china rejects NK request for bombers/cruise missiles
- Thread starter kroko
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
NK would lose nothing really and gain heaps, and for China to be able to have access to the Sea of Japan is strategically and economically very important. Don't you see that ? ..... please see the map.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
OK, when the topic turned to "China have a base at &&&&", it's getting sterotype, no matter people have intention to raise flame or not.
China WOULD have a naval base at Pakistan, China WOULD have a base at NK... what's next? China WOULD have a base at Cuba?
plawolf made good point at #9 post, China gains more when influence others, while loose more to "station" at others' home. People just don't get it China do not "spend" troops for her overseas benifits, while she can do it without.
China withdraw all kinds of military personnels (troops, advisors..) from NK, at 1953; US stayed at SK till today... NK did not collaps at 1953, anyone try to make a bet whether SK would in what kind of sh*thole, if US military withdraw anyday?
China WOULD have a naval base at Pakistan, China WOULD have a base at NK... what's next? China WOULD have a base at Cuba?
plawolf made good point at #9 post, China gains more when influence others, while loose more to "station" at others' home. People just don't get it China do not "spend" troops for her overseas benifits, while she can do it without.
China withdraw all kinds of military personnels (troops, advisors..) from NK, at 1953; US stayed at SK till today... NK did not collaps at 1953, anyone try to make a bet whether SK would in what kind of sh*thole, if US military withdraw anyday?
Spartan95
Junior Member
DPRK (and the Kim dynasty) will be seen as selling out Korean sovereignty. That's hardly something they want to be seen doing since they have been proclaiming to their people that they are the protectors of Korean sovereignty.
Siberia contains a huge amount of natural resources and a very long border with China. China has a huge appetite for natural resources. The population density north of this long border is a fraction of that just across to the south. Moreover, there are already a huge amount of Chinese people living north of the border.
From the facts mentioned above, one can see that Russia has very good reasons to be "nervous" about China's capabilities and intentions. How do you think Russia might interpret such a move (naval base in the Sea of Japan) by China? No amount of "explanations" or "assurances" could change this.
In my view, too much has been expended to improve and maintain relations between Russia and China (which are hugely important to both), to throw it all away with a provocation which could end up putting Russia on the same side as Japan and the US?
I agree with you on the business of bases in general, but in my view China has to find some way of GUARANTEEING the DPRK's security, so that the DPRK can devote more resources and investment to economic development. I also think China took an important step in this direction last year, when it refused to allow military drills involving an American aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea.
This thread seems to be about China supplying weapons or troops to the DPRK, and neither of these may be the right way, but China can not ask North Korea to abandon its "military first" policy if does not take account of the good reason for this policy, which is that its very existence is threatened, and has been since the end of the cold war. It is not only North Korea, but several countries around the world which have been in this situation since the Soviet Union collapsed.