BEIJING (Reuters) - China's national airline, Air China, has canceled some flights to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, due to poor demand but it has not suspended all flights there, it said on Friday, denying a report by Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.
CCTV had reported that all flights run by the airline between the two cities were to be suspended indefinitely.
"Air China did not stop operation of the Beijing to Pyongyang route, but temporarily canceled some flights based on the situation of ticket sales," said a person in Air China's communications team.
Subsequent flights would be scheduled according to ticket sales, the official said.
Air China's flights, which operate on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, began in 2008 but have frequently been canceled due to unspecified problems, CCTV's report said.
China is North Korea's sole major ally but it disapproves of the North's weapons programs, and its confrontations with the United States and its Asian allies, and it has supported U.N. sanctions against it.
Following repeated missile tests that drew international criticism, China banned all imports of North Korean coal on Feb. 26, cutting off the country's most important export product.
On April 13 2017 10:23 xDaunt wrote: I'm just surprised that China has suddenly become so bellicose against North Korea.
China has always been against nuclear proliferation. They'd be perfectly happy with North Korea if they had military bases there and North Korean security was guaranteed by Chinese nukes in the event of a war. But they're not at all happy with the current situation. It's not about NK, they'd willingly defend NK with their own nuclear deterrent.
you and your theoretical theories. what happened is that China refused NK coal at US request; to offset a potential upset mr.Kim, Trump sent a US battle-group in east china sea. there are millions of tones of coal sitting in either NK ports or Chinese ports(waiting to be shipped back to NK) because Trump's friends needed to unload some coal.
The theories represent a working understanding of geopolitics. China want the same deal in NK as the US have in SK. The Korean proxy wants a nuclear deterrent because it's afraid of the big power (China for SK, US for NK), the nuclear powers don't want tiny nuclear states doing nuclear things, the logical conclusion is you just put a base there and say "if you attack them then you attack my base and I've got nukes so don't attack them". SK has gone for that deal, NK is insisting upon their own nuclear weapon and that is intolerable for any of the world powers. Nuclear non proliferation has been basically the only thing all world powers have agreed on in the last 50 years.
your working premises are wrong: - China and US are not enemies(or, are no longer enemies(however you prefer)); - all major (nuclear)powers know exactly when and if NK will get nuclear weapons; there will never be a surprise here. there are some missing links here obviously but the angle you're seeing all of this under, is incredibly narrow and/or outdated.
also, your arguments almost always come from a moral/ethical perspective then led to believe that if some kind of trespassing <of value> occurs, action to prevent/forbid it will happen. i believe that to be ignorant as to how the world works; there is always an economical reason behind any action taken past, present or future.
You're literally not reading my posts. The US keeps SK from getting nukes by offering it a defence treaty that removes the need for SK to have their own nukes. China want NK to have the same deal. I didn't say China and the US are enemies.
Also NK already have nuclear weapons. All major powers know when and if NK will detonate their first nuclear weapon. It'll be on October 9th 2006. The fact that you're saying "if" really should make you question whether you know enough to have an opinion here.
It's perfectly simple. NK has nukes. The existing nuclear powers don't like countries that aren't them having nukes (except Israel, US is fine with that). China doesn't want Korea to be unified under US protection but it also doesn't want NK to have nukes. This puts it in the position of trying to pressure NK into accepting a position under Chinese protection in exchange for economic benefits.
If I was in China's position I would try to stage a coup in NK, so it's not surprising that NK are in a very defensive posture. China does not want a war, and it does not want the US in NK. Equally it does not want a highly centralised nuclear power lead by a delusional dictator. I'm almost certain there are Chinese backed machinations going on within the NK government. Unfortunately they've borne no fruit, so a military intervention in the near future seems inevitable.
On April 15 2017 00:15 bardtown wrote: If I was in China's position I would try to stage a coup in NK, so it's not surprising that NK are in a very defensive posture. China does not want a war, and it does not want the US in NK. Equally it does not want a highly centralised nuclear power lead by a delusional dictator. I'm almost certain there are Chinese backed machinations going on within the NK government. Unfortunately they've borne no fruit, so a military intervention in the near future seems inevitable.
So what should the Chinese government do after the coup? Annex North Korea? Let them choose a new leader by themselves? I mean, you have to look at the big picture. Very difficult situation.
China is not in the business of nation building and that is what they would need to do. Also there is the whole thing with South Korea wanting a reunited Korea. And that America and Japan would likely get involved as well. There is a reason this NK stale mate has been going on for well over 60 years.
On April 15 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote: China is not in the business of nation building and that is what they would need to do. Also there is the whole thing with South Korea wanting a reunited Korea. And that America and Japan would likely get involved as well. There is a reason this NK stale mate has been going on for well over 60 years.
On April 14 2017 23:52 KwarK wrote: It's perfectly simple. NK has nukes. The existing nuclear powers don't like countries that aren't them having nukes (except Israel, US is fine with that).
The difference between Israel's "we may or may not have nukes right now, don't nuke us and you won't find out" act and North Korea's "Let's test fire missiles in the general direction of our peaceful neighbors" approach likely accounts for much of why the existing powers are less concerned about Israel having nukes.
On April 15 2017 00:15 bardtown wrote: If I was in China's position I would try to stage a coup in NK, so it's not surprising that NK are in a very defensive posture. China does not want a war, and it does not want the US in NK. Equally it does not want a highly centralised nuclear power lead by a delusional dictator. I'm almost certain there are Chinese backed machinations going on within the NK government. Unfortunately they've borne no fruit, so a military intervention in the near future seems inevitable.
So what should the Chinese government do after the coup? Annex North Korea? Let them choose a new leader by themselves? I mean, you have to look at the big picture. Very difficult situation.
I know. But there comes a breaking point where even China cannot allow NK to continue as it is. Even a united Korea would not be against Chinese interests right now.
On April 15 2017 00:15 bardtown wrote: If I was in China's position I would try to stage a coup in NK, so it's not surprising that NK are in a very defensive posture. China does not want a war, and it does not want the US in NK. Equally it does not want a highly centralised nuclear power lead by a delusional dictator. I'm almost certain there are Chinese backed machinations going on within the NK government. Unfortunately they've borne no fruit, so a military intervention in the near future seems inevitable.
So what should the Chinese government do after the coup? Annex North Korea? Let them choose a new leader by themselves? I mean, you have to look at the big picture. Very difficult situation.
One Korea best Korea. Integrate into the new single Korea or go somewhere else. Obviously not that simple. But yeah, that's what should happen.
On April 13 2017 10:23 xDaunt wrote: I'm just surprised that China has suddenly become so bellicose against North Korea.
China has always been against nuclear proliferation. They'd be perfectly happy with North Korea if they had military bases there and North Korean security was guaranteed by Chinese nukes in the event of a war. But they're not at all happy with the current situation. It's not about NK, they'd willingly defend NK with their own nuclear deterrent.
you and your theoretical theories. what happened is that China refused NK coal at US request; to offset a potential upset mr.Kim, Trump sent a US battle-group in east china sea. there are millions of tones of coal sitting in either NK ports or Chinese ports(waiting to be shipped back to NK) because Trump's friends needed to unload some coal.
The theories represent a working understanding of geopolitics. China want the same deal in NK as the US have in SK. The Korean proxy wants a nuclear deterrent because it's afraid of the big power (China for SK, US for NK), the nuclear powers don't want tiny nuclear states doing nuclear things, the logical conclusion is you just put a base there and say "if you attack them then you attack my base and I've got nukes so don't attack them". SK has gone for that deal, NK is insisting upon their own nuclear weapon and that is intolerable for any of the world powers. Nuclear non proliferation has been basically the only thing all world powers have agreed on in the last 50 years.
your working premises are wrong: - China and US are not enemies(or, are no longer enemies(however you prefer)); - all major (nuclear)powers know exactly when and if NK will get nuclear weapons; there will never be a surprise here. there are some missing links here obviously but the angle you're seeing all of this under, is incredibly narrow and/or outdated.
also, your arguments almost always come from a moral/ethical perspective then led to believe that if some kind of trespassing <of value> occurs, action to prevent/forbid it will happen. i believe that to be ignorant as to how the world works; there is always an economical reason behind any action taken past, present or future.
You're literally not reading my posts. The US keeps SK from getting nukes by offering it a defence treaty that removes the need for SK to have their own nukes. China want NK to have the same deal. I didn't say China and the US are enemies.
Also NK already have nuclear weapons. All major powers know when and if NK will detonate their first nuclear weapon. It'll be on October 9th 2006. The fact that you're saying "if" really should make you question whether you know enough to have an opinion here.
It's perfectly simple. NK has nukes. The existing nuclear powers don't like countries that aren't them having nukes (except Israel, US is fine with that). China doesn't want Korea to be unified under US protection but it also doesn't want NK to have nukes. This puts it in the position of trying to pressure NK into accepting a position under Chinese protection in exchange for economic benefits.
was thinking about nukes on reliable guided missiles and/or icbms there(NK for now just points and shoots) but yea i screwed it up there. for those, the timeline for NK is at the earliest 2020 but more like 2025.
about SK, things are not that clear and cut. even after getting under US umbrella, it did dabble with "research" into nuclear weapons in 83, 84, 00, 04; early tests were with plutonium and later ones were with enriched uranium. it is estimated that within 1 to 3 years SK can go full nuclear, equipping its SRBM and MRBMs with nuclear warheads; Japan also.
how does "China doesn't want Korea to be unified under US protection" make sense in this context?. you don't want NK under US protection but you screw NK to deal with your rival, US?. was that suppose to teach NK a lesson?, because it literally looks like China chose US instead of NK. or, was NK traded for the would be THAAD in SK?. as i said some things are missing here.
meanwhile US is testing gravity bombs and Russia is pointing missile towards EU.
It's such a difficult task. They need to come up with a strategy for disabling all their nuclear facilities, then they need to locate whatever submarines NK has so they can disable them simultaneously. And they probably need to disable everything that has the capability of firing into SK to stop some random retaliation.
I think they'll take the easy route and do nothing.
It's such a difficult task. They need to come up with a strategy for disabling all their nuclear facilities, then they need to locate whatever submarines NK has so they can disable them simultaneously. And they probably need to disable everything that has the capability of firing into SK to stop some random retaliation.
I think they'll take the easy route and do nothing.
I can't think of anything that could stop North Korea firing back at south korea before any invasion or attack was complete. Would have to be simultaneous missile strikes on all their missiles/subs/nuclear & chemical facilities while also dropping many MOABs or tactical Nukes on the artillery at the border before they flatten Seoul.
Maybe assassination of the North Korean leadership and top generals would be the best answer causing dissarray and power plays that would stop any response before an invasion but pretty sure that is a war crime.
It's such a difficult task. They need to come up with a strategy for disabling all their nuclear facilities, then they need to locate whatever submarines NK has so they can disable them simultaneously. And they probably need to disable everything that has the capability of firing into SK to stop some random retaliation.
I think they'll take the easy route and do nothing.
I can't think of anything that could stop North Korea firing back at south korea before any invasion or attack was complete. Would have to be simultaneous missile strikes on all their missiles/subs/nuclear & chemical facilities while also dropping many MOABs or tactical Nukes on the artillery at the border before they flatten Seoul.
Maybe assassination of the North Korean leadership and top generals would be the best answer causing dissarray and power plays that would stop any response before an invasion but pretty sure that is a war crime.
I think North Korea's artillery positions in the mountains close to Seoul are set up so that they are basically impossible to hit before they have allready done their damage.
It's such a difficult task. They need to come up with a strategy for disabling all their nuclear facilities, then they need to locate whatever submarines NK has so they can disable them simultaneously. And they probably need to disable everything that has the capability of firing into SK to stop some random retaliation.
I think they'll take the easy route and do nothing.
I can't think of anything that could stop North Korea firing back at south korea before any invasion or attack was complete. Would have to be simultaneous missile strikes on all their missiles/subs/nuclear & chemical facilities while also dropping many MOABs or tactical Nukes on the artillery at the border before they flatten Seoul.
Maybe assassination of the North Korean leadership and top generals would be the best answer causing dissarray and power plays that would stop any response before an invasion but pretty sure that is a war crime.
I think North Korea's artillery positions in the mountains close to Seoul are set up so that they are basically impossible to hit before they have allready done their damage.
Yeah thats why I was thinking it would have to be something like a tactical Nuke, maybe even that isnt enough might have to be a fully fledged Nuke to stop it.
EPT
