustainable.  That didn't work out quite that way, but the experience has been less than triumphant over 60 years.  Now, it does not seem that US physical military presence on the Asian mainland makes sense, or that it could be defensible any longer. 
 
80 years ago the Navy Dept and the War Dept understood the Philippines were indefensible in case of war with Japan.  What is different now with SE Asia and China?  SE Asia has been downgraded strategically since the Oil Shock of the mid 1970s.  (Notice any correllation between 1973's withdrawal from Vietnam and the increased importance of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean?  Smile )
 
Starategic interests can now be served by technology far more efficiently than by maintaining armies where they are at a disadvantage.  Personnel and logistics are enormously costly - and complex.  Communications and trade interests can be served by naval capability, especially with favorable relations with other interested parties impacted.  USAF strategic air superiority is not in question.
 
As strategic thinking is evolving, intervention as opposition to asymmetrical challenges will likely be downplayed in favor of much increased covert operations, and offensive cyberwarfare.  Those are far less expensive, can be more precisely targeted without inconvenient public scrutiny - and with plausible deniability.  As an example, Petraeus at CIA would indicate that there will be much more of that.
 
Power projection will not go away, but the pressure points will probably be picked and chosen more prudently.  John Foster Dulles is gone now.
 
Other than purpose-directed military resource concentration on oil supply and other natural resource routes, don't be amazed to see the Western Hemisphere become fortress America in the next 50 years.  The strategic hot spot of the coming century for North America is likely to be the Arctic.  The strategic importance of the hemisphere below about 10 degrees North Latitude has not been of overpowering concern.
 
Other strategic players away from the hemisphere are at the very least at the same disadvantages in Latin America as we are in other continents.  In some cultural cases it is even more disadvantageous.
 
   


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 30 Jul 2011 at 09:23
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2011 at 18:49
Originally posted by RollingWave RollingWave wrote:

Ehhh, the thinking back in the 50s was completely different than that of today, the Korean war and China's entrance into it was a very complex matter of political thinking.
 
 
China's entrance into the war was indeed over their fears of the UN forces not stopping at the Yalu. A fact, IIRC, Stalin utilized by manipulating Mao into acting as his proxy in combating the UN forces. Further was their fear of having as they saw it, a capitalist satellite right at their doorstep working to subvert their society. Let's face it, those were the days of innocence where the West were afraid of the reds and the Communists were afraid of the bourgeois capitalist imperialists.
 
Quote
For one thing, at that point there were legitimate concerns on the Chinese side that the US lead coalition's real intention was to just keep on rolling into Manchuria after they finished the North Koreans off,  hell MacArthur REALLY did thought about that.  (Though Trumen didn't, but then again Trumen got convinced by MacArthur's arguement more than a few times)
 
 
Regardless of the fanciful thinking going on right now, nobody but a small few were really that  interested in going into China. It was just too big and populated. Further there was no UN mandate for such an action. Regardless for whatever MacArthur's wishes were, international politics were not there to back up such an endeavor, simply put. The worse that can be debated over US actions is the ideas that floated around during the initial period of UN retreat down the peninsula on whether to use the atomic bomb or not. That was where Truman really wrestled with his inner demons.
 
Quote
The second part is China's own internal state, MacArthur had originally thought that China would not enter the war because it had just finished a bloody civil war, but the reality was the opposite, because China finishing it's civil war was not the same as say... the US finishing WW2.  the CCP at that point had a huge army from absorbing a ton of KMT defectors and surrendered troops. in short it had too many military men and no battle field, and no resource to properly draw them down without risking further trouble (espeically in a country that had just saw 4 decades of warlordism).  So for the CCP Korean war was actually a way to by some time and space for them to estbalish more firmly in China.
 
 
Yes, the intelligence on Chinese intentions were severely lacking. Further, i would like to thank you for providing your insight into the internal workings of the Chinese prior to their contribution to the war.
 
Quote
Like others pointed out, if th US exchanges certain terms with China it is more than possible that the PRC would withdrawl support from the North and even actively blow it up, but those terms would probably first and foremost start wtih withdrawing US bases from not just Korea, but also Japan, something I doubt any US politician that can win national support would seriously consider, not to meantion that South Korean and espeically Japan would actively work to sabatoge such possibilities. (South Koreans might legitimately consider reunification as enough of an incentive to switch to a more China leaning alligiance, but there's no real gain here for Japan and hence this is why everyonce in awhile you see Japanese politician do what appears to be stupid provoktions against China to keep the situation at least a little bit tense.)
 
I seriously doubt the chinese would go for broke in having the US withdraw from the Asian mainland all at once.  In fact, i seriously am doubting right now that is what they want too happen over this decade, so long as China is at a rather unique disadvantage in her own sphere. If i am understanding this correctly, they are more interested in regional stabilty over international perception and prestige. No, The best that the US and Chinese can do once NoKo possibly implodes, is to honor the Koreans right in settling their affairs on their own without any further outside interference. Every other issue raised in this area is outside of the topic currently, unless it is approached methodically over time.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2011 at 19:30
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Panther,
 
US physical military presence abroad will be less important going forward - and a hell of a lot less expensive in times of financial problems and restrictions.  At some time I can see Germany not wanting a US military presence on her territory.  My view has been that no US presence should ever be in the Balkans as the US has no interests there.  The Med has been forsaken by the USN long since as no longer being of major US strategic importance.  So much for Europe.
 
 
Yes, a reduction of our presence in Europe was alluded to by the previous administration, with a lot of negative fanfare i might add, what was that term called for forward operating bases, "Lilly pads"? What did our Europeans friends hear, Old Europe versus New Europe? sigh... My view is that most Germans may not want a US presence in their country, but for those Germans that are directly effected by our presence, especially economically in the Bavarian region, they would probably prefer we leave a presence behind, like a FOB or a minimally manned base stacked with materials that can be fully operational within days.
 
Though i agree with you about the Balkans, i think the point has been moot way before Clinton ever left office, the sounds of silent protests has always been most deafening in this regard. I often imagined if we had a Republican in office, then a deal would have already been in place and our withdrawal from the region would have happened at least ten years ago. No, i believe we are there too stay, at least for this decades as well.
 
About the Med. I don't think the US has lost any interest in it. I think it is with the loss of the Soviet threat that has caused the US to lose quite a bit of interest in it, that i think the US has let the ultimate responsibility for the Med.  devolve back onto the European powers. It is their area and they should be the ones ultimately policing it.
 
Quote
 As an example, Petraeus at CIA would indicate that there will be much more of that.
 
 
You are one of the unique few i have seen who has noticed and drawn this connection. Your presence truly does enrich this forum.
 
Quote
Other than purpose-directed military resource concentration on oil supply and other natural resource routes, don't be amazed to see the Western Hemisphere become fortress America in the next 50 years. 
 
Has been there in the back of mind, 24/7.
 
Quote
 The strategic hot spot of the coming century for North America is likely to be the Arctic.  The strategic importance of the hemisphere below about 10 degrees North Latitude has not been of overpowering concern.
 
 
Yes, i remember some years back that tensions were raised between the Canadians and the Russians over some territory i believe, and our questioning whether the Canadian Navy could hold back, much less stand alone against the Russian Navy?
 
Quote
Other strategic players away from the hemisphere are at the very least at the same disadvantages in Latin America as we are in other continents.  In some cultural cases it is even more disadvantageous.
 
 
Quite true. Then again, what often goes unmentioned, is our lack of interference in who or what wants to do business in South America. They say that the Monroe doctrine is dead. In a business sense, i guess it is. However, in a political sense, i think it would be naive to assume it is so just because we are not raising a stink over some Chinese company, or a government owned one, looking ot do what every country is doing, participating in the opening of the international markets.
   
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 11:25
Panther, two points: First, it was not that intelligence was "lacking" regarding China's intention in Korea. The simple truth is that Big Mac considered himself the brightest light in the room, and no one else's opinion mattered. It was hubris, plain and simple. I simply cannot believe that no one on Big Mac's staff seriously considered Chinese intervention under "probable courses of action".

Second, there is no way the Chinese are going to put up with an American presence in Korea after reunification. And more to the point, there is a sizable chunk of Korean public opinion that the U.S. had no place on the Peninsula in any post-reunification scenario. Any American war planner who overlooks that fact is grossly overpaid and stealing the taxpayer's money. Now, whether or not his general buys that argument is another matter altogether. Mac wasn't the only overweening narcissist we ever pinned stars on.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 11:57
Panther,
 
The Chinese may have their leverage in north Asia, but if anyone thinks the Monroe Doctrine is "dead," they - are brain dead.
 
Google the Cabot Lodge Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 06:31
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Panther, two points: First, it was not that intelligence was "lacking" regarding China's intention in Korea. The simple truth is that Big Mac considered himself the brightest light in the room, and no one else's opinion mattered. It was hubris, plain and simple. I simply cannot believe that no one on Big Mac's staff seriously considered Chinese intervention under "probable courses of action".
 
Howdy Lirelou,
 
To make myself clear here, i am impartial to the history of MacArthur and have no bias towards anything that had transpired during the Korean war. With that said, It is hard to argue with your point on MacArthur's shortcomings, but i was operating on rote memory of previous books i have read. Perhaps i should acknowledge that there is a bias by many authors against intelligence community in favor of securing MacArthur place in history long after his death that will continue in his defense for some time to come? If this be the case then i should be brushing up on any revised history on the Korean war. But please, feel free in correcting me if i am wrong, but the intelligence information that was received, while of good quality mostly, had left a lot of ambiguous answers to perplexing questions or when it failed had failed spectacularly, as some authors had claimed in adequately preparing the armies of the UN for what was too come as they approached the Yalu?
 

Quote
Second, there is no way the Chinese are going to put up with an American presence in Korea after reunification.
 
Of course they wouldn't and that is not what i had meant to imply. I simply meant was that if they wanted to move forward in securing our leave from Korea, then only by directly engaging with and helping the South Korean government and and the US in securing the stability of the peninsula would it be a big step forward in moving things right along to their rational conclusions on the peninsula. Otherwise by remaining aloof they are only feeding into the suspicions of everybody else around them.
 
Quote
And more to the point, there is a sizable chunk of Korean public opinion that the U.S. had no place on the Peninsula in any post-reunification scenario. Any American war planner who overlooks that fact is grossly overpaid and stealing the taxpayer's money. Now, whether or not his general buys that argument is another matter altogether. Mac wasn't the only overweening narcissist we ever pinned stars on.
 
Yes, i think i have become aware of that fact for over a decade now. But, is it really a bad thing to finally, after 60+ years, bring our troops home from a successfully reunited peninsula?
 
With much respect,
Panther
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 06:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Panther,
 
The Chinese may have their leverage in north Asia, but if anyone thinks the Monroe Doctrine is "dead," they - are brain dead.
 
Google the Cabot Lodge Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
 
I tried to point that out in my last post. I think you and i are in general agreement on this. I think, in a historical sense, we have been down this road multiple times before, the constant misreading of US policy.
 
I like to propose a toast, I do raise my glass to all the world powers out there, "May they never understand us Americans"! Wink
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.