Understanding the North Korean nightmare.

[Thunderstruck]

My understanding of this was that both north and south Korea wanted a peace treaty.

The USA refused.

 

I also thought that the Morth Koreans would freeze their nuclear weapons programme if the US ceased the war games in the region.

Both Russia and China agreed with this but again the USA refused.

 

Who really is the aggressor ?

https://rusi.org/commentary/us-military-exercises-korea-if-you-want-peace-don?t-listen-china?s-proposal

 

China has misjudged the whole situation and they have let Chubby go too far. They thought some word play between the US and NK would provide a distraction for some of their other games including the Doklam Plateau, the Spratly Islands and Hong Kong.

 

Their plan for winning friends and influencing people included calling Australia a "paper tiger" in recent weeks - for having the temerity to hold naval exercises (off Australia) with the USN.

 

If China so wished, Chubby's leash could be given a sharp tug and NK would announce that it had concluded its tests having established its ability to develop and arm ICBMs.

[Sharpie]

North Korea has not accepted a peace treaty since the police action in the Fifties. People now refer to it as the Korean war, but I seem to recall that there was never a declaration of war, North Korea breached South Korean border and the United Nations joined the U.S. in what was referred to as a Police action to combat this. When the Americans landed and had an advance close to the Chinese border Chinese troops entered the fray and the battles were brutal.

 

A cease fire, not a peace treaty, not a surrender only a cease fire was agreed upon and to my knowledge that is all that protects from military action. Again it is only my weakening recollection but North Korea for in excess of sixty years have declined all attempts to finalise a non aggression pact.

 

As far as Iraq, Libya,Syria, as long as man existed nations have felt they can challenge the big boys, generally to their detriment, and for sure many more will in the future, but this particular crisis is to me the most dangerous, generally we have reasonably sensible men and goverments provoking each other with no intent to follow through, but here we have two maniacal leaders who are just stupid enough and egotistical enough to push the button that sets the world alight.

 

I'm sorry I cannot, and have no desire to post any links for the purpose of teaching people who are much more intelligent and capable than I , I merely am stating my opinion based on years of watching, listening and pondering, in the hope that I may offer something at least for discussion.

[jake]

North Korea has not accepted a peace treaty since the police action in the Fifties. People now refer to it as the Korean war, but I seem to recall that there was never a declaration of war, North Korea breached South Korean border and the United Nations joined the U.S. in what was referred to as a Police action to combat this. When the Americans landed and had an advance close to the Chinese border Chinese troops entered the fray and the battles were brutal.

 

A cease fire, not a peace treaty, not a surrender only a cease fire was agreed upon and to my knowledge that is all that protects from military action. Again it is only my weakening recollection but North Korea for in excess of sixty years have declined all attempts to finalise a non aggression pact.

 

As far as Iraq, Libya,Syria, as long as man existed nations have felt they can challenge the big boys, generally to their detriment, and for sure many more will in the future, but this particular crisis is to me the most dangerous, generally we have reasonably sensible men and goverments provoking each other with no intent to follow through, but here we have two maniacal leaders who are just stupid enough and egotistical enough to push the button that sets the world alight.

 

I'm sorry I cannot, and have no desire to post any links for the purpose of teaching people who are much more intelligent and capable than I , I merely am stating my opinion based on years of watching, listening and pondering, in the hope that I may offer something at least for discussion.

 

Experience.

Counts for plenty.

Your opinion is as valid as anyones.

I just see or try to from another side of things and post.

I dig holes for a living.

[jake]

https://rusi.org/commentary/us-military-exercises-korea-if-you-want-peace-don?t-listen-china?s-proposal

 

China has misjudged the whole situation and they have let Chubby go too far. They thought some word play between the US and NK would provide a distraction for some of their other games including the Doklam Plateau, the Spratly Islands and Hong Kong.

 

Their plan for winning friends and influencing people included calling Australia a "paper tiger" in recent weeks - for having the temerity to hold naval exercises (off Australia) with the USN.

 

If China so wished, Chubby's leash could be given a sharp tug and NK would announce that it had concluded its tests having established its ability to develop and arm ICBMs.

 

Imteresting link.

 

I note the author was responsible for anti drug operations (cocaine) in south America.

How laughable.

When its established that cia operations to destable not only left wing governments in that part of the world but in fact world wide are and were funded by drugs.

 

I wonder how we would react if russian or chinese milatary presence was positioned to counteract balance and checks in Americas back yard.

We had it with cuba .

And the potential for nuclear war was avoided when the USSR recalled their supplies.

[Sidelight]

China will intervene military. Its the best option and most sensible.

 

The best option by far.

[Thunderstruck]

Imteresting link.

 

I note the author was responsible for anti drug operations (cocaine) in south America.

How laughable.

When its established that cia operations to destable not only left wing governments in that part of the world but in fact world wide are and were funded by drugs.

 

I wonder how we would react if russian or chinese milatary presence was positioned to counteract balance and checks in Americas back yard.

We had it with cuba .

And the potential for nuclear war was avoided when the USSR recalled their supplies.

That's all you took out of his biography - his involvement in maritime drug interdiction. OK.

 

Did you think he has rampaging around Columbia like Harrison Ford in "Clear and Present Danger"?

 

As for Cuba, it was not a unilateral decision by the USSR. Agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the agreement was removal of missiles for a US guarantee to stay out of Cuba. Secretly, the US also removed its Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

China have the means to cripple NK's economy to the point of self-collapse but choose not to. Russia have backed that stance by shooting down the idea of further sanctions.

Both China and Russia want to see a reduction in US military operations in the region. The US wants more sanctions and refuse to even entertain the notion of withdrawing troops or cancelling military exercises. 

 

I'll summarise my views. 

 

China and Russia continue to trade and prop up NK. They use the state as a means of buffering the US. Holding off any chance of an economical collapse that would see millions of refugees enter their space. Furthermore, some should ask where NK are rapidly gaining their technology from? Many here believe China have something to do with NK's advancements. This can't be proven but it's more plausible than suggesting NK scientists are just really really good at developing new weapons without any outside help. I'm beginning to believe China have and will supply information to NK. NK will never be a threat to China or Russia. Maybe they just like using NK as a tool to force the US into spending billions on it's military budget instead of using that money for it's economy to compete globally. Although that's a little-far fetched.

 

The US certainly enjoys it's trade in Asia. They enjoy having huge military budgets. They enjoy having a huge presence in several Asian nations which surround China. They also enjoy a situation which puts pressure on many to impose sanctions on NK, and anyone who deals with them. Effectively a sanction on China too then. Again going toward the far-fetched side of things. 

 

This all paints a picture of political games. As I've alluded too previously in this thread. 

 

The new Korean President didn't want to roll out THADD and if it really bothered China that much, they would have stopped NK's missile tests. The inactions of China means one of two things. They either don't care for THADD and are happy to see NK provoke, or they in fact harbour little to no influence over NK whatsoever. 

 

Today over lunch I was asking a (Korean) colleague about this and he said "China hold the key". Whether it's a key that is designed to aid the UN and the world or only aid China and Russia is anyone's guess. 

[Ibrahim Tall]

China have the means to cripple NK's economy to the point of self-collapse but choose not to. Russia have backed that stance by shooting down the idea of further sanctions.

Both China and Russia want to see a reduction in US military operations in the region. The US wants more sanctions and refuse to even entertain the notion of withdrawing troops or cancelling military exercises.

 

I'll summarise my views.

 

China and Russia continue to trade and prop up NK. They use the state as a means of buffering the US. Holding off any chance of an economical collapse that would see millions of refugees enter their space. Furthermore, some should ask where NK are rapidly gaining their technology from? Many here believe China have something to do with NK's advancements. This can't be proven but it's more plausible than suggesting NK scientists are just really really good at developing new weapons without any outside help. I'm beginning to believe China have and will supply information to NK. NK will never be a threat to China or Russia. Maybe they just like using NK as a tool to force the US into spending billions on it's military budget instead of using that money for it's economy to compete globally. Although that's a little-far fetched.

 

The US certainly enjoys it's trade in Asia. They enjoy having huge military budgets. They enjoy having a huge presence in several Asian nations which surround China. They also enjoy a situation which puts pressure on many to impose sanctions on NK, and anyone who deals with them. Effectively a sanction on China too then. Again going toward the far-fetched side of things.

 

This all paints a picture of political games. As I've alluded too previously in this thread.

 

The new Korean President didn't want to roll out THADD and if it really bothered China that much, they would have stopped NK's missile tests. The inactions of China means one of two things. They either don't care for THADD and are happy to see NK provoke, or they in fact harbour little to no influence over NK whatsoever.

 

Today over lunch I was asking a (Korean) colleague about this and he said "China hold the key". Whether it's a key that is designed to aid the UN and the world or only aid China and Russia is anyone's guess.

Tbh if the fingers are to be pointed anywhere for recent advancements it's more likely to be Russia.

The new rockets themselves are using a rocket engine historically developed and used by Russia/Ukraine that although produced in Ukraine(not far from Donbas) was still purchased by Russia until relatively recently.

Given current US/Russia relations and Russia being happy for a global distraction from the Crimea/Donbas situation etc and recent warmer relations between NK/Russia they'd also have the most to gain.

If China genuinely wanted a nuclear armed NK they'd have helped his grandfather or father 20/30 years ago not now, it has more to lose than gain from this.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I'd like to know how NK managed to advance their Nuclear Weapons programme to it's current level. ho has given them massive technical assistance? Russia? China? A N Other? 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I'd like to know how NK managed to advance their Nuclear Weapons programme to it's current level. ho has given them massive technical assistance? Russia? China? A N Other? 

 

China would be my guess.

 

American's wanting more and more sanctions, NK is already one of the most if not the most sanctioned country in the World, yet their economy still grew 3.9% last year.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-economy-gdp/north-korea-2016-economic-growth-at-17-year-high-despite-sanctions-south-korea-idUSKBN1A607Z

 

No wonder Moscow says that sanctions isn't working.

[deesidejambo]

I like the do nothing approach. It gives NK time to build up a significant nuclear arsenal. Great idea.

[Sraman]

I'd like to know how NK managed to advance their Nuclear Weapons programme to it's current level. ho has given them massive technical assistance? Russia? China? A N Other? 

 

What's Mark Thatcher up to these days?

[Jambo, Goodbye]

I like the do nothing approach. It gives NK time to build up a significant nuclear arsenal. Great idea.

 

You've made this point already. They already have a nuclear arsenal. They really aren't going to attack anyone unless attacked first. 

[deesidejambo]

You've made this point already. They already have a nuclear arsenal. They really aren't going to attack anyone unless attacked first. 

Yup your right, so just do nothing until they have enough nukes to destroy Japan with a nutter in charge.    I'm sure the Japanese will be happy about that sitting over them for the future.

 

And nobody was planning to attack them anyway.  Nobody ever was.  

 

The winners here are China who are quite happy to have another nuclear power on their side.

 

The issue is not about North or South Korea - it never was.      Its about a global issue which has the potential to escalate.

 

But hey - keep on doing nothing!     I wonder how much they will sell their nukes for?

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Yup your right, so just do nothing until they have enough nukes to destroy Japan with a nutter in charge.    I'm sure the Japanese will be happy about that sitting over them for the future.

 

And nobody was planning to attack them anyway.  Nobody ever was.  

 

The winners here are China who are quite happy to have another nuclear power on their side.

 

The issue is not about North or South Korea - it never was.      Its about a global issue which has the potential to escalate.

 

But hey - keep on doing nothing!     I wonder how much they will sell their nukes for?

 

You make it sound like it's either attack or do nothing. That's not true. 

 

They have had the ability to destroy Japan for years. They haven't and they won't. Attacking Japan would encourage the same response as attacking America. 

 

If NK attack anybody, China will not be there to protect them. 

 

If you're concerned about the sale of nukes, you'll be happy to see us or the US invade Pakistan I assume?

 

The only guaranteed way to escalate the situation is to do what you are proposing. 

 

Nobody likes the alternatives, but that doesn't justify mass destruction and the death of millions. 

[michael_bolton]

I like the do nothing approach. It gives NK time to build up a significant nuclear arsenal. Great idea.

 

I'm not sure what part of this you're not grasping.

 

As mentioned above, every idea you've had on this topic is bad and it's been explained to you why they are bad.

[luckyBatistuta]

You've made this point already. They already have a nuclear arsenal. They really aren't going to attack anyone unless attacked first.

 

Tbf, you don't know that for certain. They fired a missile across another country they see as an enemy and are constantly threatening what they're going to do next. Nobody can say for a definite what there next insane move will be and against who. I'm not going to pretend that I know what the answer is, but something needs to be done. I do fear what the outcome of the U.S striking them first would lead to though.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Tbf, you don't know that for certain. They fired a missile across another country they see as an enemy and are constantly threatening what they're going to do next. Nobody can say for a definite what there next insane move will be and against who. I'm not going to pretend that I know what the answer is, but something needs to be done. I do fear what the outcome of the U.S striking them first would lead to though.

You're right,nobody knows anything for certain. But we can use precedent.

 

That was the 3rd time a missile had flown over Japan, not the first. The goals of Kim is not to destroy everyone else. He needs his legacy like his father and grandfather.

Again, I'm using a little precedent to predict this. His legacy is to successfully arming his country to the hilt. That much has been agreed by many commentators. 

 

Even that maddest of madmen understand self-preservation. This is why he won't be randomly attacking anyone. Not over the last 65 years and not this year. I'm confident that If that wasn't what the experts were thinking he'd already be gone. 

 

I agree that something needs to be done. But that "something" is an elusive solution and nothing on the table can guarantee a peaceful resolution. 

[Rab87]

I'd like to know how NK managed to advance their Nuclear Weapons programme to it's current level. ho has given them massive technical assistance? Russia? China? A N Other? 

They have quite a lot of old school Soviet nuclear engineers working with them apparently.

[deesidejambo]

I'm not sure what part of this you're not grasping.

 

As mentioned above, every idea you've had on this topic is bad and it's been explained to you why they are bad.

Yes yes I know I'm not grasping things. I must be really stupid. You always turn it into a personal thing for which I think you are an arrogant bore.

 

So in response here's what you don't "grasp"

 

This is not about Korea. It's a wider issue about who dominates the Asia Pacific military theatre.

 

The protagonists are China and the USA, not North and South Korea- they are merely pawns in the bigger picture.

 

And what is at stake is US ability to protect Japan and Taiwan. Japan is China's strategic enemy and China still lays claim to Taiwan. I won't lecture you about reading history books like you do to me, but if you don't accept that then crack on.

 

Now an armed NK gives China military options - in extreme case they can use NK to cripple Japan or Taiwan in the knowledge that US response could only be to attack NK, not China. I.e. NK is the scapegoat for China's objectives.

 

In different terms. NK and SK are pawns, Taiwan is a Bishop, but Japan is a Rook in the bigger picture. I can foresee a situation where the US, in order to protect their Rook and Bishop, sacrifice their pawn, i.e. SK is given up. China on the other hand can sacrifice a pawn and gain a Rook and Bishop.

 

If the US want to keep their hold on Asia Pacific then having NK able to flatten it at the behest of China defeats the US. So the US either have to sacrifice control of the Pacific rim or denuclearise NK

 

Now you will no doubt respond about how stupid I am, but your argument is based on hope that nothing goes wrong along with hope that China is not seeing this as a good strategic situation.

 

I hope I'm wrong of course but to dismiss me as stupid or I'll-informed is no doubt what you will do.

[Boris]

Yes yes I know I'm not grasping things. I must be really stupid. You always turn it into a personal thing for which I think you are an arrogant bore.

 

So in response here's what you don't "grasp"

 

This is not about Korea. It's a wider issue about who dominates the Asia Pacific military theatre.

 

The protagonists are China and the USA, not North and South Korea- they are merely pawns in the bigger picture.

 

And what is at stake is US ability to protect Japan and Taiwan. Japan is China's strategic enemy and China still lays claim to Taiwan. I won't lecture you about reading history books like you do to me, but if you don't accept that then crack on.

 

Now an armed NK gives China military options - in extreme case they can use NK to cripple Japan or Taiwan in the knowledge that US response could only be to attack NK, not China. I.e. NK is the scapegoat for China's objectives.

 

In different terms. NK and SK are pawns, Taiwan is a Bishop, but Japan is a Rook in the bigger picture. I can foresee a situation where the US, in order to protect their Rook and Bishop, sacrifice their pawn, i.e. SK is given up. China on the other hand can sacrifice a pawn and gain a Rook and Bishop.

 

If the US want to keep their hold on Asia Pacific then having NK able to flatten it at the behest of China defeats the US. So the US either have to sacrifice control of the Pacific rim or denuclearise NK

 

Now you will no doubt respond about how stupid I am, but your argument is based on hope that nothing goes wrong along with hope that China is not seeing this as a good strategic situation.

 

I hope I'm wrong of course but to dismiss me as stupid or I'll-informed is no doubt what you will do.

 

See, if you'd only just said that at the beginning...

[deesidejambo]

See, if you'd only just said that at the beginning...

Apparently I'm a slow learner. I blame my mum.

[michael_bolton]

Yes yes I know I'm not grasping things. I must be really stupid. You always turn it into a personal thing for which I think you are an arrogant bore. - 21st century complaint there. Someone says you're wrong and it's 'personal'. Of course it's personal, you're wrong. How can telling someone that they are wrong possibly not be personal?

 

So in response here's what you don't "grasp"

 

This is not about Korea. It's a wider issue about who dominates the Asia Pacific military theatre. - You're half right there. It's about both.

 

The protagonists are China and the USA, not North and South Korea- they are merely pawns in the bigger picture. - Again. Half right. On these two points I don't think anyone really disagrees.

 

And what is at stake is US ability to protect Japan and Taiwan. Japan is China's strategic enemy and China still lays claim to Taiwan. I won't lecture you about reading history books like you do to me, but if you don't accept that then crack on. - Sort of. It's about America's relationship with all of its allies worldwide and retaining superpower status by being seen as capable of defending them. If you can't defend your allies, you're not a superpower. If you won't, you'll soon have no allies. From a Chinese perspective its about regional influence as well as global, but China definitely doesn't need the hassle NK is giving it.

 

Now an armed NK gives China military options - in extreme case they can use NK to cripple Japan or Taiwan in the knowledge that US response could only be to attack NK, not China. I.e. NK is the scapegoat for China's objectives. - Seemingly an armed NK gives China few options, as they seem to carry much less influence than was supposed. Also, you suppose that North Korea would fall into the trap of dong China's dirty work for them, ensuring their own destruction in the process. Hugely unlikely.

 

In different terms. NK and SK are pawns, Taiwan is a Bishop, but Japan is a Rook in the bigger picture. I can foresee a situation where the US, in order to protect their Rook and Bishop, sacrifice their pawn, i.e. SK is given up. China on the other hand can sacrifice a pawn and gain a Rook and Bishop. - Pure conjecture and also makes the error of implying the Chinese have created this situation. They haven't. The North Koreans have. and the Chinese have been powerless to stop them, despite the ball-ache this is for them.

 

If the US want to keep their hold on Asia Pacific then having NK able to flatten it at the behest of China defeats the US. So the US either have to sacrifice control of the Pacific rim or denuclearise NK - Again, why on earth would NK take military action at the behest of China? This makes no sense. China is playing the long game regionally (and globally). It is expanding its naval power and economic power around the world. It does not need the massive hassle of a regional or global war. Long-term the US have an uphill struggle to keep their position in the region. This is hardly a secret. Either way, flattening parts of the region benefits none of the actors in this situation.

 

Now you will no doubt respond about how stupid I am, but your argument is based on hope that nothing goes wrong along with hope that China is not seeing this as a good strategic situation. I've never called you stupid. I've said you don't understand the situation and seem to be getting your information and opinions from poor sources. I stand by that.

 

I hope I'm wrong of course but to dismiss me as stupid or I'll-informed is no doubt what you will do. Again, I've never called you stupid. I do think you're ill-informed. That's the nature of discussion.

[deesidejambo]

 

 

Yes yes I know I'm not grasping things. I must be really stupid. You always turn it into a personal thing for which I think you are an arrogant bore. - 21st century complaint there. Someone says you're wrong and it's 'personal'. Of course it's personal, you're wrong. How can telling someone that they are wrong possibly not be personal?

 

So in response here's what you don't "grasp"

 

This is not about Korea. It's a wider issue about who dominates the Asia Pacific military theatre. - You're half right there. It's about both.

 

The protagonists are China and the USA, not North and South Korea- they are merely pawns in the bigger picture. - Again. Half right. On these two points I don't think anyone really disagrees.

 

And what is at stake is US ability to protect Japan and Taiwan. Japan is China's strategic enemy and China still lays claim to Taiwan. I won't lecture you about reading history books like you do to me, but if you don't accept that then crack on. - Sort of. It's about America's relationship with all of its allies worldwide and retaining superpower status by being seen as capable of defending them. If you can't defend your allies, you're not a superpower. If you won't, you'll soon have no allies. From a Chinese perspective its about regional influence as well as global, but China definitely doesn't need the hassle NK is giving it.

 

Now an armed NK gives China military options - in extreme case they can use NK to cripple Japan or Taiwan in the knowledge that US response could only be to attack NK, not China. I.e. NK is the scapegoat for China's objectives. - Seemingly an armed NK gives China few options, as they seem to carry much less influence than was supposed. Also, you suppose that North Korea would fall into the trap of dong China's dirty work for them, ensuring their own destruction in the process. Hugely unlikely.

 

In different terms. NK and SK are pawns, Taiwan is a Bishop, but Japan is a Rook in the bigger picture. I can foresee a situation where the US, in order to protect their Rook and Bishop, sacrifice their pawn, i.e. SK is given up. China on the other hand can sacrifice a pawn and gain a Rook and Bishop. - Pure conjecture and also makes the error of implying the Chinese have created this situation. They haven't. The North Koreans have. and the Chinese have been powerless to stop them, despite the ball-ache this is for them.

 

If the US want to keep their hold on Asia Pacific then having NK able to flatten it at the behest of China defeats the US. So the US either have to sacrifice control of the Pacific rim or denuclearise NK - Again, why on earth would NK take military action at the behest of China? This makes no sense. China is playing the long game regionally (and globally). It is expanding its naval power and economic power around the world. It does not need the massive hassle of a regional or global war. Long-term the US have an uphill struggle to keep their position in the region. This is hardly a secret. Either way, flattening parts of the region benefits none of the actors in this situation.

 

Now you will no doubt respond about how stupid I am, but your argument is based on hope that nothing goes wrong along with hope that China is not seeing this as a good strategic situation. I've never called you stupid. I've said you don't understand the situation and seem to be getting your information and opinions from poor sources. I stand by that.

 

I hope I'm wrong of course but to dismiss me as stupid or I'll-informed is no doubt what you will do. Again, I've never called you stupid. I do think you're ill-informed. That's the nature of discussion.

You instructed me to go and read history books.

 

You posted with what I "don't understand" and "don't grasp" clearly implying I don't have the mental capacity to do so. I hope you don't speak down to your partner like that, if you have one.

 

It's the bigger picture that is in play here, so I won't go and read books on Korean history as per your instruction, that is not what is at stake here, but you can't see that.

 

Or don't I "grasp" something?

[michael_bolton]

You instructed me to go and read history books.

 

You posted with what I "don't understand" and "don't grasp" clearly implying I don't have the mental capacity to do so. I hope you don't speak down to your partner like that, if you have one.

 

It's the bigger picture that is in play here, so I won't go and read books on Korean history as per your instruction, that is not what is at stake here, but you can't see that.

 

Or don't I "grasp" something?

 

Last time I'll respond to you on this thread as we're in circles now and the points have been made.

 

However, I take issue with your idea that I've called you stupid. I absolutely have not. I do not think you understand the issue very well and I do think that your understanding of it could be improved by reading up a bit. I take neither of them back.

 

This is not to say you couldn't understand it if you put in the reading. In short, I think you don't understand the issue, I think you're poorly informed on the issue, but I have absolutely no idea whether you're stupid or not. You do seem very sensitive to having flaws in your ideas pointed out. That's up to you.

[deesidejambo]

Last time I'll respond to you on this thread as we're in circles now and the points have been made.

 

However, I take issue with your idea that I've called you stupid. I absolutely have not. I do not think you understand the issue very well and I do think that your understanding of it could be improved by reading up a bit. I take neither of them back.

 

This is not to say you couldn't understand it if you put in the reading. In short, I think you don't understand the issue, I think you're poorly informed on the issue, but I have absolutely no idea whether you're stupid or not. You do seem very sensitive to having flaws in your ideas pointed out. That's up to you.

You just can't help it can you? It must be great to be so condescending.

 

I'll go off and read my Korean history book as you instruct, despite the situation in NK being about a much wider issue about US protection of Japan and Taiwan, which apparently I don't "grasp".

[Jambo, Goodbye]

You just can't help it can you? It must be great to be so condescending.

 

I'll go off and read my Korean history book as you instruct, despite the situation in NK being about a much wider issue about US protection of Japan and Taiwan, which apparently I don't "grasp".

US protection of Taiwan? I must have imagined those Chinese garrisons there.

 

Taiwan is under control of China and isn't recognised as an independent nation.

 

That whole chess scenario you've thought up is pure fantasy.

 

And China is anything but a protagonist!

[deesidejambo]

US protection of Taiwan? I must have imagined those Chinese garrisons there.

 

Taiwan is under control of China and isn't recognised as an independent nation.

 

That whole chess scenario you've thought up is pure fantasy.

 

And China is anything but a protagonist!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16164639

 

Of course China is a protagonist - meaning they have a very big interest in the issue one way or another.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16164639

 

Of course China is a protagonist - meaning they have a very big interest in the issue one way or another.

Sorry mate, what is that link proving?

 

If anything it proves my point.

 

I'd personally describe China as an Antagonist. They are protectors of NK.

 

Edit- I see the line your are referring to now. But this isn't the reality on the island. It's military presence is Chinese. The US has no official diplomacy with Taiwan.

[deesidejambo]

Sorry mate, what is that link proving?

 

If anything it proves my point.

 

I'd personally describe China as an Antagonist. They are protectors of NK.

Taiwan is not under Chinese Control.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Taiwan is not under Chinese Control.

Taiwan isn't a sovereign state and has no official diplomacy with other nations. It's about as independent as Scotland is.

[deesidejambo]

Taiwan isn't a sovereign state and has no official diplomacy with other nations. It's about as independent as Scotland is.

I know.    But it is not under Chinese control - thats the problem.   China has long coveted Taiwan to return under Chinese control.    They explicitly mention military action to achieve this.  and as every year passes, Taiwan becomes more "westernised".

 

Anyway if Taiwan isn't of concern to you in this issue, Japan certainly is. No?

[Rab87]

The Geo-politics at play here, are just an extension of what happened in Asia, during, and after WW2.

[deesidejambo]

The Geo-politics at play here, are just an extension of what happened in Asia, during, and after WW2.

On that we agree.

 

This is not about Korea - its about the whole region.

 

But I can't see a long-term solution that involves NK being armed to the teeth with weapons pointed at Japan along with threats (credible or otherwise) to pre-emptively use them.

 

You?

[Jambo, Goodbye]

I know. But it is not under Chinese control - thats the problem. China has long coveted Taiwan to return under Chinese control. They explicitly mention military action to achieve this. and as every year passes, Taiwan becomes more "westernised".

 

Anyway if Taiwan isn't of concern to you in this issue, Japan certainly is. No?

I see where you're getting at. China does define a lot over Taiwan however. There are Chinese laws in place etc. I hope Taiwan can be allowed to declare independence one day but China won't allow it. If Taiwan can't be allowed to form diplomatic ties, who is really in control? Maybe that's just down to our different interpretations of control.

 

Japan are more involved with the US of course. I've made my point earlier about believing no nation is due to be attacked.

 

Saturday will be interesting. NK celebrate the ruling party's formation. Expect more rockets.

 

As I typed this, the deafening sound of US air force fighter jets flew over. Sounded louder than usual!

[Rab87]

On that we agree.

 

This is not about Korea - its about the whole region.

 

But I can't see a long-term solution that involves NK being armed to the teeth with weapons pointed at Japan along with threats (credible or otherwise) to pre-emptively use them.

 

You?

As you say, the whole region is a tinderbox waiting to catch fire.

 

The South China Sea, Taiwan, the recent China/India border stand off.

 

I have a sneeking feeling, that China is pulling some levers within NK, as a ploy to have the whole region de-stabilised. 

 

I am not saying they are wholly responsible for NK being armed as they are now. I just think they see it as convenient, and could have stopped this whole thing a lot sooner.

 

How the issue is solved, is for greater minds than mine.

[deesidejambo]

As you say, the whole region is a tinderbox waiting to catch fire.

 

The South China Sea, Taiwan, the recent China/India border stand off.

 

I have a sneeking feeling, that China is pulling some levers within NK, as a ploy to have the whole region de-stabilised. 

 

I am not saying they are wholly responsible for NK being armed as they are now. I just think they see it as convenient, and could have stopped this whole thing a lot sooner.

 

How the issue is solved, is for greater minds than mine.

 

I tend to agree that China may be pulling strings here, otherwise they could have stopped NK years ago.

 

The other aspect that I think could be an outside shot - It is said that China wants NK to stay as-is as a buffer to Western encroachment on their borders.

 

But conversely NK presents a massive opportunity for trade with China if it could also be "westernised" (or whatever word makes sense).    Its a bit Big Brother but I would not be surprised if China secretly covets NK.  They say otherwise of course but who knows what they really want.  Maybe a deal with the US to get rid of NK and give to China.   Sort of Win-win as both countries know that all out war between both superpowers is not what they want, so sacrificing NK to stabilise the region is an option.

 

But in the short-term, long-term superpower detente may fall apart -

 

NK have nukes (accepted I think)

NK have threatened pre-emptive strikes.     

NK are developing ICBMs (claimed but no surprise).

 

If they launch missiles in the direction of Japan/or Guam the US will have to treat them as potentially nuclear-armed and respond.

 

NK must simply not launch any more missiles.  Even they must have sussed this so I think they will sit tight now.   Hopefully.

[Thunderstruck]

Interesting view from India:

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indias-way-of-handling-china-has-just-solved-the-biggest-policy-puzzle-for-world-powers/articleshow/60372671.cms

[Rab87]

I tend to agree that China may be pulling strings here, otherwise they could have stopped NK years ago.

 

The other aspect that I think could be an outside shot - It is said that China wants NK to stay as-is as a buffer to Western encroachment on their borders.

 

But conversely NK presents a massive opportunity for trade with China if it could also be "westernised" (or whatever word makes sense).    Its a bit Big Brother but I would not be surprised if China secretly covets NK.  They say otherwise of course but who knows what they really want.  Maybe a deal with the US to get rid of NK and give to China.   Sort of Win-win as both countries know that all out war between both superpowers is not what they want, so sacrificing NK to stabilise the region is an option.

 

But in the short-term, long-term superpower detente may fall apart -

 

NK have nukes (accepted I think)

NK have threatened pre-emptive strikes.     

NK are developing ICBMs (claimed but no surprise).

 

If they launch missiles in the direction of Japan/or Guam the US will have to treat them as potentially nuclear-armed and respond.

 

NK must simply not launch any more missiles.  Even they must have sussed this so I think they will sit tight now.   Hopefully.

Friday is when they are expected to launch another missile.

 

I think we may see the THAAD system given a run out, should this be the case.

 

What happens after that, is anyone's guess. 

[deesidejambo]

Friday is when they are expected to launch another missile.

 

I think we may see the THAAD system given a run out, should this be the case.

 

What happens after that, is anyone's guess. 

****s sake.

 

I know I'm sounding like a CT but a launch of any sort and then massive US response is perhaps what China wants as it may satisfy a possible Geo-political objective between China and US.     Caught in the middle of this are the people of North and South Korea who are pawns in the bigger theatre.

 

No doubt I will be slagged for seeing things that are not there - but I say its not wise to ignore possible wider superpower objectives which involve sacrificing peace in Korea, no matter how silly they may seem at face value.

[Boris]

Interesting view from India:

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indias-way-of-handling-china-has-just-solved-the-biggest-policy-puzzle-for-world-powers/articleshow/60372671.cms

 

Scary one from India too!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/india-army-chief-we-must-prepare-for-simultaneous-war-with-china-and-pakistan

[Thunderstruck]

Scary one from India too!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/india-army-chief-we-must-prepare-for-simultaneous-war-with-china-and-pakistan

There have been skirmishes and stand-offs in that part of the world for decades and the recent events are not entirely unusual.

 

What is different this time is that China is trying to establish itself as a responsible player in the world community. India hinted that, because of the Doklam incursion, it would not attend the BRICS summit being hosted by China which would have resulted in serious loss of face for Xi particularly with Modi suggesting that China lacked the "cosmopolitan attitude" necessary to achieve is political ambitions on the world stage.

 

Result - the top man in the Peoples' Liberation Army, General Fang Fenghui, was removed and agreement was reached that both sides (not just the Indians as stated by the Guardian) would step back from toe-to-toe to positions 300m apart.

 

Some view this as indicating that the Indian resolve took China by surprise and Xi concluded that the easy "salami slicing" of territory wasn't worth the grief.

 

Others saw this as symptomatic of the ongoing tension between Chinese civil authority and a hawkish PLA. This tension serves to highlight the internal difficulties faced by the Chinese leadership and why solving the Korean issue might not be as simple as we think.

[jake]

Interesting view from India:

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indias-way-of-handling-china-has-just-solved-the-biggest-policy-puzzle-for-world-powers/articleshow/60372671.cms

 

Good read that.

[jake]

Another perspective.

 

https://www.sott.net/article/361081-What-You-re-Not-Hearing-From-The-US-Media-About-North-Koreas-Missile-Tests

[Space Mackerel]

Craig Murray bang on the cash as usual.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/deterrence-believers-shoud-cheer-north-korean-bomb/

 

 

 

 

If the theory of nuclear deterrence holds true ? and it is the only argument the supporters of WMD have got ? then we should all be cheering the North Korean bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence is that it is much better that every state has nuclear weapons, because then we can all deter each other. It is demonstrably true that possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to other nations acquiring them. But it is supposed to deter other nations from using them. In which case, surely the more the merrier, so we can all deter each other.

 

The madness of the argument is self-evident. We are borrowing hundreds of billions we cannot afford for Trident, yet in all the reams of analysis of what to do about North Korea, Trident never gets a mention. It is a system entirely useless even in the one situation in which it was supposed to be effective.

 

How did we get here? In the 1950s the USA dropped 635,000 tonnes of bombs on North Korea including 35,000 tonnes of napalm. The US killed an estimated 20% of the North Korean population. For comparison, approximately 2% of the UK population was killed during World War II.

 

That this massive destruction of North Korea resulted in a xenophobic, American-hating state with an obsession with developing powerful weapons systems to ensure national survival, is not exactly surprising. The western media treat the existence of the Kim Jong-un regime as an inexplicable and eccentric manifestation of evil. In fact, it is caused. Unless those causes are addressed the situation can never be resolved. Has any western politician ever referenced the history I have just given in discussing North Korea?

 

This has so often been my despair. My book The Catholic Orangemen of Togo recounts my frustration whilst Deputy Head of the FCO?s Africa Department, at failing to get the Blair government to pay attention to the massive historical and continuing grievances that underlay the horrific violence in Sierra Leone. Politicians prefer a simplistic world of enemies who are ?evil? for no reason. Newspaper editors prefer it even more. It justifies war. The truth is always a great deal more complicated.

[Thunderstruck]

Another perspective.

 

https://www.sott.net/article/361081-What-You-re-Not-Hearing-From-The-US-Media-About-North-Koreas-Missile-Tests

It isn't overflying islands or hitting open ocean that is the problem. It is the real risk that, given the pedigree of the missiles, something will go wrong and a missile will cause some real damage.

 

N Korea does not publicise when it will launch and no warnings are issued to shipping or aircraft. The last missile passed uncomfortably close to an Air France jet.

 

Many countries carry out military exercises and these will all be advertised with the publication of appropriate notices and diplomatic clearances.

[jake]

Craig Murray bang on the cash as usual.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/deterrence-believers-shoud-cheer-north-korean-bomb/

 

 

 

 

If the theory of nuclear deterrence holds true ? and it is the only argument the supporters of WMD have got ? then we should all be cheering the North Korean bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence is that it is much better that every state has nuclear weapons, because then we can all deter each other. It is demonstrably true that possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to other nations acquiring them. But it is supposed to deter other nations from using them. In which case, surely the more the merrier, so we can all deter each other.

 

The madness of the argument is self-evident. We are borrowing hundreds of billions we cannot afford for Trident, yet in all the reams of analysis of what to do about North Korea, Trident never gets a mention. It is a system entirely useless even in the one situation in which it was supposed to be effective.

 

How did we get here? In the 1950s the USA dropped 635,000 tonnes of bombs on North Korea including 35,000 tonnes of napalm. The US killed an estimated 20% of the North Korean population. For comparison, approximately 2% of the UK population was killed during World War II.

 

That this massive destruction of North Korea resulted in a xenophobic, American-hating state with an obsession with developing powerful weapons systems to ensure national survival, is not exactly surprising. The western media treat the existence of the Kim Jong-un regime as an inexplicable and eccentric manifestation of evil. In fact, it is caused. Unless those causes are addressed the situation can never be resolved. Has any western politician ever referenced the history I have just given in discussing North Korea?

 

This has so often been my despair. My book The Catholic Orangemen of Togo recounts my frustration whilst Deputy Head of the FCO?s Africa Department, at failing to get the Blair government to pay attention to the massive historical and continuing grievances that underlay the horrific violence in Sierra Leone. Politicians prefer a simplistic world of enemies who are ?evil? for no reason. Newspaper editors prefer it even more. It justifies war. The truth is always a great deal more complicated.

 

Really good post mr mackeral.

[jake]

It isn't overflying islands or hitting open ocean that is the problem. It is the real risk that, given the pedigree of the missiles, something will go wrong and a missile will cause some real damage.

 

N Korea does not publicise when it will launch and no warnings are issued to shipping or aircraft. The last missile passed uncomfortably close to an Air France jet.

 

Many countries carry out military exercises and these will all be advertised with the publication of appropriate notices and diplomatic clearances.

 

Points taken.

But we cant ignore the USA and its provocative moves all over the world.

Its meddling.

It would be unacceptable if reversed.

[Space Mackerel]

It isn't overflying islands or hitting open ocean that is the problem. It is the real risk that, given the pedigree of the missiles, something will go wrong and a missile will cause some real damage.

 

N Korea does not publicise when it will launch and no warnings are issued to shipping or aircraft. The last missile passed uncomfortably close to an Air France jet.

 

Many countries carry out military exercises and these will all be advertised with the publication of appropriate notices and diplomatic clearances.

Mind when that Trident test the other month went 180 degrees the opposite direction?

[Taffin]

I thought this was quite a good, digestible article on the topic:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

 

Worth a read imo