|
Anyone who has ever lived in China will instantly recognize the classic "Agree to do something and than make zero effort to follow through".
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Yeah, also it is pretty difficult to actually punish a permanent member of the security council. If they ignore the sanctions, there isn't much to do about it but call them on it (which the US has already done).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
The way I see it, North Korea is a distraction China uses to draw US attention away from themselves. The last thing they want to see is a Korea united by the South that is a military ally and base for the US. Keeping the game going allows China to stave off that result, which is (probably) inevitable even if it will take years or decades to happen. The only reason DPRK exists is for the Kim Family and China's interests. They probably hope that by the time North Korea falls, China will have a workable relationship with the ROK, be powerful enough to no longer care about Korea, or that the USA has further declined and has become unable to oppose China in East Asia. In other words, the longer this nonsense with North Korea continues, the better for China. A better idea than keeping up the repetitive cycle of tests, sanctions, and threats with no apparent long-term plan might be to try to use North Korea to hurt rather than help China. With no real ability to force the situation to change, the US could instead exploit it as an example of why China's rise is bad for East Asia and the world at large. That they accept the risk of millions potentially dying in a Second Korean War and make the UN (more) irrelevant for the sake of their own apparent "interests" would be a good argument for why China is not a nation to look to for future leadership, in addition to all the other reasons that exist. It already works as cause to maintain and strengthen existing alliances with the ROK and Japan, but perhaps can be a road for new ones as well. Vietnam is not the PRC's friend, is getting pushed around in territory disputes, and has quite a lot of historical baggage involving China invading them several times. The Philippines is a problem at the moment thanks to that crazy vigilante president they have, but eventually he will bugger off and they too may be open to closer ties to the US for similar reasons as Vietnam. But the real gem to go after, I'd say, is India. Within the next decade or so, India will supplant China as the world's most populous nation. India's economic growth may not be as fast as China's, but they also don't (seem to) have an ultra-nationalist agenda driving them to make people question their motives. They are also well-placed to gently caress with the sea trade element of that whole "One Belt, One Road' business, and may even be able to provide a better alternative. The major thorn in that idea is probably Pakistan and the military/ISI obsession with India that has seen both states load up with nuclear weapons. Pretty much every time some civilian PM in Pakistan tries to make nice with India, they get criminal charges or a military coup to gently caress it up. Finding a way to clean that up would he helpful, but I don't really know how that might be done. Somehow, civilian government authority would need to be strengthened in Pakistan so that they would be able to build an improved relationship with India without internal interference. The whole point of all that would be to use China's protection of North Korea to help gently caress up its ambitions. As soon as China sees that DPRK will cost them more than any benefits they might gain from their belligerence and ability to distract the USA, the PRC will probably cut them loose. But by then, the damage to China's credibility will have already been done and North Korea's fall will be accelerated without China's help. The longer it takes, the more it will end up costing China. The messier North Korea's eventual disintegration is, the more China looks like a gently caress-up while the US and South Korea actually clean it up. That is the sort of situation I would seek to create in order to persuade China to give up their sunk-cost fallacy that is North Korea. Of course... any actual plan to deal with North Korea, and by extension China, isn't going to happen with that orange ape in the White House. So even if this stuff I wrote isn't completely stupid, it will never happen. 
Yureina fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Your post was hilarious, thank you. Having Pakistan make nice with India, what a riot. Also you should try to read up on Asia beyond wikipedia articles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Btw, India absolutely has its own nationalists and Modi is the clearest example of this. It is just they aren't as united (or can't be) as China. Also, India traditionally has always pushed for a "third option" and has preferred to be non-aligned when power blocs have come to ahead. India will defend its sovereignty and its "natural sphere" in South Asia, but it is going to be some time before they move on from there. Anyway, the rest of the world doesn't really care that much about the DPRK, certainly don't enough to actively turn on China just because of that. I actually think the US needs to come up with a different gameplan that it has always worked with. (Also, while India's GDP gap with China will likely close over time, it is going to be something that is going to take decades especially since India is facing an even more competitive export environment than China did.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Your post was hilarious, thank you. Having Pakistan make nice with India, what a riot. You are welcome.  I know that particular part of what I wrote would be the hardest to make work in practice. But what I meant was that India and Pakistan having a mutual relationship better than the "they are our great enemy and are planning to kill us" that they have had since independence would be an improvement. Something that cools tensions down and allows the possibility of large-scale trade between those two nations. Since I was talking about the idea that the US should try to get on good terms with India and help them out, that would almost certainly piss off the Pakistanis and drive them further towards China. Ideally, I would want to prevent that by giving Pakistan another choice for a major trading partner, and so make China less important to them. But, again, it would be far from easy, and may be impossible. If that proved to be the case, I'd choose India over Pakistan if forced to do so and move on to some other idea. Ardennes posted:Btw, India absolutely has its own nationalists and Modi is the clearest example of this. It is just they aren't as united (or can't be) as China. Also, India traditionally has always pushed for a "third option" and has preferred to be non-aligned when power blocs have come to ahead. India will defend its sovereignty and its "natural sphere" in South Asia, but it is going to be some time before they move on from there. I'd actually be counting on that "third option" being India's approach, rather than trying to turn them into a major US military ally. That kind of alliance seems extremely unlikely. Rather, what I really had in mind was that it may do well to help that India create a "sphere" of their own encompassing South Asia and perhaps the whole of the Indian Ocean eventually. The whole point would be to put that area under India's dominance and keep China out. It could keep the sea trade part of China's "One Belt, One Road" from going further west than Southeast Asia. And what elements of China's trade/investment expansion that has gone beyond Southeast Asia such as in Africa will find itself facing the question of who, between China and India, is the better partner? Right now China looks like the most attractive choice. I would seek to change that. As for the rest of the world not really caring about DPRK... I believe that. Which is why the countries I singled out are all in East, South, or Southeast Asia. Even within those geographic areas, attempts to woo India would probably be little to nothing about DPRK, but much more about China's belligerence and ambitions. And in the case of Vietnam or the Philippines, China's ambivalence/complicity in North Korea's fits would just be yet another reason to look to the USA rather than China, and not the main argument. Yureina fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Yureina posted:
One of the big points of the belt project is to build rail-lines in Central Asia/Iran/Russia which essentially bypass the Indian ocean, many of them are already completed (and it seems Russia is generally fine with it). I do think India has a chance to expand its influence in its "near-abroad" but they will be stymied by Pakistan and geography. If anything Pakistan is probably going to continue to occupy most of their attention for the foreseeable future, and otherwise, their grip outside the Indian sub-continent is very weak. I don't see India and China necessarily liking each other but there are too many factors which make a containment strategy very difficult, especially when you factor in Chinese influence across SE Asia/Africa/Central Asia. If anything any type of containment strategy is long dead at this point. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Yureina posted:You are welcome. It's literally impossible. Read up on the Indus water levels. Pakistan is either going to collapse, or go to war with India. This is inevitable. It is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
lmao india doesn't have its own nationalists despite *gestures toward the indian government*
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, India absolutely has its own nationalists and Modi is the clearest example of this. It is just they aren't as united (or can't be) as China. Also, India traditionally has always pushed for a "third option" and has preferred to be non-aligned when power blocs have come to ahead. India will defend its sovereignty and its "natural sphere" in South Asia, but it is going to be some time before they move on from there. India has been aligning much closer to the US as of late than usual because of China pouring money into Pakistan and recently leasing a Sri Lankan port, which makes India feel increasingly encircled (which makes sense because the Chinese have outright said that they plan to encircle India with "trading hubs") and consequently has been improving ties with Japan as well. Trilateral US-Japanese-Indian naval exercises are things and Japanese investment in India and in South Asia in general has been increasing. Ardennes posted:Anyway, the rest of the world doesn't really care that much about the DPRK, certainly don't enough to actively turn on China just because of that. I actually think the US needs to come up with a different gameplan that it has always worked with. "Turn on China" how, exactly? "The rest of the world" doesn't really have to do much of anything; unilateral US sanctions would be a colossal blow to China by themselves. For all the hype China is still overwhelmingly an export economy and the large majority of their exports go to the USA, with a still significant number going to Japan and South Korea, the three countries who are aligned against China on the North Korea issue. Are you talking about Europe? Because Europe already has problems with Chinese trade practices and an excuse in the form of North Korea would be welcome relief to a great number of European leaders as an excuse to handle it. Ardennes posted:One of the big points of the belt project is to build rail-lines in Central Asia/Iran/Russia which essentially bypass the Indian ocean, many of them are already completed (and it seems Russia is generally fine with it). Railways cannot replace seaborne trade, especially railways across some of the harshest terrain in the world. They are not a replacement for having to deal with India and the idea that they can entirely replace seaborne trade is a fantasy that will fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:India has been aligning much closer to the US as of late than usual because of China pouring money into Pakistan and recently leasing a Sri Lankan port, which makes India feel increasingly encircled (which makes sense because the Chinese have outright said that they plan to encircle India with "trading hubs") and consequently has been improving ties with Japan as well. Trilateral US-Japanese-Indian naval exercises are things and Japanese investment in India and in South Asia in general has been increasing. It doesn't necessarily mean India is going to suddenly tie itself to US-Japanese interests, especially since the US also has its own complicated relationship with Pakistan. quote:"Turn on China" how, exactly? "The rest of the world" doesn't really have to do much of anything; unilateral US sanctions would be a colossal blow to China by themselves. For all the hype China is still overwhelmingly an export economy and the large majority of their exports go to the USA, with a still significant number going to Japan and South Korea, the three countries who are aligned against China on the North Korea issue. Corporations in none of those countries want to cut ties with China especially considering the amount of business being done and certainly not for North Korea. quote:Railways cannot replace seaborne trade, especially railways across some of the harshest terrain in the world. They are not a replacement for having to deal with India and the idea that they can entirely replace seaborne trade is a fantasy that will fail. It doesn't need to actually replace all forms of sea travel, it does allow them to move goods more directly and bypass complications if needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
There's already a whole ton of freight moving overland on the existing networks and use has been going up every year most years despite their current deficiencies. Besides you can't loving ship by ocean to all those landlocked areas in the middle of Eurasia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Besides you can't loving ship by ocean to all those landlocked areas in the middle of Eurasia. Places with literally no significant markets, let alone markets that could replace US/Japan/SK. I know that you really like trains, but trains are not good compared to boats when it comes to freight. Ardennes posted:It doesn't necessarily mean India is going to suddenly tie itself to US-Japanese interests, especially since the US also has its own complicated relationship with Pakistan. When it comes to North Korea, why wouldn't it? Especially since there is literally an ongoing border standoff with China right now. quote:Corporations in none of those countries want to cut ties with China especially considering the amount of business being done and certainly not for North Korea. Too bad. When push comes to shove corporations answer to governments, and their lobbying won't change anything if there is an appearance of genuine crisis. quote:It doesn't need to actually replace all forms of sea travel, it does allow them to move goods more directly and bypass complications if needed. They can move a much smaller number of goods if there are "complications." Which would mean that they still need to deal with India.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Places with literally no significant markets, let alone markets that could replace US/Japan/SK. What do you think you're talking about at this point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What do you think you're talking about at this point? The argument here is "India's geography doesn't matter because one belt one road is going to "bypass" the indian ocean so even if India causes complications China will just ship by land" Which ignores that A) Rail shipping is significantly less efficient than ocean shipping and cannot sustain the amount of exports required for China's economy to remain stable. B) All of China's major customers are overseas, with the sole exception being the EU (where the most efficient route by sea is via the Indian Ocean) I'm not totally sure what this has to do with Korea though, but the conversation seems to have drifted towards US allies in Asia and how they might contribute to pressuring China over North Korea. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:When it comes to North Korea, why wouldn't it? Especially since there is literally an ongoing border standoff with China right now. A border stand-off (which has happened quite a few times in the past), is something very different than directly interfering in a situation that honestly has very little to do with them. quote:Too bad. When push comes to shove corporations answer to governments, and their lobbying won't change anything if there is an appearance of genuine crisis. Companies are not going to give up billions in profits over North Korea, there is a reason we are attached by the hip to China. If anything that is one of the chief geopolitical weaknesses of the US, that corporations are in fact in control and its foreign and military policy often flows from that fact. quote:They can move a much smaller number of goods if there are "complications." Which would mean that they still need to deal with India. Thats not exactly true either especially since there are other sea routes (including eventually an Arctic route). Also, India actually being able to "shut down" the Indian ocean is if anything still very much a fantasy at this point even if they wanted to and they probably don't. So no? The entire point of the conversation is that somehow the US is going to get India to "contain" China for it and then be able to emerge victorious by crushing Eurasia like it did the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The argument here is "India's geography doesn't matter because one belt one road is going to "bypass" the indian ocean so even if India causes complications China will just ship by land" You know that shipping to the US, Korea, and Japan does not cross the India part of the Indian Ocean right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A border stand-off (which has happened quite a few times in the past), is something very different than directly interfering in a situation that honestly has very little to do with them. This border standoff doesn't matter because border standoffs have happened before? quote:Companies are not going to give up billions in profits over North Korea, there is a reason we are attached by the hip to China. If anything that is one of the chief geopolitical weaknesses of the US, that corporations are in fact in control and its foreign and military policy often flows from that fact. Is that why both Congress and the White House are in bipartisan agreement to go after China on trade? Because corporations are in control and they are all slaves to China (whose market US companies can't access without significant strings attached anyway?) quote:Thats not exactly true either especially since there are other sea routes (including eventually an Arctic route). Also, India actually being able to "shut down" the Indian ocean is if anything still very much a fantasy at this point even if they wanted to and they probably don't. So no? I wonder if the Chinese are banking their geopolitical strategies on alternate trade routes magically appearing elsewhere right when they need them like you seem to be. And India can't, but if they had an ally with a very large globe-spanning navy that can shut down virtually any naval chokepoint it wants at a moments notice....but alas Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You know that shipping to the US, Korea, and Japan does not cross the India part of the Indian Ocean right? You know that part of this argument is entertaining the scenario of a unified effort by China's neighbours to sanction China to pressure them on North Korea, right? That includes those three powers. Honestly the only thing that really is disputable here is "would India do it." Not "would China suffer from it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You know that part of this argument is entertaining the scenario of a unified effort by China's neighbours to sanction China to pressure them on North Korea, right? That includes those three powers. If China's neighbors are sanctioning them then inherently the land based transport doesn't work, because it has to go through the neighbors. So why are you complaining "but land transport is too small!!"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If China's neighbors are sanctioning them then inherently the land based transport doesn't work, because it has to go through the neighbors. So why are you complaining "but land transport is too small!!"? Specifically, South Korea, Japan, the United States, and India.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This border standoff doesn't matter because border standoffs have happened before? Yeah pretty much? Unless it turns hot (and it also has before), itisn't actually that interesting quote:Is that why both Congress and the White House are in bipartisan agreement to go after China on trade? Because corporations are in control and they are all slaves to China (whose market US companies can't access without significant strings attached anyway?) Yeah, I have heard that one plenty times in the past, and generally, it amounts to China lifting a handful of protectionist measures on a few items (last time was beef). That isn't quite the same thing as cutting them off from the rest of the world. quote:I wonder if the Chinese are banking their geopolitical strategies on alternate trade routes magically appearing elsewhere right when they need them like you seem to be.' Their strategy with the belt network and an Arctic route is relatively straightforward, trade access across Europe/Asia/Africa. Also, it isn't really magic when infrastructure has been developed or is under development. quote:And India can't, but if they had an ally with a very large globe-spanning navy that can shut down virtually any naval chokepoint it wants at a moments notice....but alas Nuclear powers can't openly fight each other, especially when they have so much to lose. It is the primary reason why China has and is focused on infrastructure and economic development.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Specifically, South Korea, Japan, the United States, and India. So your list of neighbors includes exactly 1 country that borders China. OK. Have you considered saying something that makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
I'm sorry, is someone seriously suggesting that the US should punish China by getting India and Japan to blockade the Indian and Pacific Oceans against Chinese trade, perhaps with US help? And more importantly, is that person getting the exorcism services they clearly badly need to purge then of the spirits of bad generals past?
Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah pretty much? Unless it turns hot (and it also has before), itisn't actually that interesting So, like, you believe that the India isn't including repeated border skirmishes with China in it's geopolitical calculus? Why? Especially considering that the current Indian government is highly nationalist? quote:Yeah, I have heard that one plenty times in the past, and generally, it amounts to China lifting a handful of protectionist measures on a few items (last time was beef). That isn't quite the same thing as cutting them off from the rest of the world. Right now it's a section 301 threat, and that is not a small deal. The last time it was used it was used on Japan and it scared the poo poo out of them to the point where they actually sacrificed domestic employment to build factories in the US. It's not a coincidence that China didn't veto those UN sanctions on North Korea the same week that was threatened when they had been dragging their feet on it up until now. quote:Their strategy with the belt network and an Arctic route is relatively straightforward, trade access across Europe/Asia/Africa. Also, it isn't really magic when infrastructure has been developed or is under development. We've already gone over the problems with an overland route compared to what they have now, do I now need to go over the problems with a theoretical Arctic route that doesn't exist yet and would only be available a few months a year and requires transiting the Bering Strait? quote:Nuclear powers can't openly fight each other, especially when they have so much to lose. It is the primary reason why China has and is focused on infrastructure and economic development. You know, if you ignore the colossal military modernization and expansion program. Which you might, but China's neighbours aren't. fishmech posted:So your list of neighbors includes exactly 1 country that borders China. OK. Have you considered saying something that makes sense? South Korea and Japan don't border China now? Why, because their borders aren't made of dirt? Main Paineframe posted:I'm sorry, is someone seriously suggesting that the US should punish China by getting India and Japan to blockade the Indian and Pacific Oceans against Chinese trade, perhaps with US help? And more importantly, is that person getting the exorcism services they clearly badly need to purge then of the spirits of bad generals past? Someone did upthread I think, I didn't really read much into their post before my eyes glazed over. But China's geographic and economic trade vulnerability is a very real thing that the CCP treats as an existential threat, which is why it's all the more baffling why everyone seems to think that going after China trade-wise to force concessions on North Korea is a dead-end strategy. I'm certainly not advocating a physical blockade because that's an act of war, I'm a greater fan of more punishing sanctions on Chinese entities. Which the USA can do unilaterally if it pleases. I'm not even sure how we got to talking about OBOR at all. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:
North Korea is literally in the way of South Korea, and Japan is blocked by Russia, North and South Korea, and Taiwan. You wouldn't say the United States borders Barrbados would you? Or Belize?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's literally impossible. I'd like to learn more about this. Are you talking about climate change induced drought causing famine and lack of drinkable water?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
In general, yes. But in specific I'm talking about the Indus river, which is supremely important for both countries. The allocation treaty does not contemplate for the river and tributaries drying up - India needs their quotas, and if that means Pakistan getting less water, well tough luck. And there's no hypothetical here about where things are heading: the Himalayan glaciers that feed the Indus are disappearing, and we're at the phase where the increased meltwater is keeping the water levels high off-season. Once that stops, the levels will start dropping sharply and permanently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
It's literally in the introduction of Anatol Lieven's Pakistan: A Hard Country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/894954486762008576 So are we accepting a nuclear North Korea capable of striking the United States or going to war? Can't wait for Trump to decide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
He's just stupid enough to think that a war will boost his poll numbers. Given, this is an extremely difficult situation with no easy answers and the argument could be made that it is better to play regime change again, at massive cost, than to let NK complete its nuclear program. But I doubt that when the decision is made it will be based on anything more than what Fox said that morning. If he does invade or bomb them, it will consume the rest of his presidency (barring war with Iran!) and be seen as an incredible blunder after the death tolls and images of devastation begin to pile up. Separately, I am wondering what NK will do in response to the latest sanctions, which seem pretty severe. If we do start to see more reports of talks taking place, I would think that would be a fairly reassuring sign for the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I wonder how many SK-based US servicemen/women will die on the first day of the bombardment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Not a lot. SK bunker systems are extremely developed all over cities south of the border, as are US fortifications. Also, north korean weapons are poo poo, but if you follow this thread I'm guessing you know that already 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I would rather not test that out in reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
The deaths primarily occur in the grueling task of invading and occupying North Korea for years to come.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I would rather not test that out in reality. you probably won't have to, I was just answering his hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/894954486762008576 Trump: "LEEEEEERRRROOOOYYYYYY JEEEEENNNNNNNKKKKKIIIIINNNSSSS!!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Do you think North Korea would use nuclear weapons if the US did a traditional All-American invasion a la Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
My understanding is that they would (might) nuke the US bases on Japan and harbors in SK to prevent an invasion if they noticed we are massing troops. I assume they hope the threat of this happening is enough to forestall an all-out invasion, so who really knows what would happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Mozi posted:My understanding is that they would (might) nuke the US bases on Japan and harbors in SK to prevent an invasion if they noticed we are massing troops. I assume they hope the threat of this happening is enough to forestall an all-out invasion, so who really knows what would happen. That seems more like an empty threat, along the lines of North Korea vowing they'd retaliate to $1 billion dollar sanctions 1000-fold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:37
|
|