North Korea!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China must be the only player who can resolve the issue without major bloodshed - if they wanted to. Worst case, they could remove Little Phat Un and simultaneously issue a stark warning to whichever military leaders are left to just sit on their hands and stop messing with nuclear stuff or Beijing will sort the lot of them out. They'd probably be relieved!
China must be the only player who can resolve the issue without major bloodshed - if they wanted to. Worst case, they could remove Little Phat Un and simultaneously issue a stark warning to whichever military leaders are left to just sit on their hands and stop messing with nuclear stuff or Beijing will sort the lot of them out. They'd probably be relieved!
Which of course begs the question, why aren't they? They can't really believe that the SCS issue is going to be an offset deal from sorting out KJU.....can they?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which of course begs the question, why aren't they? They can't really believe that the SCS issue is going to be an offset deal from sorting out KJU.....can they?
That would be a suitably devious and, insofar as realpolitik goes, practical solution. But would Trump go for it? Perhaps - when he realises that the bluster has run out and it's compromise with China or start a war . .
they could remove Little Phat Un
What magic weapon do the Chinese possess that will pacify chubby while simultaneously having him stand down? The Chinese are just as much at risk of NK's nuclear rath as everyone else.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
I was thinking that he would be removed "surgically" by an undercover team or by precision munition while simultaneously issuing a warning to the rest of the officer class in unequivocal terms that any attempt to retaliate would result in their immediately ceasing to exist - I imagine the N Korean hierarchy would be more inclined to believe that Beijing would carry out such a threat rather than Trump given the collateral damage to S Korea?
I was thinking that he would be removed "surgically" by an undercover team or by precision munition while simultaneously issuing a warning to the rest of the officer class in unequivocal terms that any attempt to retaliate would result in their immediately ceasing to exist - I imagine the N Korean hierarchy would be more inclined to believe that Beijing would carry out such a threat rather than Trump given the collateral damage to S Korea?
The US and SK have the same capabilities to dispatch chubby as you've described yet the experts still predict an apocalyptic outcome. Is your belief that somehow the norks won't retaliate against the Chinese?
The likely outcome I see would be a war between neighbors, no matter who initiates.
The likely outcome I see would be a war between neighbors, no matter who initiates.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Do you think the NK chain of command would wait for an investigation to find out who did it? Especially since whoever did would use misdirection to make it look like someone else anyway.....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decapitation of the leadership is not an option from the Chinese perspective. It would lead to chaos, refugees, and the high probability of a reunification of the peninsula under SK rule (either that, or war with the US if they try to prevent it).
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 67
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decapitation of the leadership is not an option from the Chinese perspective. It would lead to chaos, refugees, and the high probability of a reunification of the peninsula under SK rule (either that, or war with the US if they try to prevent it).
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
Should the NK regime dissappear in the coming years, military spending in the south would also likely be cut.
The way it looks at present, this is going to get much worse, and the endgame may well not be that far off.
Expats streaming out of Incheon yet?.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to ask, and I know I will be heavily jumped on, but why does China worry about a US presence directly up against it's border? Surely no-one thinks that the US is at all interested in any form of military action against the Chinese. I ask in all honesty, please explain this to me.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from a natural desire not to have another superpower's military right on your borders (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?), I think the main reason China doesn't want a unified Korea is that their big near-term ambition is to replace the US as the dominant Naval power in the region. They're also trying to expand offshore territorial boundaries to lock up mineral and fishing rights, like those artificial island projects in the South China Sea.
A unified Korea might mean an even larger US Navy presence with access to more Korean ports, along with conflicts involving mineral and fishing rights with a unified Korea. So it may be more about what's happening offshore, than worrying about US tanks on the border with China.
A unified Korea might mean an even larger US Navy presence with access to more Korean ports, along with conflicts involving mineral and fishing rights with a unified Korea. So it may be more about what's happening offshore, than worrying about US tanks on the border with China.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: adelaide
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
I was thinking that he would be removed "surgically" by an undercover team or by precision munition while simultaneously issuing a warning to the rest of the officer class in unequivocal terms that any attempt to retaliate would result in their immediately ceasing to exist - I imagine the N Korean hierarchy would be more inclined to believe that Beijing would carry out such a threat rather than Trump given the collateral damage to S Korea?
I was thinking that he would be removed "surgically" by an undercover team or by precision munition while simultaneously issuing a warning to the rest of the officer class in unequivocal terms that any attempt to retaliate would result in their immediately ceasing to exist - I imagine the N Korean hierarchy would be more inclined to believe that Beijing would carry out such a threat rather than Trump given the collateral damage to S Korea?
unfortunately, if you look at history, assassination has never achieved much and more often than not made matters worse. IE a less secure leader filling a vacuum will need more bluster to strengthen there position. Nor will you see such a vacuum filling leader turn to the Murders of his previous sovereign leader for hep because quite simply the act of assassination demonstrates more strongly that the enemy is a real enemy.
This situation has degenerated too much, I'm afraid.
The policy of appeasement for the sake of quiet living - albeit temporarily - only creates monsters in the long term.
The policy of appeasement for the sake of quiet living - albeit temporarily - only creates monsters in the long term.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decapitation of the leadership is not an option from the Chinese perspective. It would lead to chaos, refugees, and the high probability of a reunification of the peninsula under SK rule (either that, or war with the US if they try to prevent it).
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
China would rather have an unstable NK as a buffer, than a unified Korea with a US ally and US military assets right on the border with China.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Would China be pleased to have to feed 25 million North Koreans?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Al Ain
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we will have a war in Korea, then in Ukraine/ Baltic States with Russia, another one in Syria, not forgetting Afghanistan and Irak, also with Iran of course... and maybe we should start something in Myanmar (our medias are becoming adamant that we should do something there) Quite busy in Africa too.
No wonder we will need more and more surrogates to do the job.
Shall we have enough carriers ?
And tdracer, OK you seem quite enthusiastic - but you go first, and we follow you.
No wonder we will need more and more surrogates to do the job.
Shall we have enough carriers ?
And tdracer, OK you seem quite enthusiastic - but you go first, and we follow you.
Recce you left out t he EU invading Uk while America is pre occupied elsewhere , lol.
Decapitation of Theresa tho might be an option as almost everyone seems to be in favour of her going.
And just for once we should stay way way out of it , we dont make the tiniest bit of difference in that part of the world anyway and have no money and very limited resources.
China and Russia both border NK so have a real problem with anything nuke like and i cannot see how nuking Pyong Yang and therefore Seoul too would be something the US should do to an ally.
Would the NK mil really go along with the fat kid he is said lets go for it or would that be the point at which they would say enough is enough on the premise they would downscale their military but keep NK seperate from both RoK and China .
Decapitation of Theresa tho might be an option as almost everyone seems to be in favour of her going.
And just for once we should stay way way out of it , we dont make the tiniest bit of difference in that part of the world anyway and have no money and very limited resources.
China and Russia both border NK so have a real problem with anything nuke like and i cannot see how nuking Pyong Yang and therefore Seoul too would be something the US should do to an ally.
Would the NK mil really go along with the fat kid he is said lets go for it or would that be the point at which they would say enough is enough on the premise they would downscale their military but keep NK seperate from both RoK and China .
pax brittanica: US nuking NK? Nope. That isn't why we have nukes. The conventional stuff we have suffices for whatever it is that might need doing there, but I would rather not see a war erupt in Korea. South Korea has too much to lose, and is a part of the regional and global economy.