ohChina:

I also think, that North Korea's leaders paranoia gives America a perfect chance to pivot to Asia and constrain China. This is what America has been planning to and North Korea just gives a sleepy guy a pillow. 

ohChina:

NATO bombed China's Embassy in Yugoslavia with the B-2 bomber!

nevermind:

Oh good grief. Don't give us this crap. The US would like nothing more than Korea to be unified so it can go home. It's CHINA who wants North Korea to remain as is because they fool the world into thinking they can control North Korea, which gives them bargaining power in the area. 

ohChina:

I don't think US wants to go home. Maybe the soldiers want to. But not their politicians and leaders.

mattsm84:

No, OhChina is right, although he arrives at the exact wrong conclusion. In the event of a war, the US military simply wouldn't be able to "go home" immediately after steam rolling the opposition. Likely the US would be a major part of any UN peace keeping mission in the immediate aftermath of a war. In the long term the US military would maintain a presence on the Korean peninsula of the same reason it keeps military bases in Japan and Australia, because the US has economic interests in the Pacific, and the US military is ultimately a stabilizing influence in East Asia.

In more practical terms, if the US were to reduce its overall presence in the Pacific, it  would create a power vacuum that China would ultimately step into. Once that happens how long would it be before it pursued a more aggressive foreign policy on any one of its eleven boarder disputes? The absence of the US military could very easily cause a large scale conflict to erupt between China and any number of its neighbors where as a US military presence keeps the lid on just as many potential crisis. 

nevermind:

I didn't say after a war. I said the US would love to be able to go home. Peace in Korea would mean they could. 

nevermind:

We should have said "screw it" and gone all out with China back then. But, because of WW2 fresh in everyone's minds people were dead against it. Which is fair enough. But the west had a chance to rid the world of Mao and this maffia government and never took it. 

ohChina:

I acknowledge that North Korea's fate in the past 200 years is pathetic. And the consequence of the Korean War is a big pity seeing it from today. 

I'm not blind to the huge gap and difference between the South and North Korea. I'm not blind to the gap between China and the West. Unless the things that I haven't heard or experienced due to my very limited experience.

However I just wonder if the guys here are aware that one country doesn't have to be a democracy or at least nice to its people to be America's ally. Not like some Americans saying it as so. Before 1979 S Korea was under military dictatorship of the current President's father. And I don't think Saudi Arab is nice in domestic politics. 

t91camp:

I see we're pretty much in agreement, Hugh.

ohChina makes a good point there - that America has been allies with dictators before. There's plenty of other examples of this, historically. But America only supports dictators which it has planted there itself, and the ruling family in NK is not within America's sphere of influence.

Hugh.G.Rection:

t91

The USA has a long history of supporting many dictators this site makes interesting reading on that point.

http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/history-of-us-backed-dictators-redux/

An interesting excerpt from that site:

"Twentieth-century American foreign policy is a paradox: the world’s oldest democracy repeatedly backs dictatorships in the name of freedom. Defenders of right-wing dictators argued they were a necessary evil. Blast the notion that this violation of core American values actually serves U.S. interests. The policy of coddling dictators has brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.  Book by historian, professor, David Schmitz,  The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989

Comment at the back of the book,  “A crucial insight into the uncertain status of America in the world today.” by  Max Paul Friedman who co-authored Partisan Histories: The Past in Contemporary Global Politics"

t91camp:

Hugh, yep, I agreed with that. Most recent example that ended up coming back to bite America in the ass is Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, afaik - the war itself also largely a result of American meddling.

Traveler:

ohchina: What's with all the pictures. They don't seem to have any relevance, and are actually quite annoying. And what's the mention of Yugoslavia got to do with North Korea?

Shining_brow:

"Most recent example that ended up coming back to bite America in the ass is Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, afaik -"

No, the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were put up against the Russians by the Americans... funded, trained, armed, etc etc.

t91camp:

Oh yeah, I'd actually forgotten that the conflict in Afghanistan is still going, because it's not really in the news anymore. 

ohChina:

edited. sorry.

nevermind:

So?

nevermind:

Oh good grief. Don't give us this crap. The US would like nothing more than Korea to be unified so it can go home. It's CHINA who wants North Korea to remain as is because they fool the world into thinking they can control North Korea, which gives them bargaining power in the area. 

ohChina:

What if US doesn't leave? Who can guarantee that? Even with a treay signed, how could any country compel US to follow the treaty? Impossible!

ohChina:

I guess it's true China wants to have a great impact on North Korea. However it seems Kim Jung En and his family and his government are not very obedient as China wishes. Otherwise there would be no nuclear stuffs at all.

GuilinRaf:

Why the double post ohChina?

ohChina:

what double post? Do you mean I answered the question twice or my comments that "what if US doesnt leave?"  I thought it is okay because I have seen in other questions that answered more than twice by one user too and I double post the comment because someone commented the same thing in my two answer posts. 

ohChina:

Edit: China doesn't have any intention of N Korea's or S Korea's territory. Korea remained its incomplete independence from China throughout history until Japan made Korea its colony. China gave N Korea some territory when Mao was in position, for the sake of "comrades' friendship". Don't accuse China of what it didn't do.  

It's not difficult for Japan and South Korea to make nuclear bombs and missile by themselves very quickly. Their technologies are sufficient. Even N Korea and India and South Africa can do it! We are worried that N Korea is having it though. It's insanity and the example of Vietnam make us very concerned that the nuclear bomb would somehow harm China.  

Traveler:

Japan and South Korea have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, something North Korea in it's insanity refuses to do.

ohChina:

While I find it really really hard to comprehend N Korean leaders insanity, I am highly suspicious of the western countries (including Japan) morality too.

 US withdrew itself from The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. 

t91camp:

Morality has very little to do with it. The U.S. today does whatever makes it the most money, and spins whatever that is to make it seem morally superior. Funny thing is, China does the same thing, but it's a lot less effective at the storytelling part. As China's power grows, this becomes more and more obvious. For the sake of global stability, it's best if both China and America profit from any given situation. It doesn't seem like China is getting anything from the Korean conflict at the moment, and that more than anything is what leads me to believe a change is on the horizon.

ohChina:

I wish this N Korea crap hadn't happened at all. It's clearly just a burden on China now. 

t91camp:

It was destined to be a Chinese "burden" as soon as they stepped in during the first conflict, maybe even earlier. We'll see if they can profit from it in the end.

ohChina:

I don't believe there is such a plan. Where are the "some reports"? 

LAR:

"China................territory." What a bunch of b.s.! I like many others are suspicious of China
if a conflict breaks out on the Korean peninsula. "It's.............now." Again, what a bunch of b.s. Typical Chinese..playing the victim. There are OTHER countries ALSO involved or haven't you read that! ********! :( Yes, the pictures are annoying.

GuilinRaf:

Yeah. Funny how that works. NK and US are escalating, yet the "victim" is.......

ohChina:

Your suggestion is evil and sick. You can't base your happiness on nuking a people of a nation! Do you want to nuke the poor kids! the poor people who never had any meat in the past 30 years! I have no problem with replacing the Kim family dictatorship and establish a better N Korea but it's disgusting if you want to nuke all the N Koreans!  

t91camp:

Not sure if diverdude1 is joking or not, but "nuke the whole country" is a pretty common American reaction spoken by people who do not understand the intricacies of politics. Americans kind of have a cultural fascination with nukes, possibly because of the precedent set by Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

xinyuren:

1. agreed.

2. not agreed.

3. not agreed!

This is the most irresponsible and reprehensible course of action to take.  I think you are joking, right?  BJ nukes it's "friend" to the east and Russia, Vietnam and India get antsy.   It does nothing but raise mistrust and insecurity in the area.  Lose/ lose/ lose situation.

diverdude1:

well, you all live in a nice world.  the world I live in is covered in war. people die in war. not sure what the difference is of dying by a nuke or a rifle bullet. and yeah, civilians are the ones who take the brunt of it. just wondering if you thought the blitz on London just targeted soldiers? or the Dresden Firebombing ?   I never said nuke all of NK, I said Pyongyang. I believe eventually fusion bomb will be used. and I imagine they would target a large urban center, which if your target is NK, that would be Pyongyang.

I think it would be best if we did give some warning, nd then they might evacuate the civilians. maybe.

and maybe 'happy' wasn't the right word.  I didn't mean it that way, I meant those govts. would be satisfied.  not even sure that is the right word.

ohChina:

That purpose is simply evil. 

bill8899:

The purpose relates to defending their allies.

ohChina:

Imagine the money that spent on  the oil. I have read posts on social media where some American people complaining they can't afford a dentist because they have no dental care. So they have to endure the pains. A girl friend there told me she couldn't go to college last year because her family couldn't afford the tuition fee. 

I'm sure America's money has a better way to be spent. 

It doesn't have to be in this way, when American military is already the super no.1 in the world that no one can challenge. 

t91camp:

I actually agree with ohChina, that America spends far too much money on its military, at the cost of its societal well-being. Good luck convincing the uneducated majority (or the wealthy decision-makers) of that, though.

bill8899:

Wait a minute. Are you arguing that because America spends too much money on oil or it's military, they should ignore threats of nuclear attack on their soldiers and those of their allies? You must be joking, that makes no sense.

xinyuren:

No,  they should ignore the threats because they are hollow, immature, and divisive.  Incidentally, that's precisely what the U.S. is doing (as much as politically possible) by downplaying the words coming out of Pyongyang.  

t91camp:

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that, Bill.

bill8899:

It is complicated, but making irrelevant arguments is pointless. And making pointless arguments is irrelevant. Haha I gave you a thumbs up, therefor I am entitled to cease and desist.

t91camp:

Haha well played Bill. While I disagree that it's irrelevant, I can't argue with a thumbs up. 

ohChina:

I don't know. But one guess is maybe China is afraid of the possible refugees boom flooding into China boarder. What would you expect China's boarder guards to do?

t91camp:

Now there's something I hadn't thought about. Good answer. I think China is running out of practical reasons to allow NK to exist. The recent UN sanctions against NK were unanimous, iirc the first time the PRC has acted against NK's interests.

xinyuren:

Last time I checked, NK was still a sovereign nation.   We might not like what the leader is saying, but that's no reason to start war (What you are suggesting is war).  Any country who engages in such overt actions against nations they don't agree with will probably not be trusted by it's existing partners.  Let's be clear here.  The only thing that's happening here so far is a bunch of hot air rhetoric.  So far, nothing has happened that can justify a declaration of war.

mattsm84:

The refugee thing is going to happen at some point either way. Lets be honest, NK is unsustainable and in the long term only one of three things can happen. 1) Sanction cause the NK to collapse in the next 15 to 20 years. In which case, China still has the refugee problem, first at a trickle, then at a flood. 2) The West pushes over NK in the next 2 to 5 years. Again, China still has to deal with the refugee problem, although it has to deal with them all at once. 3) China presides over a managed dismantling of NK at a time and on a pace of its own choosing. It has to deal with a flood of refugees for 6 months to a year, but has the ability to return them easily once the situation has stabilized, or resettle them in any one of a handful of assisting countries. Plus, this would signal to the world that China really is ready to participate as a major, well respected player in world politics. Not as some bullshit, imagined counter weight to "American Imperialism" or some such silliness either, but as a prominent member of a community of nations.

t91camp:

xinyuren: Rhetoric, if intentionally misinterpreted as legitimate threats, can be justifiable casus belli.

mattsm84:

Xin: I'm just saying they cut aid and then step in to pick up the pieces when it all goes tits up. That's not a war, that's not an act of war. It's more like removing a patient from life support.

xinyuren:

@mattsm84 -  No matter how you spin it,  starving a nation and cutting off their energy with the aim of toppling it's government is an act of war.  I'm sure NK will see it that way as well.

xinyuren:

@t91 -  "intentionally" is the operative word in your post.  But almost every rational person regarding this situation knows that NK's nuclear threats are hollow.   Actually the biggest threat is what NK will do with the nukes when they face defeat in the case of a war.

t91camp:

Cutting off the "life support" is what's already happening, as NK gets more and more ridiculous, thanks to the UN. I predict China will fully cut its support of NK when it sees a prime opportunity to seize NK territory without major political repercussions.

mattsm84:

If North Korea saw it that way they'd be wrong. China, and China alone, gets to decide which nations it provides aid to and which nations it participates in trade with. As far as  I or anyone else should be concerned China is well within its rights to do so and is where discussion on this should end.

Shining_brow:

"xinyuren:

Last time I checked, NK was still a sovereign nation.   We might not like what the leader is saying, but that's no reason to start war"

hahaha... that's funny!!

That's been US foreign policy for over 50 years now!! Should I actually list the number of "sovereign nations" that the US has invaded/declared war on?? And, which of its 'partners' don't trust it?? (yeah, ok, probably everyone - but they still trade with them!)

Why hasn't the US invaded NK yet? Well, a couple of reasons... 1) there is the distinct possibility of nukes being involved (as any attack would most likely come via SK, and that's fairly easily nuke-able from NK. 2) it might piss-off China - getting to close and all (esp with all the other stuff happening in this region, and China's wish to control everything in sight. 3) no profit. (yes, literally!!). In Afghanistan, there was oil. In Iraq, there's oil. In NK, there's... a lot of hungry NK'eans...

ambivalentmace:

there is a concentration camp in north korea on google maps that has 3 generations of families that have never left the camp, some have escaped to china and wrote books about their life.

my proposal is america agrees to pull out of south korea after china and america jointly stop the human rights violation at the concentration camp with a joint invasion, if china wants north korea , the people at least want be starving , but china gives up taiwan, if korea stays united as a country and china leaves , america stops all aid to taiwan, the region would then be stable. american troops are gone and japan gets nuclear weapons and america leaves the area.

mattsm84:

The idea that the US entered into war in Iraq for oil is one thing, although its ultimately undermined by the facts of Iraqi Oil ownership-- such as that only a single American company maintains majority ownership of only a single oil field in Iraq, and countries like the UK, China, and the Netherlands take in as much, if not more, in Iraqi oil revenue than the US. However, the idea the the US invaded Afghanistan for the country's paltry 1.4 billion barrels of oil reserves is just so incredibly silly that it barely deserves comment except to point out that that's less than the island of Taiwan, and that what little oil is there is actually being drilled by CNPC (China). 

I mean honestly, this is exactly what I was talking about. It's just so disheartening that China has a chance to become a real, responsible member of the global community but would rather piss that opportunity away so that it can continue to push this sort of empty headed, cold war era, anti-imperialist clap-trap.

xinyuren:

YES!  Finally someone responds with realistic politics. To be honest, this is probably NK's play all along. Nukes for aid.

t91camp:

You don't think they'd strike at (or threaten with nukes) China for cutting its aid? Well, if your estimation is true, China has a very advantageous position of power over the region's fate.

Hugh.G.Rection:

t91:

What NK will do is always debatable as they are wildly unpredictable. However I don't foresee them attacking China in the event of aid being cut off as for many decades now they have been pushing out propaganda saying that the USA are the cause of all their problems and China is their great friend. To then turn that totally 180 degrees around would probably be too difficult in the time scale open to them.

t91camp:

Ah yes, the propaganda. I sometimes forget that is a very real part of North Korean politics. Good point, agreed.

Seems like a lot of conversation spawned from my question, yet it still has no votes... 

mattsm84:

So, if China were to cut aid to N. Korea you think that that would cause them to attack the US or S. Korea. Why? Xin never really elaborated on why that would constitute an act of war between China and NK. Further, the US and S. Korea have nothing to do with that choice.

North Korea already is a cornered, angry animal. It will continue to be that from now until it ceases to exist. It's never going to be a respected member of the international community. Not because the US or who ever else isn't going to let them sit at the cool countries table in the UN cafeteria during or some such silliness, but because they are an totalitarian autocracy that the rest of the world can't stomach doing business with. Hell, the only reason China keeps them around is because they can act as a buffer. But in 2013 we are quickly getting to a point where NK has probably out lived its usefulness even there.

 What you're recommending is that China and the rest of the world just kick the can down the road so that we can deal with it again every two or three years. But what are North Korea's ballistic missile systems going to look like then? And what will their nuclear capabilities be? The situation is getting worse, and not better. 

What I was wondering here was whether or not China is willing to do what it takes to be taken seriously as a world power. That means taking a leadership role on something that is going on in its own back yard and doing something that contributes to a sort of long term stability. They have the ability, but so far it seems as though they lack the will.

t91camp:

What I gathered from what Hugh said is that cutting aid from North Korea would make them desperate, and by extension, more aggressive. That may be a bit of a leap, or it may not be - it's hard to predict what the people, and the government, would do, since there's no real precedent for that. The idea that they'd attack the "West" (SK/USA/etc) when logistically desperate, however, does make a lot of sense, in a Western-view-of-North Korea sort of way. 

xinyuren:

Withdrawing energy and food from a country with the purpose of toppling said country is an act of war.  How is it not?  NK is not backed in a corner until China turns officially against them.  Truly backing them in a corner or even attacking them first, would be truly dangerous.  I believe that is NK's plan for the nukes.  How do you handle a madman with nukes?  I don't believe he is as mad as you think.  Either way,  you handle with care, not necessarily with force.

t91camp:

It's not an act of war. Any nation obviously has the right to stop giving FREE aid to a lesser nation if its policies are no longer is in line with its benefactor's ideals. That's just common sense and it's a huge mistake on the lesser nation's part to not consider that. However, that doesn't mean the lesser nation won't be pissed off about it. It'd be interesting to see how North Korea would manage to feed its military over a sustained conflict (Remember: the Iraq War was supposed to be over in 3 months) without aid from China. I doubt it'd be able to do it. Matt is definitely right in that China has the ability to make or break NK's future.

xinyuren:

You totally ignored my italics.  if the purpose of withdrawing aide is to overthrow the government, it is by definition war.

t91camp:

I read your italics, but they are wrong. Again, a nation has the right to withdraw aid at any time. It is not another nation's right to receive said aid, but a privilege. If I was giving my child an allowance for doing their chores, and they did not do their chores, I would not give them their allowance. Withdrawing aid is a diplomatic move intended to force nations to behave - it is NOT justifiable casus belli, or else UN sanctions would never pass. Usually aid is given under certain conditions, such as political alignment, or just generally not being a douchebag rogue state. North Korea makes China look bad for supporting it, and it is a perfectly logical step for China to cut aid if the threats continue.

xinyuren:

An act of war is any action that is initiated with the intention of destroying or conquering a regime.  Do you disagree with that statement?   If a nation withdraws aid in order to assert political pressure (such as the UN's actions), that is one thing.   If a nation withdraws another nation's lifeline and opens it borders in order to induce a capitulation (irregardless of their rights), that is another thing altogether.

Traveler:

If homeless people threaten the volunteers in a food van, they get no food. The same principle should apply to North Koreans. If they want handouts from the world, they need to show some respect.

Why should we give them food while they build nuclear weapons to kill the people feeding them?

t91camp:

@Xin I see the distinction you're making and normally I would agree. The problem with that logic here, though, is that North Korea is simply not viable as an independent state. While cutting all major sources of aid to a more capable nation would merely inconvenience it, and thus encourage some policy changes, doing so to NK would completely disable it, and that could be interpreted as an attack on the regime by Lil' Kim whether or not it was intended as such. Edit: And as matt said, historical precedent says it's not war, but hard-line diplomacy.

mattsm84:

I don't really know how to make this clear to you, other than saying "because its not" and point out other instances where countries have done just that without going to war. Just last year, Canada withdrew foreign aid from Mali following a military coup stating "Canada utterly condemns this attack on democracy by a faction of Mali’s military... We call on those behind this coup to immediately withdraw so that constitutional order, peace and stability may be restored" yet Canada and Mali are not now engage in any sort of war despite the fact that Canada withdrew aid in the hopes that the new government would fail. Japan suspended foreign aid to China following the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, yet nobody saw this as a declaration of war. Britain, Denmark, Ireland and Norway have all recently suspended aid to Uganda because they didn't want to support the corrupt regime in that country, again nobody saw this as a direct declaration of war. Hell, damn near the entire world had cut tries with the South Africa by the late 80s, yet nobody considered that tantamount to a declaration of war. What I'm trying to say is that countries withdraw foreign aid knowing that country X will fall apart all the time and very seldom its never considered an act of war. If China did the same tomorrow over NK nuclear testing, I doubt even North Korea would view it as such.

As for how I handle a mad man issuing threats and what not, I put him down at the earliest opportunity least the situation snowball.

xinyuren:

i think it is the nation's people who decide if a state is viable or not.  If China decides to withdraw aide, that certainly is their right.  But an act of war is largely based on intent.  Each situation is different and  I was responding to the original suggestion that China stop aid and open their borders to fleeing N. Koreans.  This would be viewed as an overt act of war in my eyes and in what way would that change the chances of them using nukes in that case?  In that case we will be facing a version of the Kobayashi Maru (a Star Trek reference).  This is a no win situation and what really matters is how each party's decision reflects their respective ideals.

mattsm84:

"I think that it's up to the nation's people to decide if a state is viable or not."

That's exactly what I'm saying. China should step aside and let the North Koreans support North Korea for as many weeks as they can before they decide to rip the whole thing apart. Right now, China is just keep the leadership on life support so that it can keep the evil capitalist west at arms length, city sized prison camps be damned, even as it increases economic ties with them. Frankly, that's not how a leader on the world stage should behave. If China wants to realize that "Chinese Dream" that Xi has been bandying about lately, out growing the "anti-imperialist" rhetoric of the past and taking a responsible position of leadership on a regional crisis. For real, this should be China's Old Yeller moment, but they're squandering it because its more important for them to put a stick in the West's eye.

Anyway, you still haven't provided a reason why NK would attack SK for something China did.

GuilinRaf:

It is ok for China to withdraw aid from N Korea but not ok for the USA to withdraw it?

That does not make much sense....

Hugh.G.Rection:

A couple of points I would like to make here:

1. N. Korea IS a viable state. The policies of the current leadership are reducing that viability but if they were to change (or be changed) then N. Korea would be a viable state.

2. I don't think you can use the normal logical process with N. Korea. Whether it is an act of war to cut of their aid is, in my opinion, irrelevant because, (again in my opinion,) if you do cut off that aid they WILL attack. Look at if from the leaderships point of view, they've been killing off their own people directly and indirectly for decades. If the people overthrow them (unlikely) they'll get lynched, if the west overthrow them, they'll be hanged / shot / executed, whatever happens if they see they are going to lose power they KNOW they are dead, so they are going to take as many with them as they can, and if those people are American all the better but hey, they'll take Koreans, Chinese, anyone too.

mattsm84:

I'm not sure that I agree that North Korea on its own is viable, at least not if the definition of viable means is that its capable of functioning on its own. If we're agreed that that's what viable means then North Korea most certainly isn't  as something like a third of their entire population is dependent of foreign food aid. Even if we take viable to mean that its capable of functioning at all, meaning only that it isn't a "failed state", we must understand that that viability is totally dependent upon help from foreign governments.

Second, that's why China needs to be tough enough to extend a third option backed up by the threat of a slow death starvation or geopolitical suicide if that option is declined. Only when it becomes clear to them that their other options have run out would China be able to offer them a deal that they would take, something like a transition to Chinese authority in exchange for exile in China,  generous pensions, and blanket immunity from war crimes prosecution for the ruling elites.  From there they could dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and leverage Korean Reunification for a reduced US presence in East Asia, as reunification would have to happen on China's terms. Deng Yuwen, an editor at China Daily, suggested as much about a month ago in an op-ed he wrote Financial Times about a month ago, although I should mention he was fired immediately afterwards. 

t91camp:

I agree that China should use this situation to step up and show us that it's capable of being a world leader in something other than cheap manufacturing.

As for NK going ballistic before its final demise, I think they'd aim missiles at Okinawa. The Chinese are their "allies" and South Koreans, despite their political differences, are still their brothers. Not to mention widespread nuclear radiation on the Korean peninsula is something neither NK or SK would want. On the other hand, they have historical reasons to hate the Japanese, and Okinawa has a massive American military presence. Sounds like a plausible target to me!

xinyuren:

I tend to agree with Hugh.  The bottom line is  NK is a wildcard holding a powerful weapon.  Any overt action could result in disaster.  Attacking him would not be my first choice.  Starving them will have minimal affect on the leaders. My concern is for the people of that nation, who would face the consequences of another war.   It's easy to come to a violent decision when the conflict is halfway around the world from you, but we didn't win in Vietnam.  We didn't win in Korea.  And we didn't win in Iraq.   This is a similar no-win situation.  I'm glad I'm not one of the men who have to decide this one.

mattsm84:

A lot of quibbles with that.

- We didn't win in Korea? Yes we did. Our stated objective was to stop the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, in that we were successful. Remember the Truman Doctrine stated the Communism was to be contained, not conquered outright.

- I could argue that you a flatly wrong on Iraq as well, but I'll be charitable and say that it's a little to early to tell whether or not the Iraq war was a failure. I mean, the are stated objectives were to oust the Baath party from power, which was successful by any measure, and to build a viable democracy in the middle east. We won't know whether or not Iraq can function without US aid for some time yet. That said, the last US troops left Iraq about 15 months ago.

Hugh.G.Rection:

Korean War

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_actually_won_the_Korean_War

Nobody won the Korean War. The Korean peninsula was divided into a communist north and anti-communist south before the war. It remained like that after the war, so neither side achieved their respective objectives, meaning the war ended in a draw when an armistice was signed on July 27, 1953 saying that all fighting would stop.

No peace treaty has been signed. In a way, The United States, UN Forces, and South Korea are still at war with Communist North Korea.

xinyuren:

@matsm84 -  If you think we won any of those wars, then you and I have vastly different  definitions for winning.   Iraq is a prime example. You think winning a war is about reaching some stated objectives. Real war is not like the video games.  So, we killed Sadaam.  But looking at the Iraqi people - if that's winning, I would really hate to see losing.   This is what I fear for the people of NK.  We wreck their homeland with bombs, kill many innocents and in the end, they are none the better for it.

mattsm84:

Like anything else, you measure success by achieving your goals. Put another way, how you specifically feel about the outcome isn't of any consequence when we start to objectively consider whether or not the nation did what it set out to do. If the goal in Vietnam and Iraq is to build a functioning country in a particular corner of the world that we felt was beset by some ideological boogie man then Vietnam was a failure, and Iraq could still potentially be a success--and frankly likely will be. If the stated goal in the Korean war was to contain communism on the Korean peninsula, then that too was a success. And that, by the way, was its stated goal.

xinyuren:

You fail to mention the heavy loss of human life (mostly innocent civilians) and the mental and emotional consequences of the survivors.  Yes, we have very different ways of measuring success.  But hey,  we met our goals, right?  You play Xbox much?

mattsm84:

No, you're right. This is something that clearly exists in a vacuum. Had it not been for that war in Iraq, the people in Iraq would have lived happy and stable lives under an enlighten ruler in much the same way that the people of North Korea do now. Further, failing to see that clearly points to a lack of maturity on my part, as does insisting on objective measures for success and failure. 

GuilinRaf:

Matt! You forgot the most important part! Free puppies for all!!!!

xinyuren:

So the benevolent Americans went into Iraq without sanction to liberate the helpless Iraqis and not because of alleged "WMD's"?   I get so confused about the objectives.  Yes, I much prefer puppies to war any day of the week.  Especially when the war kills more of the people you're allegedly trying to save than the enemy.  In the case of Iraq (and Vietnam, for that matter)  I would prefer if we had just let them work their own problems out.  Mass killing is not the answer.

mattsm84:

No, the US went into Iraq because it was interested in settling old scores in the Middle East following 9/11. Once it had made the choice to invade, the objectives became to defeat the Iraqi army, demolish the existing Iraqi government, and build a new on in its place.

Shining_brow:

While that idea is firmly planted in my mind as well, I also know what will happen if such a thing occurs... and that's really not a pleasant thought... (although, reducing the population of homo sapiens by about 90% would be a pretty good thing for this planet... hmmmmmm).

Unless, of course, it was 'natural' <wink wink>

mattsm84:

You are vastly over estimating their nuclear capabilities. They couldn't destroy 90% or Seoul, let alone 90% of the human race.

MissA:

SB - I don't think nuclear fallout is likely to be especially good for the planet, so that's a lose-lose situation.

It would certainly have to at least look 'natural' if Kim Jong Fatboy were to bite the dust, the risk of anything else is too high.

Scandinavian:

Germany reuniting went pretty smoothly, even though it is still an ongoing process that parts fo the old east remains less well off than the rest of the country. 

Hugh.G.Rection:

The problem would be for the Chinese. They would not welcome a close ally (or even a puppet state) of the USA sharing a land border anymore than the USA welcomed Communist nations in Central America in the cold war.

t91camp:

I understand your post may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think any major nation has the luxury of sitting this out. China, Russia, France, the US, and the UK are all permanent members of the UN security council - all of whom except France have very real interests in Korea - and South Korea is a temporary member until 2014. Plus the current Secretary General is Korean. So you can bet the UN will be in an uproar about this if push comes to shove. Worst case scenario, it could be NATO vs. China, just like in the '50s, and who knows what the Russians would think about all that. Not only would it be politically disastrous, but economically as well.

The idea that NK might just be distracting everyone from Iran is an interesting one, however...

mattsm84:

Which is why they, China included, should actually cut them off for good this time.

GuilinRaf:

(_o_)

xinyuren:

... sorry

ironman510:

Agreed, its just a game of give me give me

xinyuren:

China is between a rock and a hard place.  I'm sure they hate the posturing of their immature neighbor to the east and would gladly get rid of him, if they could.  On the other hand, they hate even more the thought of a country allied with the U.S. at their borders.  My guess is they will support N.K.  actively or indirectly until the very end and try to resolve this diplomatically.

Hugh.G.Rection:

I think China has got EXACTLY what it wants. A malleable puppet state as a buffer zone on it's border.

Just a few hundred Kms south is one of the worlds largest and most powerful standing armies (USA / S. Korea) who are hostile to China, (often openly so). So China has a situation where it's ally has placed a million strong army between that potential enemy and China.

From China's point of view I would imagine the status quo is just what they want.

xinyuren:

I see your point.... accept for the fact they can only control from behind the scenes.  It would not look good for China to be seen cooperating with a dictator who behaves like a madman (even if it is just an act).   China can no longer position itself as an ally to North Korea without losing face.

Traveler:

China are incapable of making the right decisions, and few of their decisions in the past have been of any benefit to China, let alone the world.

Just a few - The Communist Revolution, The Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap Forward, The Great Famine, Tibet, The One Child Policy, Tiananmen Square, Industrialisation, Corruption, Pollution, - all China's non-plans end in disaster.

In more recent decades, since China has "opened up," they have exported those disasters to the rest of the world as well. China always picks the option that will create the most destruction, death and chaos.

The west would be foolish allowing China to try to resolve this problem, when they can't resolve their own problems.

Hugh.G.Rection:

Lose face? It could quite easily gain enormous face and be seen as the preeminent diplomatic power. All it has to do is 'persuade' it's ally to sit down to talks again, (see my clips from the BBC above), and ensure the talks are the 5 nations, China, Russia, N. Korea, S. Korea and USA (you see the built in majority there?) then negotiate some more weaponry or missile technology in exchange for long term peace, maybe even a formal end to the Korean war, and BINGO, they have a long term solution to that large army in the South and they also secure the long term future of their buffer zone who will continue to need them for food and energy aid AND the international community will hail China as the new diplomatic superpower in the region.

xinyuren:

@ Traveler - if you look at things fairly, you will find that the rest of the world is just as incapable of solving their own problems.  I don't see a Utopia in the West.  I can come up with a list to match yours very easily.  The reason for the situation with NK we now face is because the world's leaders are unable to solve this problem and I don't expect the problem to be solved this time either - by anyone.

xinyuren:

@ Hugh - you mean negotiate arms for peace?  like the last 2 times?

Hugh.G.Rection:

Xin: nothing as overt as that but the effect would be the same. If they can negotiate a long term peace, i.e leave N. Korea alone (off the record - to develop missile technology with or without Chinese / Russian aid) then for China it's a win - win. The  USA have proven in the past they will probably go for it, perhaps have to allow a few UN inspectors in but they are easily sidelined and it can take years to find anything and when they do it takes years for anyone to agree on any actions. N. Korea have a history of pushing to the limit knowing that the UN won't approve war and the USA really don't want to, no financial gain in Korea and millions of lives at stake, (lives N. Korea obviously don't care about.

xinyuren:

...and you think the Allies will fall for that again?  Korea could have negotiated that for themselves at the six party talks.   And if this ploy actually works (U.S. would need to participate in this deception),  Kim Jong still wouldn't have what he seems so desperately to desire:  International respect and legitimacy.  How long until he breaks this charade and goes on another tirade?

Hugh.G.Rection:

Xin: You'd have to fluff it up a bit, use lots of diplomatic double speak and such, and perhaps offer a long term peace, e.g. a formal end to the Korean War, something big enough for the USA to take away and think they've won, but yes, I think they'll go for it again. I don't think the USA  and certainly not the UN have the stomach for another war, especially as they haven't fully disentangled themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran is also on the radar.

mattsm84:

Fair enough, so lets look at this from China's perspective. The standard argument put forth by the apologist on this one is that North Korea is ultimately an asset to China as it keeps a potential rival off of its boarders. Now, here are the problems with that line of thinking. First, is the assuption that the US and China are geo-political rivals. They aren't, at least not at present. Further, they needn't be in the future. The United States isn't going to invade its largest economic partner, and very little of China economic or strategic goals are at odds with the America's, with the noted exception of China's territorial ambitions in the South China sea, although that's true of most pacific nations. If China is penned in at all, it's penned in by and alliance between India and Vietnam in the west, who do have conflicting long term strategic and economic goals with China and certainly are not American satellite states, and the US, Korea and Japan in the east, which it has relatively few disputes with. Even China's dramatic economic rise over the course of the last two decades hasn't come out of the US economy, which has remained as 25% of the world economy as measured by GDP for the entirety of that time. The Cold War has been over for 20 years now, and the sooner China realizes this the better off we will all be. That necessitates putting this notion of perfidious America to bed.  

That said, if China does want to reduce America's military presence in this part of the world then it should realize that Korean Reunification, and what's more reunification on Beijing's terms, is the best long prospect of undermining any military alliance between Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington. After all, the US soldiers stationed in S. Korea and Japan aren't there to guard against China, but rather as a precaution against N. Korea. With North Korea out of the picture, how long would it be before one incident or another caused the governments in South Korea or Japan to lobby in earnest for a reduction in  US troop levels? It'd be a matter of months, not years.

Finally, North Korea is not an asset for China. It is 2013 after all. And the US has the ability to project military force all over the world, and that includes within China's boarders (although the chances of it deciding to do so are effectively at 0.) Being a few miles closer to the China boarder ultimately doesn't mean anything. For real, they can, and do, dock a portion of the US navy in Hong Kong between 60 to 80 times a year. On the other hand North Korea ignores directives from China, tests its nuclear weapons uncomfortably close to China's boarders, threatens to start a nuclear war in China's own back yard, and is a constant strain on China's food and energy resources while providing no tangible benefits to China what so ever. That makes it a liability.

Real politick doesn't call for ties between Pyongyang and Beijing, in fact its becoming increasingly clear that it demands that those ties be severed. The reason for China's close relationship with North Korea frankly does have so much more to do with Cold War nostalgia. Listen to the terms that the Chinese use when they talk about it. See how long it is before the phrase "sealed in blood during the war to resist American imperialism" comes up when talking to them on the subject. They are hardly speaking from their own interests.

xinyuren:

@matt - China's form of government makes them a rival, even while they are an economic trading partner.  You really think America's return to Asia has nothing to do with China?  America tightening up with Japan, S.Korea, Philippines is not a move to encircle and control China?  As long as the CCP are in power, they will do this dance.  Bringing N. Korea into the fold (which can only happen by overthrowing their dictator- how in the world is that going to happen without setting off some nukes??) will only tighten the noose.  This is an ideology war, and I can't see how what you put forth can ever happen.

mattsm84:

Xin, historically you're wrong on this. We live in a world of realpolitik. Practical and economic concerns trump ideological ones. If what you're saying is true, then China never would have been able to break with the USSR, the US and China would never have seen a thaw in relations following Nixon's visit, and you and I and everyone else on this board wouldn't have had the opportunity to live here. Here, the practical and economic benefit for China lies in getting rid of North Korea. 

Like I said, your ideological war is over. The sooner China wakes up to that fact, the better off we will be.

t91camp:

I definitely agree with matt on this one, there's no ideological war between China and the US anymore. Hell, China is more capitalist than America in a lot of ways. The biggest difference between the two nations is America still pretends to have a  genuine democratic process (what a joke that is, though), while China can't be bothered with it. If anything is forcing the ideology into play it's North Korea, and since that's not China's game anymore it's best for everyone, except Lil' Kim and his posse, if NK ceases to be a player.

Hugh.G.Rection:

I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell of China tolerating either USA in N. Korea or a unified Korea (which would in effect be the same thing). Throughout history China have shown what it does when a foreign power gets close to it's borders.

I think it's preferred option is the status quo, failing that it would like  a 'new puppet' perhaps replace the N. Korean government with another non-democratic China friendly government. It's last option would (in my opinion) only be if the first two failed and that would be to annexe N. Korea and I think they would have to do that from within due to the nuclear issue. Some internal insurrection by part of the N. Korean military, a coup d'etat fostered of course by Chinese agent provocateur. (I assume China has an external secret service.)

xinyuren:

If the ideological war is dead, please explain why China is in bed with Cuba, Venezuela, Russia (at least closer than the U.S.), and just about every other socialist country. Why the constant rhetoric against Western nations? I'm not so politically astute, but it is easy for me to see that some sort of rivalry is still going on. Like you said, China should wake up to the modern world, but until they do, there is posturing and positioning by opposing ideologies. @Hugh... I agree, and I also see another possibility, but I hesitate to mention it here. In another thread, I predicted a huge change is due in China. This would drastically change the political dynamic here and possibly make the North Korea problem moot.

mattsm84:

@Hugh, I'll agree that that's what China probably will do, but what I'm saying is that the choice to do so is to their detriment. Their practical and economic interests align more closely to the UN and US both in the short and long term than they do with North Korea's, whose continued existence ultimately does little more than hold China back even as it become increasingly unmanageable. The current situation is far from ideal for China, and their insistence that returning to the status quo is the most desirable outcome for them flatly ignores the way that the situation has been deteriorating. Kicking the can down the road a few months or years doesn't do much to burnish China's reputation as a diplomatic powerhouse, and undermines it while making them partially liable for any conflict that is all but assured to arise in the next decade or two. It's short sighted, and its poor foreign policy. What's worse, its based around the fantasy that China needs to function as some sort of counter weight to the US, even as the two's economic and political interests become ever more entwined. 

@Xin Marxist economic theory is dead and the world doesn't divide itself between capitalistic countries and socialistic countries anymore. Every economy in the world functions by dividing power between regulatory institutions (typically the state, but not always) the holders of capital (banks, corporate institutions, what have you) and innovators (entrepreneurs and academia.) Its the three legged stool of Keynesian capitalism, and every nation on earth uses it, even the ones you mentioned. So there is no ideological difference between China and the West in the way that there was between the West and the Soviet Bloc nations during the Cold War. As I said, that's over with.

You're right however, that China fancy's itself a counterweight to the US. Needlessly so when one realizes that their long term political and economic goals align more closely with their supposed rival than they do with any of their so called allies. After all, compare the benefits to China's close relationship to the US, which are legion, to whatever negligible rewards China reaps from its ties to Cuba, which essentially boils down to making the US look bad. That's only a good thing for China if geopolitics is a zero sum game. What I'm saying is that doing so does them more harm than good, and the situation in North Korea exemplifies that. The sooner they realize that, the better.

Hugh.G.Rection:

I think China don't see the USA as a long term economic power, they view them as on the wane (rightly or wrongly). The main thing (in their view) holding the USA to economic power is the international dominance of the US dollar, which they are trying to tackle with numerous foreign exchange deals with other nations (Brazil was the latest). I don't think China views USA as anything close to a friendly nation and the rhetoric coming out of the White house vis-a-vis refocusing US military attention to the Pacific is seen by China as a direct threat. I think so long as the USA take that international stance China will view them as an enemy, and so long as they do, N. Korea is useful to them as they can piss the USA off by proxy.

If the USA want a long term solution to Korea, it would be my guess if they stated that their military focus was on another area and perhaps cut their military funding to the Pacific 'something' might happen. Of course if USA REALLY wanted a deal 'persuade' Japan to 'negotiate' over the Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands as recent political events are such that China would be forced to take that whether they really wanted to or not. (and it's my opinion that they really wouldn't want to but face would force them to).

mattsm84:

No. I refuse to believe that the heads of the world's second largest economy are that incompetent. Set in their ways? Sure. Caught up in an antiquated cold war mentality? Absolutely. But are they that special kind of stupid where you actively believe what you know is your own bullshit? No. Delusional people can be born into a position as head of state in a hereditary autocracy, but even a place as corrupt as China has safe guards against that. 

mattsm84:

This asserts that the US and N. Korea are engaged in a ideological conflict, although one between market theory and N. Korea's Juche doctrine rather than capitalism and communism as it was in the Cold War. As China, and nearly every other country in the world for that matter, has embraced a type of market capitalism no ideological war can be said to exist. Tellingly absent from this article is any sort of statement along the lines of China becoming involved to protect North Korean airspace from allied attack as though Chinese neutrality were all but a given.

philbravery:

The only difference is Donald twat is in control of the US forces

ScotsAlan:

Kelly wont let him do it Phill. Nor will Mattis. However, there might just be some dumb trigger happy ship commanders who are on twitter with a load of tomohawks on board.

earthizen:

Those who are left after the war would have to learn how to live in the jungle. Birth of another civilization which would end up like this one, again.  Plato probably heard right (partially) with Atlantis, fooling around with solar energy and genetic engineering and then wars. There is nothing new under the sun in this regard.....