China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Anlsvrthng said:
The NK nukes are NK developed/ manufactured, means there is NO chinese PALS in them.

PALS require deep integration of the bomb parts with the enabling mechanism, that is not somethign that can be back dooring.

Actualy, the whole NK nuke project main target is to keep the independence fo the NK political class from China as well.

Simple game theroy ,scenarios:
1. NK attack south: US attack back , Chinese attack from norht, KIM DEAD ( or in prison)
2. South/US attack North Korea : Chinese attack from north, KIM DEAD ( or in prison)
3. US scared to start war, NK passive :KIM ALIVE and happy with his resorts.

So, the NK won't start war, means the main purpose of the NK military is the retaliation against the south in the event of agression. But due to the Chinese intervention the chance of this is not acceptable for Kim.
Now, what happens is they started to make retaliation capability against the US mainland, it makes the best part of the NK military redundant. They saving big pile of money now. They invest that money into the real economy.

This is scary for US/SK.
The NK now reaching the no return point of independence from US and China( from military standpoint).

China hasn't got too much room to play, but I think on a general level a nuk NK better for them than a economically collapsed one.
Click to expand...

There is a big leap of faith to say NK developed nukes to be politically independent of China. There are many intermediary steps or 'cards' that China can play to prevent total independent of NK (from military standpoint).

Simpler game theory to prevent NK military independence from China:

  • A) China offers to extend Chinese nuclear umbrella over NK, making independent NK deterrent redundant. (US extends nuke umbrella over SK/Japan)
  • B) China stations Chinese troops/bases on NK soil, making independent nuke deterrent unnecessary. (US stations US troops/bases in SK)
  • C) China stations Chinese tactical nukes on NK soil, making independent nuke deterrent unnecessary. (US used to station tactical nukes in SK soil)
  • D) China enters into NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement with Chinese characteristics, Chinese PALS system (US shares it's nukes with NATO allies with US PALS system)


Basically, EVERYTHING that US has done to deter SK from getting independent nuke deterrent, the Chinese *could* have done with NK.

  • However, I find that given China's limited nuclear arsenal size, the option A) is off the table. China doesn't have enough nukes to provide a nuclear umbrella over NK.
  • Given NK's Juche ideology which emphasizes self-sufficiency and independence, the option B) is off the table. NK propaganda against SK is that it's occupied by American boots/soldiers, so allowing Chinese boots to return is counterproductive.
  • Given China's 'no-first use' doctrine, the option C) is off the table. The Chinese cannot launch tactical nukes on NK soil because 'no-first use' doctrine.

However, what we may see is option D) a defacto
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with Chinese characteristics, with Chinese PALS system on NK nukes, giving China plausible deniability that "NK was independently inspired to develop nukes" but it's actually under Chinese authorization after all via the AQ Khan network via Pakistan.

The logic is, if NK was going to get nukes anyways, China might as well activate the AQ Khan network so that at the very least, Chinese PALS system canbe incorporate to control nuke usage, just as US PALS system ultimately controls nuke usage by NATO member states like Italy, Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands etc...
 
Last edited:
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Let's all not underestimate the advantage of nuclear proliferation under
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Afterall, the Washington allows it's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in wartime nuclear weapons that are ultimately under US PAL control.

What is the strategic advantage of letting Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Turkey, Belgium host, deploy, and use American nukes? I honestly don't know, but so long as these nukes are under Washington D.C.'s PALS system of authorization and control, US can ultimately control whether they get used or not.

I think China ultimately control NK usage in some form or another, just as US controls NATO members nuke usage (Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Germany, etc...) whether it's via backdoor or PAL system.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
OK, let clarify something.

The PAL is designed to protect the nuclear weapon from unathurised launch by one or more rogue military personel.
It is NOT designed to protect any nuclear weapon from the nation states.

It means that to circumvent a pal the actor has to work on it for say three months ,and rededign/manufacture components of the weapon, and that can cost say 100 millions of dollar.
It makes impossible for a rogue officer to get control, but it cut back the development time to tenth,and the cost to fraction for a nation state.

The protection of nuclear weapons in germany and turkey is NOT provided by the PAL, that is just an irrelevant,but interesting technical subsystem. The weapons are protected by US military units ,under the command and control of the US Commander in Chief.


The NATO nuclear sharing is possible only because the countries possesing it are de fact under partial of full US military control.


Korea is NOT under Chinese military control, China has as much infulence above it as like the US .

So ,the above scenario actualy require very deep political change in korea, and in the chinese-korean relationship.

In practice it means that Kim lose his power, and will be in similar position like the SK or Japanese goverment in relation with the US.

The nuclear weapons needed to prevent this scennario.

I'm not sure if China wants any millitary unit in NK. That can open up a lot of issues, similar ones that the US have in SK/Japan now.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
It is true that the main target of NK nukes is the US, SK and Japan, but there is no guarantee that NK would not use her nukes against China or Russia or others .... unfortunately :(
Click to expand...


I am allive only because no one ever wanted to kill me.

So, yes ,there is a theroetical possibility to that a knife from our kitchen will kill me in someone else hand.
This is true for NK.

The current state of affairs showing that neither China nor Russia considering it as plausible scennario.
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Anlsvrthng said:
OK, let clarify something.

The NATO nuclear sharing is possible only because the countries possesing it are de fact under partial of full US military control.

Korea is NOT under Chinese military control, China has as much infulence above it as like the US .
Click to expand...
Chinese military kept supreme command and control of DPRK forces from 1950 (first intervention) until finally returning military sovereignty in 1962. (In contrast, US still has wartime OPCON of SK military until probably 2025 and beyound). China returned military sovereignty to North Korea in 1962, one year after the signing of Sino-DPRK 1961 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) which specifies that China will assume supreme command and control of DPRK Forces in the event of foreign attack. Only then did China felt comfortable and allowed Chinese troops completely withdrew from NK soil in 1962, one year after the signing of the treaty.

So the notion that "Korean is not under Chinese military control" is not correct. China assumes wartime OPCON of DPRK under Sino-DPRK 1962 MDT, just as US assumes wartime OPCON of SK forces under Article 6 SOFA of US-ROK 1955 MDT.

Also, there is no evidence that NATO nuclear sharing states like Italy, Germany, Turkey are "defacto under partial US military control". Article V of NATO charter allows collective defense under a singular joint NATO command during wartime, but the sovereign heads of each memberstate needs to give permission to transfer wartime OPCON to NATO. It doesn't happen automatically and contribution of forces is based on each nation's decision.
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Anlsvrthng said:
I am allive only because no one ever wanted to kill me.

So, yes ,there is a theroetical possibility to that a knife from our kitchen will kill me in someone else hand.
This is true for NK.

The current state of affairs showing that neither China nor Russia considering it as plausible scennario.
Click to expand...

are you ok? ;)
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
Chinese military kept supreme command and control of DPRK forces from 1950 (first intervention) until finally returning military sovereignty in 1962. (In contrast, US still has wartime OPCON of SK military until probably 2025 and beyound). China returned military sovereignty to North Korea in 1962, one year after the signing of Sino-DPRK 1961 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) which specifies that China will assume supreme command and control of DPRK Forces in the event of foreign attack. Only then did China felt comfortable and allowed Chinese troops completely withdrew from NK soil in 1962, one year after the signing of the treaty.

So the notion that "Korean is not under Chinese military control" is not correct. China assumes wartime OPCON of DPRK under Sino-DPRK 1962 MDT, just as US assumes wartime OPCON of SK forces under Article 6 SOFA of US-ROK 1955 MDT.

Also, there is no evidence that NATO nuclear sharing states like Italy, Germany, Turkey are "defacto under partial US military control". Article V of NATO charter allows collective defense under a singular joint NATO command during wartime, but the sovereign heads of each memberstate needs to give permission to transfer wartime OPCON to NATO. It doesn't happen automatically and contribution of forces is based on each nation's decision.
Click to expand...

I think the keyword here is the presence of the troops in a given contry.

International agreement is nothing else but words on papers, but the military units in a country represents fact on gorund.


SK, Japan,Germany has many US military bases, the US deeply integrated into the military C&C , so there is small or no freedom of decision from military and best part politicaly from the US.



It is not the case in NK.


I think without defining the power structure of NK-SK-Japan in relation of US-China it is not possible to understand the situation in NK.
Suprisingly, the NK has more political and military freedom than SK.
They try to protect it.
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Anlsvrthng said:
I think the keyword here is the presence of the troops in a given contry.

International agreement is nothing else but words on papers, but the military units in a country represents fact on gorund.


SK, Japan,Germany has many US military bases, the US deeply integrated into the military C&C , so there is small or no freedom of decision from military and best part politicaly from the US.



It is not the case in NK.


I think without defining the power structure of NK-SK-Japan in relation of US-China it is not possible to understand the situation in NK.
Suprisingly, the NK has more political and military freedom than SK.
They try to protect it.
Click to expand...

US has supreme command and control of South Korea's army operations during wartime (joint USFK command forces) and stations US bases/troops on South Korean territory under Article 6 of US-ROK 1955 MDT. South Korea only has peacetime command of it's own military, but US has wartime command of SK military operations.

It's the same with China.

You know it was the Chinese military who decided to completely withdraw troops from North Korean territory and return military sovereignty to North Korean army in 1962? They did it in exchange for a China-NK Alliance treaty in 1961, because it wanted to keep NK inside Chinese sphere of influence after the Sino-Soviet split in 1960. China gave NK some face (mianzi) by removing troops (unlike Soviet Union which had troops in eastern Europe like Poland). However, China wasn't dumb, there is a clause inside Sino-DPRK 1961 MDT which allows China army to return to NK soil in spirit of alliance when necessary and allows China to restore supreme command of China-DPRK joint force operations in event of foreign attack. This is the same as US retaining wartime OPCON of SK military.


TLDR: US has wartime OPCON of SK forces under US-ROK 1955 MDT, so does China have wartime OPCON of NK forces under Sino-DPRK 1961 MDT. China only withdrew it's troops from NK soil in exchange for provisional treaty which allows China to enter NK with troops and assume wartime OPCON in the event of foreign attack. Whether China actually has troops in NK (like US does in SK) is irrelevant since China can enter anytime it needs per the alliance and circumstances.
 
Last edited:
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
US has supreme command and control of South Korea's army operations during wartime (joint USFK command forces) and stations US bases/troops on South Korean territory under Article 6 of US-ROK 1955 MDT. South Korea only has peacetime command of it's own military, but US has wartime command of SK military operations.

It's the same with China.
Click to expand...
Nice one, I never went this deep to analyse the backbne treatries between China and DPRK.

It supports the original outcome of the "US / SK attack first " scennario: Kim lose his power ,and he will be in the mercy of the Chinese politicians.

He wants to avid that fate.

Kim target is NOT to conquer SK, or Japan, or to kill americans.

All that he wants is to avoid the triggering of the 1961 PRC-DPRK treaty, and that is the motivation of the independent nuclear program.

That is the resaon why all sanction and so on completly useless.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
now I read
China says reports of Chinese ships sending oil to DPRK untrue
Xinhua| 2017-12-29 19:32:07
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China on Friday said the reports of Chinese ships sending oil to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) "do not accord with facts."

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying made the remarks at a daily press briefing.

Reports alleged that a Chinese ship sent oil to a DPRK ship at high sea on Oct. 19. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
said Thursday that it was disappointed with China allowing oil to enter the DPRK.

Hua said that China had immediately investigated the relevant ship and found that it has not docked in any Chinese ports and had no entry and departure records of Chinese ports since August.

She said China did not know if the ship had docked in the ports of any other countries.

"The relevant reports do not accord with facts," she said. "China has always comprehensively and strictly implemented the UN Security Council's resolutions and carried out its due international obligations."

"China has never allowed any Chinese citizens or enterprises to conduct any activities that run counter to Security Council resolutions," she said. "If there is solid evidence proving that there is on the Chinese side any violation of the Security Council resolutions, China will surely deal with it in accordance with laws and regulations."

Meanwhile, Hua called for "comprehensive and balanced" implementation of all DPRK-related resolutions.

"All Security Council resolutions including the Resolution 2397 have contents of sanctions as well as peaceful and political solutions, and support in restarting six-party talks on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," she said. "We hope parties concerned could implement the resolutions in a balanced way so as to solve the issue via dialogue and promote the denuclearization of the peninsula."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top