|
Trochanter posted:If North Korea's government collapses, can/will its neighbours seal off the borders and let its people die en masse? I think there will be a token effort in the name of stabilization but it is going to be a complete mess.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:The guys at Arms Control Wonk suggested that it might have been a boosted fission device, and therefore achieved a similar yield to 2013 much more efficiently, and that the intention was to make something small enough and powerful enough to conceivably be a trigger for a miniaturized staged weapon. Yeah the issue isn't that it is a fusion device (it isn't) but that a boosted fission warhead makes strategic use of a warhead via missiles much more likely. The bomb in all likelihood very well may look much closer to a modern warhead than a 1940s era one even though it is still quite weak. Any military option against North Korea has been off the table for a while, but it is really off the table when they may now have the ability to actually put a warhead somewhere in the region even if you are talking about a very small yield device. Ultimately, there is always the chance of a coup but in all likelihood the world is going to be stuck with the current government there for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Honestly, I think the idea of a coup/civil war in a nation with a nuclear arsenal is scarier to me than the idea of the Kim family sticking around for the foreseeable future. I think in the case of North Korea, a palace coup than a civil war, but whomever would take over would most likely play more or less the same game they are doing right now. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be that surprised if North Korea has some more missile tests in the near future to more or less project their full capacity. I still don't think they have true ICBM, but even a single/double stage missile armed with a boosted fission warhead is something to ponder (especially if you're Japanese). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Biggus Dickus posted:North Korea nuclear test: Pyongyang confirms 'warhead explosion' – live https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/09/north-koreas-growing-ambition-nuclear-arsenal-force-us-negotiating-table According to the Guardian, it seems like it was successful and they may have at this point a compact fission device small enough to fit on a theater-range missile. The yield is still fairly small according to other powers (10-20 kt range) but that is enough to be a threat. There is no way it is was an actual fusion device but it does look like they have been making progress. It may actually be too late to take out Kim with force at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Also, I think it needs to be said at this point, a full conventional war is a very remote to non-existent possibility at this point. North Korea knows its conventional military can't launch an offensive, and the US and South Korea weren't interested in invading NK in the first place. A now semi-capable NK nuclear program moves the entire issue from remote to pretty much near impossible. Also a "random" NK launch in all likelihood isn't very likely, Kim and his generals know the repercussions. If anything China seems to have quietly allowed the North Korean program to continue because it is useful to them. First, they know the regime isn't going to switch sides and is economically reliant on them. Second, a capable nuclear program (as stated above) makes a conventional invasion of North Korea itself is impossible. North Korea needs to defend itself (I say this in only a geopolitical sense) to be useful for them. Remember China is an authoritarian expansionist power in its own right, and North Korea pins down South Korean and American forces and resources. (China and the US are slowly but surely coming to ahead over the issue of the South China Seas and we may see a 1900-style naval race.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Granted, having casinos just there to suck in hard currency from abroad is probably the way to do it in all honesty. Also, it is quite clear that life in Pyongyang is far more privileged than the provinces but isn't like there isn't video/photographic evidence of the countryside and regional cities either. The only evidence from North Korea isn't just tour videos. It is very clearly a regime that should be supported, but probably some effort needs to be applied to actually finding out what is going on. I mean there is a rumor taken for fact that the Pyongyang metro was only two stations, we now know it is a fully functional system. Also, it does seem to be evident that Chinese money is flowing into the country which if anything has propped up the regime. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:58 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
I thought it was about narrative building. North Korea is a totalitarian state, but much useful paint it as completely insane country that just a really repressive one. Once you do that you have complete control over any narrative since they seem barely human over there. Granted, I am life in North Korea is punishing and people have very little autonomy from the government, but that probably isn't enough to make a very attractive narrative on its own. You need to spice it up a bit. During the time I spent in the former Soviet Union, there were some pretty gross exaggerations from our side. It isn't that everything we thought we knew about the Soviet Union was untrue, but a fair amount of it was.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Such as? The GULAG system for example was significantly smaller than most Kremlinologist had predicted. Material culture in the Soviet Union was also more varied than portrayed in the US , especially from the 1950s-early 1980s. Also, the whole thing about leadership of the Communist party all living "like the Tsars" didn't pan out either. It isn't that the GULAG system itself was a lie, or there weren't lines for goods during crises, or the leadership didn't live better than the average person, but it was all greatly exaggerated as much as possible. Hell, it even occurs today, there was a report coming out of Poland "of a secret Soviet plan to invade Germany during the Cold War." It is true while the plan existed, the little detail that was politely ignored was that it was predicated on an NATO nuclear first strike in the first place. In the case of North Korea, I am sure there is plenty of repression and purges, but we simply need more evidence to understand the scale. --------------------------------------------- Also, it makes sense that North Korea would initially be more industrialized to due its mining, but at the same time, it isn't exactly a secret why South Korea experienced massive economic growth during the 1970s either. i.e the US used its economic muscle to subsidized South Korea though trade. --------------------------------------------- Another thing I wanted to mention, North Koreans have a fair reason to dislike the US. I mean the Korea War and US bombing campaigns did in fact devastate the north, there is officially still a war going on (including occasional skirmishes), and North Korea is still under crippling sanctions. One reason why the propaganda of the Kims still works...is there a little bit of truth to it.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I mean, if they want to dislike us, they can, and that's clearly what they've chosen. I think the example of Vietnam demonstrates that, if they had preferred, they could have had friendship over enmity. Even our insane grudge against Cuba has been slowly fading. But Kim Il-Sung clung to delusions of reuniting Korea under his rule until he died, and subsequent Kim dynasts have deliberately stoked hostility between our nations for their internal political benefit. In all honesty, I don't think China would let them even if that was ever a possibility. Also the "turn" with Vietnam came after Vietnam had their own war with China and thus a reason to mend fences with the US. Also, the Vietnam War actually ended in a definitive victory, while Korea remains as divided as it was during the 1950s. Also I think Cuba was always more one-sided in that the Cubans really didn't want the embargo in the first place and probably would have always had preferred a better relationship with the US...just as long as they could retain their independence. It isn't we wouldn't let them. It is clear the Kims use the situation for their own internal legitimacy, but at the same thing, we still haven't given up our part to play as well. In a sense, everyone is happy with the status quo: the Kims get to sit on the throne, China retains their puppet, and the US had a rogue nation to shake its fist at.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Nucken Futz posted:Oh Boy . Actually I don't think who started the war really matters at this point, especially since it got dragged into a stalemate and both sides suffered terribly from it. It is 50 years later, both sides are armed to the teeth and nothing has really been resolved and yes, the situation was already primed for a conflict back in the late 1940s. Also, I think North Korea is another case where severe economic sanctions if anything emboldens the regime especially since they can shift blame to outside actors. Ultimately, if really want to corner North Korea, the pressure needs to be first put on China. China has more of less control over North Korea's trade, and therefore has the ability to mold the regime to their purposes. I think your posts speaks to exactly how politicized talking about North Korea is. I have repeatedly said North Korea is a brutal totalitarian regime....but that can't be enough. My narrative has to match your exactly match your narrative. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
It could be argued that relations were actually better during the Sunshine period (even if they still were aggressive) and that South Korea at least had a carrot to bait the regime with. I do think South Korea should have been more active in using that carrot on human rights issues. At this point, I don't see the North Korea getting rid of their nuclear program (especially since it has implicit Chinese support). The other option is to slowly try to detach the regime by giving it an economic incentive, thereby backing it out of the corner it is in but making it also more reliant on South Korea/Western trade. That or just the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Otto Warmbier is the new John Birch. Granted Birch was even more ridiculous. quote:On August 25, as Captain Birch was leading a party of eleven Americans, Chinese Nationalists, and Koreans on a mission to gather intelligence in Xuzhou, they were stopped by Chinese Communists in a small town where the Red Army had been fighting Japanese troops. Birch was asked to surrender his revolver; he refused and harsh words and insults were exchanged. Birch was shot and killed; a Chinese Nationalist aide was also shot and wounded but survived. The rest of the party was taken prisoner and released two months later.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't see a reason for them to stop. It is quite clear they are advancing fairly quickly in both their warhead and missile programs, and this has already given them considerable leverage. In addition. China seems silently pleased with the entire situation, they have a state they are not only economically dominant over and will most likely soon have the ability to strike the US directly. Moreover, sanctions seem to have only bound North Korea closer to China and more or less have reached their limits a long time ago. The situation is in the US's court at this point, but I have a feeling we may have to blink.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Also, I don't know how you're exactly supposed to launch a ground invasion of a country with nuclear weapons. Even if their missiles didn't work they simply could mine with their existing warheads. Like I said years ago, that battle is lost and everything forward is about damage control.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:An invasion of North Korea would be a protracted quagmire of incompetence and stupidity, but not because North Korea is capable of offering significant resistance. Only in DPRK propaganda are they capable of waging a guerrilla war from the slopes of Mt. Paektu. I assume you mean it would have been before they developed a stockpile of nuclear warheads. As for the 1990s, we valued our relationship with China (partly due to the cold war/partly due to cheap labor) over addressing the NK issue. Ultimately, we thought China was eventually going to "go our way" and NK would eventually fall apart internally...it didn't happen. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I don't support or advocate doing anything like this, but I have a question: is it possible from a military standpoint to take out the artillery positions aimed at Seoul while also targeting the launch sites for the missiles, without ground forces? For example, with stealth bombers attacking at the exact same time and just bombing whatever place they keep the howitzers and scuds and platforms? Or is this simply impossible? The issue is that North Korea has mobile launchers (which were likely Chinese models based off Russian designs), having mobile launchers makes it far more difficult to actually find them before they can launch. SK/US might be able to take most them out before they hit major cities, but I don't know if they could reliably do for every nuclear-armed missile especially if North Korea tries to overwhelm defenses with cheaper conventional missiles. In addition, I think the artillery issue is fairly moot at this point since even if a single warhead got through it would do far more damage than artillery reliably could. Also, obviously North Korea would have a much easier time if they were fighting on their own soil including simply mining the DMZ or beachheads with warheads. Basically, it would be really nasty and I have a hard time believing at least a North Korean warhead wouldn't reach a target at some point. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Not one knows for certain (and may never know), but it does seem the last test does indicate it could have been a more compact warhead or at least on the way to one. The last test was 20-30 KT which is getting into post-Little Boy territory.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:20/20 hindsight, the best move would have been an invasion in the early 90s. But that's no longer on the table. And obviously at the time there was no way to know that, everyone was utterly convinced that the famine would be enough to collapse the regime, or at the very least to prompt a realignment. They couldn't really be expected to predict that the realignment would be toward an even more bellicose posture than previously. Of course, we didn't do anything in the 1990s since we thought they were on the edge of collapse anyway and they would come to us...we were wrong. The only country that could really do that at this point in China and the Chinese leadership seems generally fine with a NK nuclear program. Basically, we are going to keep hearing the same stories coming out of the peninsula for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
I would say at least as their nuclear program goes, it is honestly fairly logical since there are so many upsides to the regime. It not only takes regime change off the table but allows them to use their warheads as leverage against the US. That said, for the US, the opening for regime change is off the table and in all honestly has been for a while, but I think it is very hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea that the Kims are here to stay unless China says otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
The issue is that the situation is kind of predictable, so everyone seems to be making up scenarios that either won't happen or have no reason to happen. If North Korea has the ability to put a relatively compact warhead on a MRBM/ICBM then they don't really need guys coming from tunnels, VX gas or human wave tactics etc etc. Even if some of that stuff happened, it would be a complete sideshow to the main event. I guess it is hard to accept that the era where a conventional war with North Korea would be possible is over (and in all honesty, it has been for years). If anything the by far the most likely scenario is that what has been happening will continue to happen indefinitely. They test some new nuke/missile, we make some noise for a while and then everything resets in 6 months to a year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Ouchy mama. Flight time of 45 minutes. That is a very long flight time. Well their last test was 37-39 minutes, so this is an improvement but how much of one needs to wait until we get more data on the flight path. It is clear if anything that their program hasn't stalled in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like they may very well have a full ICBM. The big hurdle was getting to a second stage. As for as ABM systems it depends on what type you are talking about. A THAAD system may be able to shoot down a rocket before it can leave the atmosphere, but there very well may be ways of getting around those batteries, and GMD is still in development hell. (Btw, Russia still has its version of our Safeguard program running. It essentially fires nukes at incoming missiles.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:THAAD isn't going to hit anything like that in the boost phase. You stick THAAD near the thing you don't want the missile to hit, so it can put an interceptor in its path. https://www.nap.edu/read/13189/chapter/5 Yeah, you're right, it looks like a THAAD system wouldn't work but an SM-3 could in the right circumstances. That said, I don't think the US has a fool-proof system way of dealing with NK especially if they keep of improving the way they have.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Btw, the ABM system in Moscow is run and running. If anything it could be argued to be one of the few ABM systems that can readily handle ICBMs in their terminal phase. The fact it uses nuclear warheads if anything makes it unique. The US unilaterally got rid of theirs in the 1970s, and then withdrew from the ABM treaty entirely to develop the GMD system....which still doesn't work. (The Russians in response withdrew from portions of Start II to retain their MIRVs.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Diplomacy works when there is leverage, in this case neither SK or the West really have any and hasn't had any for a while. The first sunshine policy lasted for as long as it did since North Korea was in such desperate straits it needed any type of influx of cash to survive, now (thanks to China) it doesn't. If anything it made more sense for Jong-Un to push towards an ICBM once they worked out getting a second stage to work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nuking the incoming nuke in the face sounds like the most reliable means of shooting it down, really. It is, although I am sure you could eventually saturate Moscow's defenses. That said, the whole point of the system is to make an attacker have to use a larger part of its arsenal, and possibly buy the government/population some time. That whole premise of Metro 2033 about the Moscow metro system being a bunker system in disguise isn't a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
That said, I wonder if as far as the Moscow system goes, the thinking is that the missile will likely be heading from the West or the North, and by the time the interceptors engage they would be either outside the borders of the Russian Federation (to the West/NW) or over relatively unpopulated areas close to the Arctic Circle (to the North/NE). It would be interesting to see the math of that especially considering how fast current Russian interceptors are designed to go. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
If anything the "middle-course" which Iran is more or less doing, is to abide by international agreements but at the same time getting their civilian technology and know-how to the point where they could put a program together if they wanted to. (Iran admittedly also has a reason to be a bit paranoid as well.) At a certain point, the only way the US can really "contain" proliferation is to absolutely crush any country with a critical mass of physicists in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
sincx posted:What about Ground-Based Midcourse Defense? Also, it is still completely developmental and may stay that way. The SM-3 I think is still primarily naval based. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
I think a lot of thinking politely ignores China, which means something like Kaesong is if anything a relatively minor issue (also I am sure those factories can be repurposed without SK). If anything the belief in hawks/doves in the Soviet Union if anything also over simplifies what was happening in the Soviet Union as well (also helps exploit the idea the Soviets were deeply divided, which is if anything debatable). At a certain point, you have to admit that a lot of our "understanding" of antagonistic countries (including Iran) is based on the assumptions and biases of a very small group of people who usually live somewhere in the DC metro area. Also, the entire subtext with Juche, was that North Korea lost its major trade partners in the 1990s, and was forced to rely on Autarky to stay a float. If anything the same thing happened to Cuba without the fanfare. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except Juche was invented in the 50s and 60s by Kim Il Sung trying to have a Local Socialism to match what other Soviet-orbit countries did. And also North Korea had lost most of their major trade partners through the 1980s - in the 70s it had still been common for North Korea to trade with much of Western Europe, South America and Africa, not just Eastern Bloc countries, and not just the Soviets. But during the 80s, the backdealing they did eliminated most Western trade and even a huge chunk of Eastern Bloc trade. And people in those countries certainly weren't going to come back to North Korea for trade after that. More precisely, in 1990, Juche was recodified into "socialism of our style" as a way laying out a way of more or less autarky. Let's be clear here, that while they did burn many bridges in the 1970s and 80s, that by the late 1980s it was very clear that the Soviet Union (and its satellites) couldn't sustain an independent trade system due to the fallout caused by low oil prices (ie Saudi production) and this externally limited their options as well. Songun was the realization that they had no close allies, and that the West had a towering technological advantage over them. You can see the lineage between that realization and the development of an ICBM.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It's really weird to see American tankies still pimping the Juche Idea, because to get excited about chuche sasang as an ideology you have to, like, not know that Tito existed. (And, preferably, not actually read more than a few paragraphs of Juche Thought.) I would say the reason is simply that North Korea is still a functioning state at least explicitly practicing an ideology (practice is another thing), while pretty much the rest of the second world moved on to strict state capitalism and Yugoslavia is in a lot of little pieces. That said, in reality even North Korea is moving in state capitalist direction and there are satellite photos of markets popping up even in the provinces.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:All things being equal, I think China would prefer to have a friendly, stable, independent North Korea as an ally, rather than have North Korea folded into a U.S.-friendly South Korea, but it's pretty clear that all China really cares about now is that North Korea stops generating regional instability and loving things up for everyone. Or China just does what it normally does and pretend they are angry at NK and then continue working with them. If China was so angry and worried about the DPRK's nuclear program, how did their government get advanced mobile launchers capable of firing ICBMs? Why is North Korea/Chinese trade still relatively constant (at least so far)? Why would the Chinese want to kill Jong-Un or overthrow him, when they have done plenty to embolden him? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:People really overestimate how much China has the ability to influence what North Korea does. Right now, all their policy is directed not towards emboldening Kim, but making sure that they don't collapse, but perhaps you consider those to be the same thing and I can consider that a valid interpretation, even if I disagree with it. I honestly think it is wishful thinking if anything they have been emboldening and enabling him, and if anything North Korea is in the middle of a construction boom. The Chinese have their goals, and one of them is to use North Korea has a distraction and a way to "poke" the US indirectly. China is essentially fine with North Korea's program since it takes regime change off the table. I think the US is going to have to live with the fact that North Korea is going to keep their nukes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 23:45
|
|