China's strategy in Korean peninsula

dingyibvs said:

No, you misunderstood me. The goal is denuclearization of NK. Accomplishing this task peacefully is preferred, but if war against NK is necessary to achieve this task, then so be it. China will not rush in to defend NK against the US/SK UNLESS NK is willing to be a good pawn, which includes denuclearizing. If they're not, then China will rush in to conquer NK in order to assure itself a favorable post-war order.

The sky may rain but NK doesn't have to nuclearize.

Click to expand...

If the core of your assessment is the highlighted texts, then I did not misunderstand you. Those are what I disagreed with you and rightly understood you, because I believe that is what China's opponent want China to do for them "借刀杀人".

Neither do I agree with a conquest in 21st century. If China's desperate acquiring nuclear weapon against US and Soviet nuclear blackmail is justified (rightly so in my perspective), then I can not agree with China invading a country for that purpose, especially for China's opponent, that is "替他人作嫁衣裳". China should not be another USA in the 21st century, no country should ever.

In my recounting of the phrase from Mao, I meant "China's possible war against SK/US" by "so be it", not "nuclearized(or not) NK".

I think we have made both of ourselves crystall clear of where we stand by this stage, so I leave the difference to be.

Richard Santos said:

No, it's not because people are hoping for a diplomatic solution. It is because china doesn't need a solution. No one thinks North Korean regime, with its total inability to keep up economically, has the ability to last forever. But what is in it for china to resolve the problem quickly?

Nothing. The longer the problem remains unresolved, the stronger china will be compared to the US, Japan, and South Korea, and the greater the Chinese capability to ensure whatever comes out of a terminal crisis in North Korea can be made to conform to Chinese interests.

So why would china want to help resolve the problem now, when its ability to influence the solution in its own favor is as yet not nearly as strong as it would likely become in 10-20 years?

Click to expand...

So you're saying that you're fine with a collapsing regime, which I don't believe to be the case, having nuclear missiles that could reach Beijing? What if KJU doesn't have a very smart or sane heir?

taxiya said:

If the core of your assessment is the highlighted texts, then I did not misunderstand you. Those are what I disagreed with you and rightly understood you, because I believe that is what China's opponent want China to do for them "借刀杀人".

Neither do I agree with a conquest in 21st century. If China's desperate acquiring nuclear weapon against US and Soviet nuclear blackmail is justified (rightly so in my perspective), then I can not agree with China invading a country for that purpose, especially for China's opponent, that is "替他人作嫁衣裳". China should not be another USA in the 21st century, no country should ever.

In my recounting of the phrase from Mao, I meant "China's possible war against SK/US" by "so be it", not "nuclearized(or not) NK".

I think we have made both of ourselves crystall clear of where we stand by this stage, so I leave the difference to be.

Click to expand...

The truth is the exact opposite. It's China that's been employing the "借刀杀人" tactic. NK is a bigger problem to China than to the US. In fact, NK has been a boon to American strategists and gives them an excellent excuse for their continued presence in SK. That China has been able to convince the world that NK is a problem to them and not to China is representative of how effective China's "借刀杀人" tactic has been. It's time to China to reap that reward, it's time for NK to submit to being a pawn or get a second knife in the back.

Don't be so naive, I don't care what's "justified", paying attention to morality in discussions of geostrategic contest is fool's errand. It's only good to be moral when it suits your interests, and I don't see the development of a nuclear power that could threaten China when it can help it is in any way compatible to China's interests.

The concept of minimum deterrence is that in a multi-party competition, getting nuked even a few times will weaken you so much that you'd become vulnerable to the other parties. 20 nukes with the appropriate delivery mechanisms is enough if opponents aren't willing to tolerate losing major metropolises to North Korean fire. If the United States invades North Korea, North Korea takes out SF and San Jose, leaving Google headless and much of the US SV community dead. If China invades North Korea, North Korea takes out Beijing.

Now the Russian are sending troop to the border of korea-Russia

Russia sends troops to North Korea border as tensions escalate
Russian president Vladimir Putin has reportedly ordered troops and weapons to be sent to the country’s border

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as tensions continue to escalate.

Unverified video footage appears to show a train, believed to be one of three, loaded with military equipment and headed towards the 11-mile border between Russia and the secretive hermit state.


Another video appears to show military helicopters moving towards the Russian border as well as army combat vehicles moving across rugged terrain.

A report from primemedia.RU claims: ‘Railway trains loaded with military equipment moving towards Primorsky region via Khabarovsk have been noticed by locals.

A military official added: ‘The movement of military equipment by different means of transport to southern areas is being observed across Primorsky region over the past week.’

The movement comes only a day and the US clashed at the UN over a UN security council statement, drafted by the US, which condemned North Korea’s latest failed test.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: ‘We’re reviewing all the status of North Korea, both in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism as well as the other ways in which we can bring pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to re-engage with us.’

Hwang Kyo-ahn, the acting president of South Korea, has also called for security agencies and international regimes to remain vigilant after North Korea launched a missile into the sea last week.

I wonder what the Sino-Russian contingency plan actually is. North Korea doesn't actually threaten Russian interests, so Russia would be more likely to reinforce North Korea in the event of an attack.

I think a lot of the media-coverage is pro-Trump spin; China alone may be aiming to stop the North Korean program, but if China and Russia come together, their goal will be to support the North Korean regime against an American attack.

The media spins this as Chinese support for Trump's policies to make Trump look less incompetent. The Chinese won't openly correct them because the Chinese don't want to alienate Trump unnecessarily, but a joint Sino-Russian force can be there only for one reason.

Russia would have to send troops in case of a crisis because they wouldn't want to deal with North Korean refugees crossing their border either.

Russia would watch and see how things go first, just like the first go at this, they wouldn't just rush in and defend anyone. Vladivostok is very close to the border, if these troop movements are real, and that's very questionable at this point given the sources involved, then it's probably to secure the region for refugees or spill-over fighting.

dingyibvs said:

The truth is the exact opposite. It's China that's been employing the "借刀杀人" tactic. NK is a bigger problem to China than to the US. In fact, NK has been a boon to American strategists and gives them an excellent excuse for their continued presence in SK. That China has been able to convince the world that NK is a problem to them and not to China is representative of how effective China's "借刀杀人" tactic has been. It's time to China to reap that reward, it's time for NK to submit to being a pawn or get a second knife in the back.

Click to expand...

US didn't need such a boon. They remained to threaten USSR/Russia and China. The remainder is spin, defending democracy in SK ruled by dictators until the late '80's etc.
The US now threaten to abrogate the armistice of 1953 and China and Russia are afraid of war but will not hesitate to oppose such an abrogation by force.
This would be worse than Libya.

They used to say "optimists study Russian, pessimists study Chinese, and the down-to-earth study the Kalashnikov assault rifle". That reflects an older tradition; once upon a time China, in the throes of the Cultural Revolution, was seen as too irresponsible to handle nukes, to the extent that the Russians and Americans conferred over nuking Chinese nuclear sites.

In the same way, the trend with all nuclear states is that once they go nuclear, they tend to mellow down and become less aggressive, partially because nuclear weapons guarantee security and partially because as a nuclear weapons state, a nuclear exchange becomes thinkable. Comparing modern North Korea to Mao's chaos, why should we assume that a nuclear North Korea would not be responsible with its armaments?

solarz said:

That is an empty bluff. The whole point of having nukes is so that other countries cannot coerce you through threat of war. That was why China developed nukes in the 60's.

Worse yet, the fate of Saddam Hussein has shown quite clearly how foolish it would be to give in to such threats and surrender the one thing that would have protected him.

Click to expand...

I think what happened to Gaddafi is an even more acute lesson in that vein.