|
On August 11 2017 01:48 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:35 plasmidghost wrote:On August 11 2017 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 11 2017 00:02 LegalLord wrote:
Letting the generals do what they want is only slightly less dangerous than letting Trump do what he wants. I'm not saying give them reigns to control the country, but in matters of the military, I'd rather have them calling the shots. They're more reluctant to strike at NK or other countries unless they have definitive proof, and even then, they'd try to get something else on the table. If anything bad happens, they'll have to face public outcry and a lot of generals like their job. Trump has been doing that in the ME, but if he really wanted to, he could order them to strike and they'd have no choice but to unless they want to get court-martialed or worse, right? There is some build up to it and likely notice to congress. He needs to ask for a plan from the pentagon to approve first. Of course they have a bunch on hand, but they would present him with options. And during that time, Congress would get a heads up and so on. He can't just order them to "go bomb North Korea" and let the general figure it out. At least we have that going for us, hopefully there are enough checks on him to prevent any rash decisions
I feel a bit like Rand Paul, but I'm just going to quote this famous document here:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
I notice that it says The Congress, and not The President.
I mean I guess you could make the argument that the Korean war never really ended, but the intent is that the president doesn't have unilateral power as commander-in-chief; war is declared by congress.
|
Kwark's ironclad interpretation of China's NK defense treaty isn't really supported by any experts, in case anyone is wondering. This article is indirect, but the fact that nuking the US isn't even brought up as a potentiality in an article analyzing China's response to a US military action in NK should be telling enough.
Source
China may or may not intervene on behalf of NK in the case of a US invasion, though responding with nukes can be essentially ruled out. As I posted in the US Politics thread, I find it hard to envision a scenario where the US attempts regime change without negotiating (privately) with China first.
NK's real deterrent to a US invasion is their artillery pointed at Seoul, followed by a potential NK nuclear strike on the US or its allies. China intervening conventionally to stave off a US invasion is a distant distant third, not least of which because it's unclear whether China would even do so.
|
Who would have guessed 
|
BEIJING (Reuters) - If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.
Source
If it runs in the state paper, that is probably the state line. Which seems like a very reasonable stance to take. Defend an "ally" if they get attacked, don't get involved if they start shit.
|
Sounds like an older brother telling the younger brother not to cry if it gets picked on because he was being a little shit.
|
United States42955 Posts
On August 11 2017 17:12 mozoku wrote:Kwark's ironclad interpretation of China's NK defense treaty isn't really supported by any experts, in case anyone is wondering. This article is indirect, but the fact that nuking the US isn't even brought up as a potentiality in an article analyzing China's response to a US military action in NK should be telling enough. SourceChina may or may not intervene on behalf of NK in the case of a US invasion, though responding with nukes can be essentially ruled out. As I posted in the US Politics thread, I find it hard to envision a scenario where the US attempts regime change without negotiating (privately) with China first. NK's real deterrent to a US invasion is their artillery pointed at Seoul, followed by a potential NK nuclear strike on the US or its allies. China intervening conventionally to stave off a US invasion is a distant distant third, not least of which because it's unclear whether China would even do so.
Which is exactly why I said NK developed their own nuclear deterrent. In the 60s China was definitely willing to intervene, as they did in the Korean War. By the 90s NK felt much shakier.
Read my posts.
|
On August 11 2017 23:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 17:12 mozoku wrote:Kwark's ironclad interpretation of China's NK defense treaty isn't really supported by any experts, in case anyone is wondering. This article is indirect, but the fact that nuking the US isn't even brought up as a potentiality in an article analyzing China's response to a US military action in NK should be telling enough. SourceChina may or may not intervene on behalf of NK in the case of a US invasion, though responding with nukes can be essentially ruled out. As I posted in the US Politics thread, I find it hard to envision a scenario where the US attempts regime change without negotiating (privately) with China first. NK's real deterrent to a US invasion is their artillery pointed at Seoul, followed by a potential NK nuclear strike on the US or its allies. China intervening conventionally to stave off a US invasion is a distant distant third, not least of which because it's unclear whether China would even do so. Which is exactly why I said NK developed their own nuclear deterrent. In the 60s China was definitely willing to intervene, as they did in the Korean War. By the 90s NK felt much shakier. Read my posts.
The DPRK would most likely develop it's own nuclear deterrent, regardless of China's actions. Jaju and Jawi (independence and self defense) are core ideas of the Juche ideology and seen as necessary to achieve true socialism and stand in contrast to the old concept of Sadae which describes the reliance upon a greater power (Choson-Ming/Qing relation).
|
United States42955 Posts
On August 12 2017 01:15 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 23:14 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 17:12 mozoku wrote:Kwark's ironclad interpretation of China's NK defense treaty isn't really supported by any experts, in case anyone is wondering. This article is indirect, but the fact that nuking the US isn't even brought up as a potentiality in an article analyzing China's response to a US military action in NK should be telling enough. SourceChina may or may not intervene on behalf of NK in the case of a US invasion, though responding with nukes can be essentially ruled out. As I posted in the US Politics thread, I find it hard to envision a scenario where the US attempts regime change without negotiating (privately) with China first. NK's real deterrent to a US invasion is their artillery pointed at Seoul, followed by a potential NK nuclear strike on the US or its allies. China intervening conventionally to stave off a US invasion is a distant distant third, not least of which because it's unclear whether China would even do so. Which is exactly why I said NK developed their own nuclear deterrent. In the 60s China was definitely willing to intervene, as they did in the Korean War. By the 90s NK felt much shakier. Read my posts. The DPRK would most likely develop it's own nuclear deterrent, regardless of China's actions. Jaju and Jawi (independence and self defense) are core ideas of the Juche ideology and seen as necessary to achieve true socialism and stand in contrast to the old concept of Sadae which describes the reliance upon a greater power (Choson-Ming/Qing relation).
I agree that ideologically they cannot accept a state of dependence upon another power for nuclear deterrence. But pragmatically, it became a much more pressing issue when the PRC started being buddies with the US.
|
On August 11 2017 21:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +BEIJING (Reuters) - If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday. SourceIf it runs in the state paper, that is probably the state line. Which seems like a very reasonable stance to take. Defend an "ally" if they get attacked, don't get involved if they start shit.
That seems awfully familiar to be honest. We still got dragged into the conflict though, by being forced to accept refugees from the resulting extended crisis that developed in the region. So will China.
|
I was always wondering why is NK trying to stir shit up and threaten everyone instead of going to some international tribunal demanding war reparations from the US. I mean, after they ran out of military targets the USAF has bombed dams and crops, which is a war crime.
|
On August 10 2017 23:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 23:04 SoSexy wrote:
In addition, it is really unreal like you just ignore every argument and continue to go on with your narrative. But since this is usual on this forum, let me simply ask a question that will make you come out in the open. What will you do if NK attacks the US? WIll you retaliate or not because 'China is behind them'? Just answer me on this one and I'll be happy. The question is: "What do you actually want to do?" It seems your plan involves something like attacking North Korea with lots of bombs, and possibly invading lateron. Now, this branches of into two different paths: a) If you get China onboard with this, or China chooses not to react afterwards. This is the good path. You only lose Seoul, though most people there probably don't die, only a few hundred thousand. Another bunch of South Korean soldiers at the DMZ die very quickly. Also, you need to kill A LOT of North Korean soldiers. Most of this happens very quickly, and lets assume that the NK military is not very competent and loses the war quickly thereafter without a lot of problems. You now have to deal with a complete breakdown of North Korea, millions of completely uneducated refugees that have no idea of how a western society works, that you have to somehow deal with. This is the best case scenario. b) Something goes wrong. From not as bad to worst (Obviously in addition to all of the things above): -You get an Iraq-Style situation in NK -The NK military is not as incompetent, and puts up a real fight. Lots of soldiers die. -Humanitarian catastrophe in NK, you somehow don't manage to get enough food into the warzone. Millions starve. -NK nukes something (Seoul, Japan, US West coast in descending order of likeliness). A lot more people die. -China honors the defense treaty. Apocalypse I hope you realize why people don't want this. If your best case scenario is inacceptably bad, the best reaction might just be to do nothing at all, and hope the situation resolves itself. And that is even ignoring the things that can go wrong that lead to a situation that is between worse and apocalyptically worse than the best case. Or at least to not do military things.
Realistially while i dont see a war even happening. Truthfully I think most of it is dick measuring and the people who think it will should stay off Tumblr cause that's a cesspool preaching about it.
NK would literally without Chinese intervention stand a remote chance of beating the US. We rolled through Iraq in what? Less than a month or a little over? And I'd say they had passable Tech in comparison to the North Koreans.
Provided China didn't get involved I could see all of NK folding within a month or less. Plus this isnt taking into account perhaps the army isnt super brainwashed and refuses to fight/surrenders en masse which would end it much quicker.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Some potentially politically hazardous developments in the NK rocket matter.
North Korea’s success in testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that appears able to reach the United States was made possible by black-market purchases of powerful rocket engines probably from a Ukrainian factory with historical ties to Russia’s missile program, according to an expert analysis being published Monday and classified assessments by American intelligence agencies.
The studies may solve the mystery of how North Korea began succeeding so suddenly after a string of fiery missile failures, some of which may have been caused by American sabotage of its supply chains and cyberattacks on its launches. After those failures, the North changed designs and suppliers in the past two years, according to a new study by Michael Elleman, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Such a degree of aid to North Korea from afar would be notable because President Trump has singled out only China as the North’s main source of economic and technological support. He has never blamed Ukraine or Russia, though his secretary of state, Rex W. Tillerson, made an oblique reference to both China and Russia as the nation’s “principal economic enablers” after the North’s most recent ICBM launch last month.
Analysts who studied photographs of the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, inspecting the new rocket motors concluded that they derive from designs that once powered the Soviet Union’s missile fleet. The engines were so powerful that a single missile could hurl 10 thermonuclear warheads between continents.
Those engines were linked to only a few former Soviet sites. Government investigators and experts have focused their inquiries on a missile factory in Dnipro, Ukraine, on the edge of the territory where Russia is fighting a low-level war to break off part of Ukraine. During the Cold War, the factory made the deadliest missiles in the Soviet arsenal, including the giant SS-18. It remained one of Russia’s primary producers of missiles even after Ukraine gained independence.
nytimes.com
I'll also link my own blog post which provides a bit of timely context for this story. Most relevant snippet:
However, there is one other important player relevant to Ukraine: China. Unsurprisingly, China is out for technology - and a cash strapped Ukraine drowning in debt is desperate to make money. Unfortunately, Ukrainian industry is quite damaged as well - so the best they can really do is sell Soviet-era technology to China. And not even the craft - just the technical specifications for a couple million dollars. China has acquired some of the Soviet space secrets as a result of these purchases of military technology - including specifications for the lunar lander that the USSR built. This should give an indication of about how healthy Ukraine's industry is at present.
|
|
|
|
|
Any other news stories? Can't find verifying sources.
|
On August 29 2017 06:34 Deleuze wrote:
Any other news stories? Can't find verifying sources.
Check every news outlet on Twitter..
|
You've got BBC, Yonhap and CNBC dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
