North Korea!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
NK just conducted another nuclear test. Yield estimated at 100Kt - 10 times larger than any previous tested. At the same time they issued a photo of Kim inspecting a basic missile compatible warhead and claiming iit is a hydrogen bomb. Yield is not compatible with that, but is compatible with a boosted fission bomb.......
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...m-jong-un-live
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...m-jong-un-live
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What's China doing..?" Apparently adhering to 60 year-old anti-imperialist dogma. This outcome isn't good for anyone. But it's disadvantageous to China more than anyone; missile defence system in S Korea, hitherto unthinkable talk of Japanese nukes, and if the worst does happen and it comes to nuclear war, it's on China's doorstep. A thoroughly inept and unstatesmanlike performance!
Ha, Ha, Ha, etc,etc!
The BBC state that KJU stands "dangerously close" to a warhead in a pici on their news website.
How close is "dangerously close" to a Nuclear warhead then????
Idiots
OAP
The BBC state that KJU stands "dangerously close" to a warhead in a pici on their news website.
How close is "dangerously close" to a Nuclear warhead then????
Idiots
OAP
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
One problem facing China in all this is "what about the border?". For now, or at least until recently, China had a convenient 'buffer state' between themselves and the perfidious West/South Koreans. OK, NoK is a loose cannon, but unlikely to start firing things at China.
If NoK is destabilised or dismantled, what will take it's place? Will SoK occupy [peacefully or otherwise] NoK, thus bringing them [and with the US in company] right up to the Chinese border?
So from China's perspective, which is the lesser evil?
If NoK is destabilised or dismantled, what will take it's place? Will SoK occupy [peacefully or otherwise] NoK, thus bringing them [and with the US in company] right up to the Chinese border?
So from China's perspective, which is the lesser evil?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
China also has land borders with India and Vietnam - both of which have increasingly friendly military ties and agreements with the USA. So I don't see it as being an overriding issue. Far more worrying would be the flood of refugees if the NK regime fell.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Sep 2017 at 10:06. Reason: sp
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the refugees that bother them - not only having to feed the poor sods but also the effect on one of China's main industrial areas
The Chinese tend to take the long view - and hope the problem will go away............ but how much stroke they have within the NK Military (who are the only hope of a change at the top) is totally unknown
The Chinese tend to take the long view - and hope the problem will go away............ but how much stroke they have within the NK Military (who are the only hope of a change at the top) is totally unknown
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
There's the crux. It's in no nations interest to have NK collapse. A gradual move toward democracy or a non nuclear dictatorship would seem to be the preferred options.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A gradual move toward democracy or a non nuclear dictatorship would seem to be the preferred options.
We're a long way from such a Utopia. And even further from a transference of such a Utopia to an imposition of such a model on subjugated states such as Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Korea, et al.
First, remove nuclear weapons from the imperial countries; then invite truly free countries to follow suit.
Then there may be peace.
Listened to a SOAS prof being interviewed on the radio earlier. His view: the nukes and vehicles are a 'giant insurance policy' against a West instigated regime change. And that they have zero intent to use the missiles. Further, Kim is 'a young man having fun poking a stick in the American eye', safe in the knowledge they can't do much. Intersting slant.
CG
CG
Listened to a SOAS prof being interviewed on the radio earlier. His view: the nukes and vehicles are a 'giant insurance policy' against a West instigated regime change. And that they have zero intent to use the missiles. Further, Kim is 'a young man having fun poking a stick in the American eye', safe in the knowledge they can't do much. Intersting slant.
CG
CG
Furthermore, Mattis' statement was a very interesting upping of the rhetoric. POTUS' statement on fire and fury was off the cuff out of the political environment. Mattis' statement was carefully scripted and the idea of 'may' respond was very definitely removed in favour of 'will' respond with force. At a Regimental dinner a few years back, the guest of honour was a VVSO with huge experience of operating amongst politicians. He said something very interesting, but also very worrying in the current context: don't waste time trying to interpret what senior politicians are saying. They invariably mean exactly what they say, there is rarely a hidden meaning.
What was it Mattis said in Iraq? Something like 'I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes, if you f*** with me I'll kill you'. This is a Sec Def who means business, and I'd probably be paying more attention to his announcements than POTUS'.
Last edited by Melchett01; 4th Sep 2017 at 17:06.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Kim can be described as logical, then we are back in the MAD stand off of the Cold War, although only in a smaller geographic area, or is this wrong?
Is this stand off the price that has to be paid to keep China comfortable with a buffer state at its border?
Is this stand off the price that has to be paid to keep China comfortable with a buffer state at its border?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..gradual move towards democracy or non nuclear dictatorship.."Except that neither of those options are remotely in prospect for the foreseeable And while the refugee influx would be an enormous problem for China it wouldn't harm the USA. A dangerous dilemma; a binary choice between a hostile state armed with nuclear ICBMs and a preemptive (maybe nuclear!) attack. Not great options for anyone but China with most to lose has done least to prevent it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently he is entirely rational and not stupid. Someone needs to explain that one to me because frankly when the rest of the world is growing increasingly concerned about your behaviour, surely the rational thing isn't to go out of your way to prove them right. There is no interest in instigating regime change, just ensuring stability. And yet everything he does seems to be driving towards the route of regime change. It frankly just doesn't compute on any sane level.
“Kim knows that Xi has the real power to affect the calculus in Washington,” said Peter Hayes, the director of the Nautilus Institute, a research group that specializes in North Korea. “He’s putting pressure on China to say to Trump: ‘You have to sit down with Kim Jong-un.’”
What Mr. Kim wants most, Mr. Hayes said, is talks with Washington that the North Korean leader hopes will result in a deal to reduce American troops in South Korea and leave him with nuclear weapons. And in Mr. Kim’s calculation, China has the influence to make that negotiation happen.
What Mr. Kim wants most, Mr. Hayes said, is talks with Washington that the North Korean leader hopes will result in a deal to reduce American troops in South Korea and leave him with nuclear weapons. And in Mr. Kim’s calculation, China has the influence to make that negotiation happen.
The real questions going forward, as I see it, is whether both Kim and Trump would accept just a halt to joint military exercises with SK, in return for a halt to missile and nuke tests. Or will Kim keep pushing the button and insist on actual US troop/asset withdrawals in SK. That ain't gonna happen, but a cessation of exercises might be do-able. The question is whether that's enough for Kim to halt further testing. That should be the US goal (IMO), because what he's got now in the way of a physics package and missile system isn't very good, and will only get better if they can keep testing.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
In the context of NoK 'regime change', what on earth could follow Kim anyway? The entire nation seems completely indoctrinated/suppressed, so anyone sticking their hand up as a successor would surely only last 5 minutes.
And who would that person be anyway? A NoK General with his uniform covered in bottle tops? WHO could succeed, if Kim died of an overdose of cheese?
But ... I do half buy the concept of "You all back off and we will stop testing". Brinkmanship at it's finest, with Trump having a finger of the "ENOUGH" button. My fear, which I am sure is shared by many, is that Trump will launch a pre-emptive conventional strike against the NoK nuclear facility[ies].
And who would that person be anyway? A NoK General with his uniform covered in bottle tops? WHO could succeed, if Kim died of an overdose of cheese?
But ... I do half buy the concept of "You all back off and we will stop testing". Brinkmanship at it's finest, with Trump having a finger of the "ENOUGH" button. My fear, which I am sure is shared by many, is that Trump will launch a pre-emptive conventional strike against the NoK nuclear facility[ies].