EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8332
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15713 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42959 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:00 Sadist wrote: If NK has nukes they can hit China or Russia too. No one is invading them unless theres already a coup in place. It's not that we need Chinese soldiers, SK has plenty. We need the PRC to renege on their treaties with NK. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:20 m4ini wrote: .. really? Shamefully, i actually didn't know. I thought there was some ties, but i wouldn't have thought that it actually is a proper mutual defence treaty. edit: For anyone as dumb as me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-North_Korean_Mutual_Aid_and_Cooperation_Friendship_Treaty I mean, there was another piece of paper saying that nations would defend Ukraine's sovereignty if it gave back the former-USSR nukes it had, fat lot of good it did them. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:25 KwarK wrote: It's not that we need Chinese soldiers, SK has plenty. We need the PRC to renege on their treaties with NK. Surely a surprise attack from the North of North Korea could be useful too. Or Chinese Special forces have easier access to get into North Korea and kidnap Kim Jong-Un or some such. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42959 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:23 Mohdoo wrote: It doesn't matter who NK is allied with. If we know that they are actually about to use a nuke, we would act the same regardless. If NK strikes first China doesn't have to do shit about an American counter strike. Even if NK triggers it by sinking a boat or something. But if the US strikes first then the PRC has agreed to use its own nuclear deterrent to defend NK. And China can do a lot more damage than NK. Ideally you get China to secretly betray NK before you act. Failing that, it's a choice between tanking one nuke to get China out the picture or tanking all China's nukes. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:26 Zaros wrote: Surely a surprise attack from the North of North Korea could be useful too. Or Chinese Special forces have easier access to get into North Korea and kidnap Kim Jong-Un or some such. The WSJ ran an article on Chinese contingencies for a US military invasion of Korea. Their first action would be to secure their border, then potentially secure nuclear sites and occupy northern territory in NK to avoid having SK-US troops on the Chinese border. Source KwarK: I think you're being a a little silly here, no offense. Do you honestly believe China is going to risk nuclear war with the US just to prove that their word is valid on defense treaties? Over North Korea, of all countries? There's no way in hell that happens. They very well might intervene conventionally on behalf of NK in a US invasion scenario, but they aren't nuking the US. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If that happens, the conflict and era that follows will define a generation. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42959 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:25 ticklishmusic wrote: I mean, there was another piece of paper saying that nations would defend Ukraine's sovereignty if it gave back the former-USSR nukes it had, fat lot of good it did them. It's a part of the diplomatic effort to get NK to see it doesn't need nukes. China promised NK that it would include it under their MAD aegis so NK is safe and doesn't need an independent deterrent. Dependence on another nation for protection doesn't sit well with NK though. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:30 KwarK wrote: It's a part of the diplomatic effort to get NK to see it doesn't need nukes. China promised NK that it would include it under their MAD aegis so NK is safe and doesn't need an independent deterrent. Dependence on another nation for protection doesn't sit well with NK though. And then the US and the UK showed that a treaty like this isn't worth the paper it's written on (budapest memorandum/ukraine, the one i assume ticklish was pointing at), so i don't really understand why this is still argued as a concept. It's not just not sitting well with NK, it wouldn't sit well with me either, honestly. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:31 m4ini wrote: And then the US and the UK showed that a treaty like this isn't worth the paper it's written on (budapest memorandum/ukraine), so i don't really understand why this is still argued as a concept. It's not just not sitting well with NK, it wouldn't sit well with me either, honestly. We should absolutely not test that theory. China might decide it is worth the paper it is written on or that they don't want a US controlled NK. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42959 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:29 mozoku wrote: The WSJ ran an article on Chinese contingencies for a US military invasion of Korea. Their first action would be to secure their border, than secure the northern area of the country (though it didn't say what the latter part was so important unfortunately). Source KwarK: I think you're being a a little silly here, no offense. Do you honestly believe China is going to risk nuclear war with the US just to prove that their word is valid on defense treaties? Over North Korea, of all countries? There's no way in hell that happens. They very well might intervene conventionally on behalf of NK in a US invasion scenario, but they aren't nuking the US. Do you really believe Britain and France would go to war over distant Poland? I can't say with any certainty whether they'd betray NK. But absent any other evidence it's not crazy to take them at their word, or at the very least be open to the possibility that their written agreements represent their genuine intent. And when that means all out nuclear war you need to respect the possibility a little. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7255 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:31 m4ini wrote: And then the US and the UK showed that a treaty like this isn't worth the paper it's written on (budapest memorandum/ukraine, the one i assume ticklish was pointing at), so i don't really understand why this is still argued as a concept. It's not just not sitting well with NK, it wouldn't sit well with me either, honestly. I just think it shows we shouldnt have every country in NATO and/or other treaties unless we actually find it worth it defend them. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote: We should absolutely not test that theory. China might decide it is worth the paper it is written on or that they don't want a US controlled NK. I wasn't implying we should. I was implying that you can't really fault NK for not wanting to have a treaty like Ukraine did to then get shafted. I think you're being a a little silly here, no offense. Do you honestly believe China is going to risk nuclear war with the US just to prove that their word is valid on defense treaties? Over North Korea, of all countries? There's no way in hell that happens. They very well might intervene conventionally on behalf of NK in a US invasion scenario, but they aren't nuking the US. While i understand the opinion, you should be careful. What if Iceland gets nuked, would you argue the US should just put their hands in the pocket because Iceland is not worth defending even though it's a NATO country? That's a very slippery slope, especially from the only country to ever actually ask their defense coalition for help. I wouldn't want to bet my life on what you argued there. I just think it shows we shouldnt have every country in NATO and/or other treaties unless we actually find it worth it defend them. Erm.. The alternative would've been a ukraine with nukes. So back then, it certainly was worth it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13984 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:10 Nyxisto wrote: If the US is willing to throw Seoul onto the pyre long term trust in Asia will be gone. Everyone will immediately now that the US will ignore their safety concerts and that'll probably lead to even more war. I don't think the US would consider this acceptable honestly. What would be the alternative? NK would get seoul if we backed down and we'd have no trust anywhere if we allowed our allies to be carted off to reeducation camps if we didn't defend them when they were attacked. If anything allowing seoul to be leveled would boost our position in asia as it would show how we are willing to defend another nation when it gets bullied by a more militerized nation ie china. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
As for you people who voted to preemptive strike, you're insane. First of all, you can never say the 80% is accurate. Second, even if it's right, it still means nothing. What do you think the chances were of a Cuban strike at some points? 80% 90%? Last, it's NK, not Russia or China. There is zero chance of them being able to cripple our ability to counterattack. You don't attack a country preemptively if you aren't sure they will attack and even if they did you have a legitimate chance of stopping them with interceptors. If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote: Do you really believe Britain and France would go to war over distant Poland? I can't say with any certainty whether they'd betray NK. But absent any other evidence it's not crazy to take them at their word, or at the very least be open to the possibility that their written agreements represent their genuine intent. And when that means all our nuclear war you need to respect the possibility a little. The WWII reference makes no sense here. Nazi Germany invaded several counties before Poland in violation of the post-WWI arrangement, and Britain and France didn't take action. It was reasonable to suppose Hitler would continue aggressive actions if they didn't intervene. Nobody has any belief that the US is going to push into China after NK in 2017. Yes, China doesn't want US troops on its border, but it's not going to choose certain nuclear war today prevent the distant possibility of a future US ground invasion. China signed that agreement in 1961. It says nothing about their intent in 2017. The difference between Mao and the current CCP government is astronomical. "Do you really think China is going to go to war over NK?" is the exact type of betting get countries into stupid stupid wars. I can't even believe this is a real discussion. Please do not play with fire. I addressed this above: "..., there's no scenario under which the US takes preemptive military action against NK without talking to China first, so the treaty is somewhat of a moot point. If the military action isn't preemptive, then the US won't care what China thinks anyway." | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that. I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:42 mozoku wrote: The WWII reference makes no sense here. Nazi Germany invaded several counties before Poland in violation of the post-WWI arrangement, and Britain and France didn't take action. It was reasonable to suppose Hitler would continue aggressive actions if they didn't intervene. Nobody has any belief that the US is going to push into China after NK in 2017. Yes, China doesn't want US troops on its border, but it's not going to choose certain nuclear war to prevent the distant possibility of a future US ground invasion. China signed that agreement in 1961. It says nothing about their intent in 2017. The difference between Mao and the current CCP government is astronomical. They did renew the treaty in 1981 and 2001 though. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
China signed that agreement in 1961. It says nothing about their intent in 2017. The difference between Mao and the current CCP government is astronomical. That's factually wrong. | ||
| ||
