|
Halloween Jack posted:I agree, but I don't understand how this is apropos to my question. Is China spending more to maintain the DPRK than they're making back? I understand that it's less than they'd pay to deal with millions of refugees, but I question the description of NK as a "tributary state." Historically the Han/Ming gave out more in gifts to their vassal states then they received in tribute, it's about prestige not trade deals.
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Why would China randomly nuke North Korea in response to them nuking someone else when they can just roll in with 100,000 boots to enforce order?blowfish posted:China, run by people spouting a party line emphasising its proud 5000 year history (which has forever been and will forever be 5000 years, until it gets upgraded to 10000 years) of being the bestest most civilised country in the world, will definitely not object to anything that says China was at any point not one country, not civilised, or not the best. Um, there was that Jet Li movie recently about the founder of Wushu which takes place during a time of Western troops occupying parts of China. So yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Racest other? Thats bullshit. It sucks that when we have a modern day war movie we can't actually have our soldiers fighting the next biggest military power. There's nothing racist about that, they are a more credible threat than the lazy fill ins we've had recently. In terms of video games Dragon Rising and Red River I believe were well received in China because they were respectful of Chinese capabilities and professionalism. quote:Wong Fei-hong movies were longer ago, not sure if that's what you're referring to. But the emotion of that period is more of 'China is getting kicked around and needs to stand up for itself!' and less of 'the concept of China is different now than in the future.' I was responding to blowfish's post which doesn't have this nuance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:China might make grumpy noises but they are hardly going to go to war over north Korea. A lot of people in China I suspect might think their gov't is being weak willed to the US acting with impunity. The army probably won't like it either. China would almost certainly do something. See the bombing of the Belgrade embassy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:To be fair, if Stalin hadn't decided to stop sucking his own cock and let his generals do what they were there for, Russia could well have had it's rear end reamed after the Battle of Stalingrad. Unless I'm misremembering STAVKA was still the one doing most of the strategic decision making; Stalin wasn't making orders like "Encircle Kiev instead of continuing the advance on Moscow" like Hitler was.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Why does a overly larger rocket motor imply that the intention isn't for lobbing nukes? Wouldn't it mean you could build the rocket and the warhead to looser tolerances and be more reliable?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Ron Darling posted:Not necessarily. They tend to show this stuff to brag that they have what they actually don't - it's an old Soviet trick (I believe) IIRC the trick the Soviets used was with an armament they did in fact have and deployed, but didn't have a lot of them yet; the trick resulted in the Bomber Gap hysteria.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
It makes me strangely happy seeing the North Korean soldier doing the weird backflip thing into a prone position. I also have vibes of that Star Trek TNG episode with the Romulan defector.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:While I agree with the PNG, it's a bit of a stretch to say China'd come right in. They don't exactly have a sterling relationship with any of the major partners in the East Asian region. IIRC China's relations with South Korea have been improving. I think historically Chinese-Korean relations have typically been better than say, Russo-Ukrainian.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you're saying North Korea invented nukes back in 1953? The Soviet Union had them and were presumably protecting them. fishmech posted:We're currently bombing a country with nukes at this very moment, Pakistan. But does the sovereign government of Pakistan strenuously object to that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm not claiming to be an expert on NK politics. But if it works any other way than I described than please correct me. They probably find a relative but de facto rule by junta.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Trump has picked fights even with close allies, we might be making progress entirely because Trump has more respect for authoritarians who 'have it easy and fair'; but even Nixon did some good things and it isn't something that outweighs everything else. We also have no idea what can or will happen as a result and we won't know until it does. Also good luck ratifying a "North Korea can have nuclear weapons treaty" in the Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:LOL watch some beef going on with NK and SK photographers here That is pretty funny. Also Kim jung-un seems to be doing a good job keeping pace with Moon, not bad for someone with his weight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Are we supposed to forget that North Korea literally invaded South Korea with the intent of conquest, not unlike Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had invaded their neighbors a decade prior? So how do you feel about the US Civil War?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
It can be equally true that the US military presence provides the US with conventional options for handling a crisis, acting like a tripwire force and so on while also being arguably not being particularly useful in that role or the role of defending the ROK from attack. From the US's perspective that yes, has roots in vague concepts of American Empire/Pax Americana, it's useful to have that force there for valid geopolitical regional concerns; and why removing those troops, may be problematic diplomatically and politically without a strong consensus by Korea and Japan that they view those troops as a liability. Withdrawing them unilaterally can be seen as abandonment, which would have ramifications and be unstable. From China's perspective even if the cold conventional on paper calculus is convincing that those troops aren't a particular threat to Chinese sovereignty of interests; they are still a powerful symbol of the American presence in the region, a dominant one. Their withdrawal could be a powerful symbol to the Chinese leadership and to their domestic audience; a trip wire force is also psychological, even if those troops aren't threatening on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
If South Korea is deadset against the US starting anything they could always threaten to intern US forces to bases if the US starts a shooting war. What's the US going to do, declare war on South Korea? That would destroy everything. Everything. The US also cannot do anything in the UN if China vetoes it. So if South Korea and China agree to relax economic sanctions the US can't do a whole lot that they aren't already doing on the highseas. There also isn't much the US can do that will outlive the Trump Admin. South Korea and co. can always make an agreement with the wink wink nudge nudge understanding the they can always choose to outwait the US until they elect a sane administration.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:South Korea isn't occupied though. A) The US cannot institute additional UNSC sanctions past a Chinese veto, which was the obvious and self evident context of my reply. It can attempt unilateral or multilateral sanctions but if China and Russia don't play ball its impotent. B) As others have said, China and Russia can just restart trade and the US can't physically stop it unless it's over the high seas.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:SK/Japan/The West can hold the status quo indefinitely, it's KJU who bears the most cost the longer the status quo continues, so if we're going to use a pure game theory rationale the question is what does the status quo cost the US + Allies that they can't afford to pay indefinitely. What cost though? North Korea is a totalitarian 1984 esque regime for whom the human misery and sacrifices made are what keep them in power. The longer the status quo continues the longer they stay in power; there isn't a cost as we see it, their economy isn't going to implode ala the USSR as long as the political will continues to maintain the status quo. quote:So far the only material change in that regard are advances in North Korea's ballistic missile program, with the endgame of being able to credibly threaten the continental United States with a nuclear weapon. This sucks, but North Korea wouldn't be the first country capable of doing so and will almost certainly not be the last. South Korea and Japan have been in range of North Korean nuclear strikes for years now and it costs Europe virtually nothing to continue with sanctions. Accepting NK as a de facto nuclear armed state is unacceptable to the US military-security establishment. There are perhaps some legitimate national-security concerns there but regardless this is like asking a drug addict to give up their addiction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Why would they end the MDT? Does SK honestly believe that China will leave them alone, or that they can stave off or challenge China's attempts to become regional hegemon? Sino-Korean relations aren't like Sino-Japanese relations; Korea isn't "Japan but smol"; there's a positive historical relationship and a common history of fighting Japan, and positive trade relations. A unified Korea is a long term interest to China if it means the pulling out of all US troops in a sort of Finlandization.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There's pretty much 0 reason to think China would treat such a Korea any better than it treats all of its other neighbors. Frankly if the USA pulled out of East Asia or pulled back Chinese hostility toward Japan would probably decrease and they might very well team up in re-imperializing the Koreans, if not formally and explicitly then tacitly. If your view of how imperialism works is based on primordial and unchanging nationalist grievances then maybe that makes sense, but you're simply wrong if that's the case How China treats its neighbours has been dependent on the geopolitical context and the political motivations of the Chinese leadership. Current Sino-Korean relations are fairly decent, they are major trading partners, and quick allies when it comes to calling out Japan. I'm not discussing accusations of American imperialism, they aren't particularly relevant to how China would treat a hypothetical unified Korea; probably with glee; they'll need massive investment from the PRC and will be dependent on the PRC as their largest trading partner in that eventuality (And it seems increasingly likely that the US won't or can't step in to compete with the PRC). Realistically from the PRC perspective a unified Korea has so many upsides that if they can successfully finlandize Korea that would be up there with unification with Taiwan in terms of foreign policy accomplishments. The Korean perspective can't be neglected or dismissed, Korea would have real substantial reasons sharing a land border to want positive relations; as long as Korea is willing to make work I have no reason to assume China won't at least try to also make it work when they have so many fields of mutual interest and the number of US troops on the peninsula isn't very large to begin with. I think it's naive to just assume that China will keep stepping on racks indefinitely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:An issue I see in this thread is that a lot of posters are too caught up in the classic military version of imperialism. China and most modern powers don't do that anymore. Chinese imperialism is economic imperialism; neo-colonialism, to use the more popular term. Vietnam found that out very quickly once the US left and they were allowed to reunify; if Korea believes they would somehow be able to avoid this they're fools. However nations can choose as to whether some position on the varied spectrum of possible economic imperialism is tolerable. Canada is unquestionable within the economic imperialism of the US; and sometimes takes steps to not be 100% there, preferring sometimes EU imperialism or Chinese imperialism, for some in-discrete amount of 'imperialism' (since this isn't quantifiable). Practically speaking, being under "American Imperialism", is an relatively acceptable state of affairs compared to a large number of alternate possibilities that may not be preferable. Korea could very well find some inevitable degree of "Chinese imperialism" to be an acceptable tradeoff in exchange for unification; additionally it isn't like Korea doesn't have plenty of options to diversify itself to at least have a solid shot at counterbalancing its economy so the US, Japan, Taiwan, and the EU all have solidly large and proportional amounts of influence, but China is going to be able to tilt that seesaw towards it is something I don't think the Korean political class has any doubt about its happening; it's a question of degree and what can be done to get the most advantageous economic benefit as a result. In an ideal world for Korea they could rely on the US to "meet" Chinese influence and deals, but c'est la vie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also lol @ "the Japanese will of course reemerge dominant in Korea, as is the natural state of affairs," jesus. Uh, that last part is a nearly obscene misinterpretation of what I wrote, when I just meant it as "They're a large economy nearby of course they have economic influence in Korea" because they already do? Based on context of the US-Canada example I used? How is this objectionable? As for historical relationships, they matter in the abstract for similar reasons as to memes do; Canadians still make jokes about 1812 w.r.t the US; Anglo-US historical partnerships matter. Just as how German militerism matters as to why the EU has problems deciding its future today. All historical previous relationships matter in the present day; to varying degrees. Maybe I'm overemphasizing Ming-Korean relations during the Sino-Korean invasion under Hideyoshi as to how much that historical client state status affects present relations with the PRC but it does have meaning; it's a data-point, not the end all be all. Additionally, the last 150 years I'm not sure what you mean. 150 years was European imperialism in Asia in which China lost its influence and became a colonized state; there isn't anything during that period that puts China at odds with Korea; the Korean war is "China" helping "Korea" to some extent if you account for cold war ideology; there haven't been border skirmishes like between China-Russia, China-Vietnam, China-India; no island dickwaving like China-Japan or China-Philippines no sabre-rattling like China-Taiwan, no ethnic tension like China-Mongolia, or China-Central Asia; no territorial disputes like China-Pakistan/India but even Pakistan is on friendly terms with China and that basically sufficiently disproves the assertion that China is incapable of forming working relationships with other nations in its backyard. Ignoring of course that there WERE decades in which China did play nice with Vietnam, India, Mongolia, Russia, etc even Japan under Mao! China has like, some issues with Korea regarding THAAD, but it's Japan Korea has territorial disputes with (and technically their brothers to the north). If you're trying to say that China is incapable of having a working relationship with a unified Korea under Seoul, that is to me requiring a higher standard of proof to prove than that they can (Considering that they do currently do have what as a layman observer seems like a positive working relationship).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Oh sorry that wasn't at you, more this and another post I can't be bothered going back to find: Gotcha, no problem. I am just saying that for the reasons I've outlined I think it's non-trivially possible for the PRC to have decent-ish relations with a unified Korea; the attainably plausible goal is possibly "Finlandization". Of which noted former Russian possession Finland, was successfully made into a neutral buffer state under what is arguably a far worse recent historical relationship of antagonism. If it was possible there with them, then it feels more plausible between PRC-Unified Korea especially when factoring in the new economic dependence (i.e to keep the North Korean economy running, keep the current contracts and trade with the PRC on auto-pilot while negotiating for investment money for Korean Reconstruction).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It's important to keep in mind that signing a peace treaty is also a declaration of the legitimacy of their government, which means that once the treaty becomes ratified law it's over for reunification; there will officially be two Koreas, rather than just de facto two. As it's been said, not really? West and East Germany were both de jure independent sovereign states but reunification happened anyways. The geopolitical situation of any nation's territorial boundaries are inherently malleable to geopolitical happenstance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Tias posted:Linku plz Between 1950 and 1955 the USSR produced 200 warheads. With presumably more technical knowledge and understanding of the techniques to produce them than the US initially did; and so presumably North Korea might have a better idea than the USSR initially in their mass production. So from the first successful test 200 bombs in five years seems a decent ballpark estimate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Also the reason why American troops got so far North was because North Korea's frontline and military basically disintegrated after the landings on Incheon and American forces were basically unopposed. Mountains aren't a big deal if no one is properly defending it. Contrast American advances after Incheon to the stalemate after recapturing Seoul; American and UN forces couldn't budge the Chinese and North Koreans from that very same terrain once it was defended in depth no matter how many calories in energy expenditure from overwhelming firepower was thrown at them. Pedantic rebuttals is bad enough but wrong pedantic rebuttals are even more odious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Heer98 posted:Mysterlee. My girlfriend is friends with the owners wife. They’re into sour beers and so are we, so we kind of gel. We all live in 서래마을 though, which has a... kinder, gentler and more respectable kind of white guy. A Canadian?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Their state capitalism would suddenly become much more lucrative, and...well, you read Animal Farm in school, right? And everyone else's isn't?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
This is partly why I think some claims of South Korea being firmly in the US's camp and overplay up the idea of chinese encirclement. Stuff like this also helps China's relations with South Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The drills practice defending the South against a northen invasion, they don't practice an offensive to take over the North. This is a little dubious.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Missing the forests for the trees for 200 Alex.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Nah, I'm guessing framing the exercises as focusing on a "conquered" DPRK scenario isn't so much missing the forest for the trees and more just run of the mill intellectual dishonesty. Whereas thinking practice for amphib landings in a defensive context isn't useful due to the potential opponent having a lovely Navy could just be a remarkable lack of understanding. I think you're failing to see how this would come off as to the country it is directed to as completely tone deaf.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If you want to see what mercenaries fighting an army looks like check out what happened to Wagner at Deir al-Zour. I think the idea goes countries stop fighting each other or form some supranational new world order superstate and then turn their armies into domestic security forces.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:i just read that the ballistic missile sub they're working on is basically what NATO called a Soviet "Romeo" class. Soviet Union started building those in about 1957. Probably have some modernizations and improvements, but it's still a drastically needed capability to add resiliency to their deterrence; sub launched ICBMs that are safe-ish in their own waters means a First Strike if off the table.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I think it's important to remember that fishmech has never made a sincere post in the last decade and a half. The entire gimmick is to be deliberately and creatively obtuse so as to frustrate the correspondent. "pretending to be too stupid to understand your posts" is a pretty good way of putting it. Fishmech basically just exists to willfully misinterpret posts to mean something entirely different then what was the intent. And no amount of attempting to clarify your meaning will ever get a good faith argument out of fishmech, just put them on your ignore list. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
So what does North Korea want because with some of the recent changes and from what I know of North Korean propaganda and ideology discussed in this thread it seems like they're tiptoeing gradually away from being some neostalinist socialist state to some kind of ultranationalist ethnostate that maybe while allows some economic reforms still hard rejects further economic integration with the rest of the world except maybe the other Korea and China.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
So I agree a major city is actually pretty defencible. Urban combat is no joke, depletes resources, and even if the ROK military withdrew and made it a free city (Is that still a thing?), the North would have a difficult time and would need considerable resources just to garrison it themselves. That's before if there's any kind of guerrilla insurgency happening. I'm not really sure what counts as "new" for artillery though. Once you have a good gun barrel you're just upgrading firing computers and such. Like the US themselves let their artillery atrophy a lot during operation bomb useless dirt and most importantly the need to keep systems light weight enough to be deployable via aircraft or sealift means DPRK artillery may significantly outrange US artillery and launch much heavier and thus more deadly payloads regardless if most of the systems date to the 1970's or 1980's.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I find it really odd how you keep writing in the present tense, as if Yongsan garrison has not been in a multi-year stage of being decomissioned, which would seem to imply that the American military has a much lower opinion of its usefulness than you do. Okay but what's your point though? There was a lot of words between our two posts, what are you responding to and how does it support your conclusion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
If China and the US pitched in along with the IMF, the Human Development Fund (sp? I know there's something along these lines), and the World Bank all pitched in as a sort of Neo-Marshall plan I think it would have promise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Not sure they would ever do that, since both China and the US benefit from the certainty of a divided Korea. A unified, nationalist Korea is not beneficial to either country and would return the region into the unstable triad it has been for hundreds of years. China would benefit *massively* from a unified Korea, especially if they played a major role in it coming about; it would be one of the most historic and prestigious events in modern history on par with the Berlin Wall coming down and they'd benefit massively from it; imagine all the ways they could probably insure their influence in Korea in less overt ways; through their firms, business interests not just in the north but by necessity in the south as well. ALL of the kickbacks they could ever ask for. "Peace is good for business". China could also ask for, and reasonably be expected to get, the US withdrawing troops from South Korea; since a unified Korea would have nothing to fear from China (they have reasonably decent relations and a shared history of dealing with multiple rounds of Japanese aggression to reminisce regarding). A unified South Korea from Beijing's perspective is very likely to turn into something like Finland. The US benefits from no longer having to worry about NK nukes, can withdraw forces and spend less money; it loses some influence but the US is probably running out of time or patience to thread the needle between Japan and Korea for much longer; and would let it just pick Japan and let Korea align with its more natural and historical ally and patron. It benefits China way more than the US, but denuclearizing the peninsula and having a new permanent peace and stability are within the US's ostensible interests; especially if it can also secure a slice of the reconstruction pie; US companies benefited a lot rebuilding Iraq, Haliburton would probably love a shot at North Korea even if it has to share the pie with Chinese, and Korean firms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 15:32
|
|