|
On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard.
Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all.
|
On November 24 2010 01:46 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. You have a good point here. I think China has more control over NK's future than NK itself.
agreed, but they won't let NK go down without getting something out of it.
|
On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:
It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point.
I think you need to stop with this attitude. You have no idea if it is a liability or an asset. You neither know if they have other options aside from appeasement. Your information on the inner works of chinese and nk politics are limited to say the very least.
|
On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with.
China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China.
Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening.
EDIT: China also doesn't want millions of refugees in it's country either.
|
On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening.
Won't argue with the last part. But at the end of the day, Ideological pissing contests as you refer to them still matter. you don't just abandon an ally without some major repercussions with anyone else you are allied with. you certainly don't without gaining something in return.
|
On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening.
May I ask what do you think these "natural resources" are? And they are so rare that China must get them from NK even if it means war? Countries trade all the time, just because you are trading doesn't mean you are relying on that country.
|
On November 24 2010 01:53 Runsta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening. Won't argue with the last part. But at the end of the day, Ideological pissing contests as you refer to them still matter. you don't just abandon an ally without some major repercussions with anyone else you are allied with. you certainly don't without gaining something in return.
Yes but do you think NK - China economic relations come close to US/Euro - China economic relations? Who else would come to the aid of NK?
China isn't going to pick the losing side if anything does happen.
|
On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all.
The US has a relatively small presence in the area. We are talking about a couple thousand versus 12 million. By the time the US can even begin mustering a significant force in a area, North Korea would have ample opportunity to invade.
|
On November 24 2010 01:28 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:22 Mo0Rauder wrote:On November 24 2010 01:16 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:10 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:04 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 00:45 Mo0Rauder wrote:On November 24 2010 00:30 Taosu wrote:On November 24 2010 00:28 Consolidate wrote:
The issue of right or wrong isn't in dispute. The consensus feeling among the civilized world is that continued existence of the state of North Korea is a crime against humanity. If they had oil deposits there's no doubt they would receive their doze of Democracy long ago, like Iraq and Afghanistan did. But luckily for them the outcome of this operation won't cover the expenses of the civilized world. The reason why N.K is allowed to exist is China. China gets a massive amount of its Coal and Silicon from North Korea, and when North Korea has this regime in power it is very easy for China to get those resources for its growing economy. Think of Civilization, if you have played it. When a city-state has a resources you need say, aluminum(in this case silicon) you just toss them a bunch of shitty low tech units (in this case artillery) and some gold and they hand that silicon, I mean aluminum, right over on a silver platter. Then comes the city-state alerts: "North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!"-"North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!"-"North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!" China can ignore the messages for a long time, but after awhile China's will have to do something either giving N.Korea more gold and military units, or they will have to give in to the demand, or else they can't get that precious ALUMINUM mmm... Unfortunately this is the real-world and not Civ(in Civ city-states don't attack one-another. In the real world fucked up regimes do what they want until the rest of the world stops them). This factor along with the free-world governments having terrible economic macro and not being able stabilize the financial issues quickly enough could lead to a very horrible situation in the Korean peninsula. My heart definitely goes out to anyone in or with loved ones in this ongoing crisis. <3 Do you have a source for outline-ing China and NK's trade agreements? I've had difficulty finding reliable information. I hope he didn't get that from Civilization, cause that's the only thing he mentioned in there. Upon closer reading, you seem to be right. Silicon is not a strategic resource at all and China and Russia have the majority of the world's coal reserves - something like 300 times what North Korea has to offer. Ugh, why do people try to force analogies that don't work. They may have 300 times what North Korea has, but when this regime (n.KR) is in power the Chinese can get those resources for 1/300th the cost of what the other countries charge. Note I never said they get ALL or even 75% or even 50% of their Silicon or Coal from n.KR but the resources they do get out of them end up being worth the headache. Do you have any idea what silicon is? Silicon is not processed from a rare ore or limited resource. It is made from quartz; also known as sand...
You are right about silicon for sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon
(since I KNOW you are a source guy and probably just got a boner from someone posting one)
But it still needs to be produced, and guess what, NORTH KOREA MAKES IT! FOR CHEAP! AND CHINA GETS IT, FOR CHEAP!
Now back to the coal, is coal a strategic resource? China gets some of that from Korea as well. and guess what, that's cheap as well. Oh, and they keep the west out of China's backyard, looks to me like China might want to keep North Korea around, no matter what they say through the public media.
Believe what you want, just don't ask for my sources for my beliefs, I can't link them.
|
On November 24 2010 01:37 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:33 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:30 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". USA vs Vietnam? 5 UN Soldiers vs 1 suicide bomber? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualtiesthe US suffered around 60k losses. North Vietnam suffered 1.1 million losses. Go figure... You can't judge who wins base on the number of kills.
lol, it's funny how people treat war like some kind of team deathmatch. Russia in ww2 suffered one of the greatest amount of casualties in history, did they give a fuck? no.. they had the numbers and the reason to fight and so they fought on till they reached Berlin.
Vietnam? similar story here.
|
This is an interesting position S.Korea has been put into.
They kinda let the ship sinking incident go without major retaliation even tho we KNOW N. Korea did it. This time the act was caught live and we know exactly who did it, how, where and when on camera. They have to respond with force. The problem now is how N. Korea will respond to THAT act.
In the past N. Korea has said they would go to war over just talking points. If someone actually attacked one of their bases or ships I wonder if they would use that to literally go to a war they are clearly itching to have.
As for the inevitable attack on Seoul (may not be soon but one day it will happen i'm afraid), it would be horrible but not as horrible as everyone thinks. As we speak, i'd bet my car there are fueled and ready B2s and B-52s on tarmacs in the Indian Ocean and Japan ready to launch and eliminate each and every artillery sight north of the border. At the same time there are thousands of Raytheon anti-missile missles in the city that can knock out the large majority of incomming missiles.
The question now is: How will S. Korea respond?
|
On November 24 2010 01:56 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:53 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening. Won't argue with the last part. But at the end of the day, Ideological pissing contests as you refer to them still matter. you don't just abandon an ally without some major repercussions with anyone else you are allied with. you certainly don't without gaining something in return. Yes but do you think NK - China economic relations come close to US/Euro - China economic relations? Who else would come to the aid of NK? China isn't going to pick the losing side if anything does happen.
Probably true, but Imagine for a second the power they have when it comes to selling out NK(should it come to that). The influence china has to gain by not getting involved is staggering.
|
On November 24 2010 01:56 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening. May I ask what do you think these "natural resources" are? And they are so rare that China must get them from NK even if it means war?
China's economy is doing quite well. The resources they need aren't so much rare (China still has plenty of natural resources) as they need a LOT of them to continue this level of growth.
Currently, China trades food, fuel, and old weapons to NK in exchange for metals and coal + Show Spoiler +and not having NK become so poor and destitute that people begin fleeing en masse to China
|
United States9232 Posts
On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all.
Completely untrue. While NK would get creamed, the US does not consider China as a serious backer in terms of NK if NK instigates ANYTHING. US hesitates because NK has the artillery to cause MILLIONS of casualties in Seoul before they get taken out.
|
The egomaniacs in charge of NK want war soooo badly, they just don't want to be the nation starting it. If they attack preemptively, they risk losing the support of China who would not want to be seen on a world economic market as empowering the aggressor.
It's so sad that a bunch of illusioned old men sitting behind desks can play with human lives as if they were only resources to be consumed.
|
On November 24 2010 02:01 Runsta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:56 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:53 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening. Won't argue with the last part. But at the end of the day, Ideological pissing contests as you refer to them still matter. you don't just abandon an ally without some major repercussions with anyone else you are allied with. you certainly don't without gaining something in return. Yes but do you think NK - China economic relations come close to US/Euro - China economic relations? Who else would come to the aid of NK? China isn't going to pick the losing side if anything does happen. Probably true, but Imagine for a second the power they have when it comes to selling out NK(should it come to that). The influence china has to gain by not getting involved is staggering.
It's not like China is going to join up with NK and try to beat out the whole of the west. The best they could do is reunify NK and SK under SK's leadership in exchange for not having millions flee into their country (into NE China which is the poorest area of the state already).
|
On November 24 2010 01:48 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:
It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. I think you need to stop with this attitude. You have no idea if it is a liability or an asset. You neither know if they have other options aside from appeasement. Your information on the inner works of chinese and nk politics are limited to say the very least.
I think you are confused as to what my attitude actually is. Do you have anything to say rather claims as to what I don't know? Allow me to state clearly one more time.
North Korea is in many ways a liability for China. The reasons for this claim are obvious. Should North Korea collapse, millions of refugees would come pouring into over the border into China. North Korea is desperate and often times unpredictable - these characteristics worry foreign investors. China is a nation preoccupied with industrializing the whole of their economy - they have no current ambitions or desires for the sort of regional conflict North Korea is instigating.
All those factors combined make North Korea a major liability for China. China can not completely abandon North Korea because the regime is would implode without aid and be forced into committing further acts of desperation.
What is it I have said that is incorrect?
|
On November 24 2010 02:06 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:01 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:56 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:53 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:50 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:46 Runsta wrote:On November 24 2010 01:43 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Consolidate wrote: It used to be the case that North Korea was valuable to China as a regional 'threat' against the likes of Japan and US influence in the area but that is no longer the case.
Thats actually untrue, NK is still a very valuable bufferzone for China. The quickest & safest ways into two important military centers of China are via NK. In case of a fullscale war those would have to be attacked via NK as there is no other good access point. My point is that this used to be the case but times are changing. China's core concern at the moment is to maintain regional stability so as not to scare off foreign investments. It is at the point where North Korea is more a liability than an asset. If China could wish away North Korea entirely they would, but they can't - so they can only appease at this point. you make it sound like economics are the only concern of China. China still doesn't want south korean culture bleeding into its own. it doesn't want a nation with ideologies that strongly differ from its own next door. It would make thing far more complicated for them than dealing with a nation that they are used to dealing with. China's interests are primarily economic at this point. They're less concerned with ideological pissing contests then they are with keeping foreign interests relevant in China. Yes, NK is politically allied with China, but that is more due to China's need of natural resources more then anything else. China would probably prefer the status quo over anything else happening. Won't argue with the last part. But at the end of the day, Ideological pissing contests as you refer to them still matter. you don't just abandon an ally without some major repercussions with anyone else you are allied with. you certainly don't without gaining something in return. Yes but do you think NK - China economic relations come close to US/Euro - China economic relations? Who else would come to the aid of NK? China isn't going to pick the losing side if anything does happen. Probably true, but Imagine for a second the power they have when it comes to selling out NK(should it come to that). The influence china has to gain by not getting involved is staggering. It's not like China is going to join up with NK and try to beat out the whole of the west. The best they could do is reunify NK and SK under SK's leadership in exchange for not having millions flee into their country (into NE China which is the poorest area of the state already).
Probably not, but they are quite the deterrent to the west. As much as china doesn't want to engage the west, the west doesn't want to engage china.
|
On November 24 2010 02:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. Completely untrue. While NK would get creamed, the US does not consider China as a serious backer in terms of NK if NK instigates ANYTHING. US hesitates because NK has the artillery to cause MILLIONS of casualties in Seoul before they get taken out.
Closer to thousands/tens of thousands, but yes, it is horrible.
|
On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior.
That's what the US thinks when it went to attack the Taliban and Vietnamese. Bah, they use sticks and lives in caves/tunnels. We will win easy!
War is not all about attack power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
