antiterror13
Brigadier
that is the best of your post so far .. keep it that way, contribute well to this respected forum, please. No lies and cynical and nasty posts .. ok?
China's strategy in Korean peninsula
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
that is the best of your post so far .. keep it that way, contribute well to this respected forum, please. No lies and cynical and nasty posts .. ok?
All true. Just want to emphasize one key point that you and everybody may be aware of already. There need to be a "turning event".
In the past, an event happened and made a hundreds years of closeness between Japan and China, guess you already know it, the conflict between Tang China and Yamato Japan in 663AD.
In case of US and Japan, it was US victory over Japan at the end of WWII and the rising USSR and US rivalry.
In case of possible future China and Japan, that event has not happened yet, not necessarily in the extreme form of a war, but a "turning event" or "events" some kind of fundamental change.
We will have to wait and see what event(s) will be this time.
I just read through couple pages of the discussion and I want to say its rare to have discussion like that that even with people disagreeing with each other, everyone still respects and can actually learn from each other. I want to share some of my thoughts.
To Blackstone, when you argue that reemergence of China today is unique is both yes and no. Its very much yes that China is able to grow like this in the modern age under modern technology and more importantly, grow under the ever watchful eye of US, when a similar challenger like USSR got absolutely crushed, but yet China has found a way to succeed.
Its also no that when you take a historical perspective this is not at all unique, in fact China has faced far worse geopolitical crisis in the past and recover from all of it and became stronger than before. The past 150 years of European/Japanese invasion, Mao's misrule don't even belong belong to top 5 of China's history of arise from ashes. The first one is obviously the invasion of Mongol, where for the first time the entire Chinese civilization got swollen whole by another civilization that has far inferior culture and technology, this is especially so that at time of Mongol invasion, the Song was on the verge of industrialization and all was lost to history, they controlled China for almost a hundred years, that was the first time the Chinese civilization was in danger of extinction like what happen to the ancient Egyptians. Then there is the break up of China into 3 kingdoms after the powerful Han dynasty, that dynamic lasted for almost 100 years, the Wu Hu rebellion, Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern and Southern dynasties which lasted for more than 200 years, where no government was powerful enough to conquer each other and things settle into an equilibrium and everyone got kinda of COMFORTABLE with it, during those times there was real possibility of China divide into permanent nation states like Europe. Then during Tang you have this mother of all rebellion/civil war the Lushan Rebellion, where I think about half of Chinese population died off and it pretty much ended China's first multi-national cosmopolitan dynasty. I mean heck, the last Han Chinese government before PRC was Ming which was again.. completely conquered by another people the Manchu, but the Han Chinese did a good job convert the Manchu into a total authentic Chinese dynasty, so that's why it lasted for so long, unlike the Mongol who were not willing to assimilate and got kicked out in less than 100 years.
Compare all of this to last 200 years of China, Japan really never had a chance to take over China, its plan to take over China was flawed from the very beginning, there was factions inside Japanese military that wanted to attack China or Russia or US, the China faction won but not everyone in Japan government was happy, and the plan was sloppy and flawed from the very beginning anyway. Japan got confident from their experience of annexing small places like Korea and Taiwan, they thought doing the same to China was going to be just easy.... but not really, and don't get me started on their Manchuko project.... a Manchu nation with over 90% Han population, what a farce. During each of ancient Chinese period that I listed above, you have well over 20-60% of Chinese population death from chaos, and it took more than 2-3 generations for China to recover, Japan on the other hand... I would argue did China a favor when it decide to invade China, because they push out all European concessions, so when China clean house later on, they didn't have to individually kick out the German, the Franch etc... all they had to do is kick out Japan and they got their country back, Japan's ... ps I'm not downplaying Japan's war crime, what they did itself was horrible, but compare to the suffering of China's past to the most recent period was pretty easy relatively speaking, and that is why China at the death of Mao actually had a very good strong foundation, all it need was a leader like Deng who knows how to govern and you see what happens.
Lastly I want to get back on topic of this NK crisis, I want to play devil's advocate, that its in US's best interest to push NK to war. This is because it might be the last ditch effort for US to stop China's growth, This is very similar to how US became the world's current superpower after WW2, it didn't have to sacrifice as much blood during the war, the war was not fought on US soil, US got rich by selling weapons for Europeans to kill each other, and US dealt the death blow (Normandy) when it was clear that Germany was gong to lose to Russia, during all this time when Europe almost exhaust itself fighting each other, that death blow summit US's post war leadership once for all.
If war break out in Korea, depends how bad it goes, it will ruin half of Asia and potentially halt China's ascension for 20 years or more. if war breaks out, there will be millions of refugee all flood into China, that will put tremendous pressure on Chinese economy, and not to mention the cost of rebuild NK which China has to get involved after NK losses the war.
Also during this war, there is very high chance that NK to use its nuke on SK and Japan when it know its about to lose, if they does that, it will be even worse for China, the refuge that was suppose to flee into SK will all flee to China, and both SK and NK will be in ruins and it will be even more costly for China to help them to rebuild. And there is also a very remote but possible chance that suicidal Kim might launch a nuke to attack China itself, if that happens, no one can predict how history will change. But whatever the case, US will benefit, it will watch Asia destroy itself, stop its economic progress and US military will have a excuse to dominate weaken Asia once again.
Obvious its will be extremely irresponsible if US openly and intentionally attack NK and push it to full scale war, but if US can somehow not fire the first shot, but force NK to attack SK/Japan first, then it would claim in self defense to help SK destroy NK and the above scenario would happen, and after the war is over, US will exert more control over SK to "help" Korean rebuild.
Any thoughts on this?
To Blackstone, when you argue that reemergence of China today is unique is both yes and no. Its very much yes that China is able to grow like this in the modern age under modern technology and more importantly, grow under the ever watchful eye of US, when a similar challenger like USSR got absolutely crushed, but yet China has found a way to succeed.
Its also no that when you take a historical perspective this is not at all unique, in fact China has faced far worse geopolitical crisis in the past and recover from all of it and became stronger than before. The past 150 years of European/Japanese invasion, Mao's misrule don't even belong belong to top 5 of China's history of arise from ashes. The first one is obviously the invasion of Mongol, where for the first time the entire Chinese civilization got swollen whole by another civilization that has far inferior culture and technology, this is especially so that at time of Mongol invasion, the Song was on the verge of industrialization and all was lost to history, they controlled China for almost a hundred years, that was the first time the Chinese civilization was in danger of extinction like what happen to the ancient Egyptians. Then there is the break up of China into 3 kingdoms after the powerful Han dynasty, that dynamic lasted for almost 100 years, the Wu Hu rebellion, Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern and Southern dynasties which lasted for more than 200 years, where no government was powerful enough to conquer each other and things settle into an equilibrium and everyone got kinda of COMFORTABLE with it, during those times there was real possibility of China divide into permanent nation states like Europe. Then during Tang you have this mother of all rebellion/civil war the Lushan Rebellion, where I think about half of Chinese population died off and it pretty much ended China's first multi-national cosmopolitan dynasty. I mean heck, the last Han Chinese government before PRC was Ming which was again.. completely conquered by another people the Manchu, but the Han Chinese did a good job convert the Manchu into a total authentic Chinese dynasty, so that's why it lasted for so long, unlike the Mongol who were not willing to assimilate and got kicked out in less than 100 years.
Compare all of this to last 200 years of China, Japan really never had a chance to take over China, its plan to take over China was flawed from the very beginning, there was factions inside Japanese military that wanted to attack China or Russia or US, the China faction won but not everyone in Japan government was happy, and the plan was sloppy and flawed from the very beginning anyway. Japan got confident from their experience of annexing small places like Korea and Taiwan, they thought doing the same to China was going to be just easy.... but not really, and don't get me started on their Manchuko project.... a Manchu nation with over 90% Han population, what a farce. During each of ancient Chinese period that I listed above, you have well over 20-60% of Chinese population death from chaos, and it took more than 2-3 generations for China to recover, Japan on the other hand... I would argue did China a favor when it decide to invade China, because they push out all European concessions, so when China clean house later on, they didn't have to individually kick out the German, the Franch etc... all they had to do is kick out Japan and they got their country back, Japan's ... ps I'm not downplaying Japan's war crime, what they did itself was horrible, but compare to the suffering of China's past to the most recent period was pretty easy relatively speaking, and that is why China at the death of Mao actually had a very good strong foundation, all it need was a leader like Deng who knows how to govern and you see what happens.
Lastly I want to get back on topic of this NK crisis, I want to play devil's advocate, that its in US's best interest to push NK to war. This is because it might be the last ditch effort for US to stop China's growth, This is very similar to how US became the world's current superpower after WW2, it didn't have to sacrifice as much blood during the war, the war was not fought on US soil, US got rich by selling weapons for Europeans to kill each other, and US dealt the death blow (Normandy) when it was clear that Germany was gong to lose to Russia, during all this time when Europe almost exhaust itself fighting each other, that death blow summit US's post war leadership once for all.
If war break out in Korea, depends how bad it goes, it will ruin half of Asia and potentially halt China's ascension for 20 years or more. if war breaks out, there will be millions of refugee all flood into China, that will put tremendous pressure on Chinese economy, and not to mention the cost of rebuild NK which China has to get involved after NK losses the war.
Also during this war, there is very high chance that NK to use its nuke on SK and Japan when it know its about to lose, if they does that, it will be even worse for China, the refuge that was suppose to flee into SK will all flee to China, and both SK and NK will be in ruins and it will be even more costly for China to help them to rebuild. And there is also a very remote but possible chance that suicidal Kim might launch a nuke to attack China itself, if that happens, no one can predict how history will change. But whatever the case, US will benefit, it will watch Asia destroy itself, stop its economic progress and US military will have a excuse to dominate weaken Asia once again.
Obvious its will be extremely irresponsible if US openly and intentionally attack NK and push it to full scale war, but if US can somehow not fire the first shot, but force NK to attack SK/Japan first, then it would claim in self defense to help SK destroy NK and the above scenario would happen, and after the war is over, US will exert more control over SK to "help" Korean rebuild.
Any thoughts on this?
antiterror13
Brigadier
Outstanding written ... the way you sum it up for over 2,000 years history .. is just amazing and so simple
I reckon there is a real possibility that young Kim would launch a nuke attack on China and Russia soil as well, the intention is very clear to bring the war to the end of the world ... as China and Russia would launch a nuke attack on the US soil and Europe ... if the war is full scale and NK is about to lose and annihilated
If the war is limited, SK and Japan would suffer most ...perhaps Taiwan and China would benefit a lot
BUT, I don't see that to happen .... Trump and Xi would meet young Kim this year ... in China and then those 3 leaders would win Nobel Price in peace .... everybody happy
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
@sanblvd
Excellent post!
Although I would question the role the Japanese invasion played in helping China to kick foreign concessions out of China.
The fact is that many western concessions remained firmly in place even after the Japanese overran the surrounding area.
The most famous illustration of this would be role foreign concessions played in helping to save Chinese civilians during the infamous rape of Najing.
It was only during the Chinese civil war, as Mao's Red Army approached that westerners finally gave up their concessions.
But as you say, that's all historical and not really relevant here.
On your point about the US looking to provoke a war with China, well, I think that is true, but only up to a certain extent.
Like the Japanese during WWII, the US is internally deeply divided on the matter. There are those in the US who sees China as an existential threat to the US, and so are pushing as hard as they can to start a war with China as soon as possible; but there are also others who thinks Russia is the bigger threat and wants to kill the bear before focusing on the Dragon; and there are those who don't want war at all.
But above all, those in the US who wants war with China knows they are in the minority, and that the American people will not tolerate or support a war with China that will cost thousands of American lives. That forces them to try and use third party forces instead of looking for direct confrontation.
I think Steve Bannon was firmly in the camp who wanted war with China, but with his fall from grace, there is a chance the US is no longer looking for a fight.
TBH, I think Hillary Clinton was a far more fanatical believer in the need to fight China than Trump, as exemplified during the time as Secretary of State.
Broadly speaking, the US hawks originally wanted to encourage all the other states in the SCS dispute to make sweeping land grabs, which they could then 'lease' to the US to build military bases on, which would allow the US to put a stranglehold on the world's busiest shipping lines which trillions of dollars of trade passes through, mostly headed to China!
The US hawks reasoned that the SCS is far enough that China may not have the will to fight for it, and even if it does, it is far away enough from Chinese mainland bases as to not allow the Chinese to enjoy home field advantage on a fight.
But China showed that it not only had the will to make the issue one of core national interest (thereby signalling its willingness to fight a war over the issue); it also surprised the US with its raw industrial might in being able to build massive, viable and mutually supportive military bases out of basically nothing.
Those major bases in the SCS are worth much more than their equivalent number of carriers in a fight. Not only could those bases support more and heavier aircraft than even USN supercarriers, those islands are pretty much invulnerable to attack. You can hit them with hundreds or even thousands of missiles and bombs, but they can be operational again within hours of the heaviest raids. OTOH, a supercarriers can be mission killed or even sunk outright if hit by a single weapon, especially something like the DF21D AShBM.
After their plans in the SCS fell through, the US war hawks turned their attention to NK.
But I think again, the goal was not to start a fight directly, but instead to try and pressure and trick China into attacking NK for America.
I can see Trump being tickled by the idea of tricking China into taking out NK and bearing the full military, diplomatic and post conflict economic reconstruction costs of such a calamity. But once it become obvious China wasnt going to take the bait, it left Trump rather exposed, as he is going to find it hard to walk all that rhetoric back without looking weak and stupid.
That's probably how and why Trump's attitude towards China changed so much - because Xi probably saw an opportunity and offered to help Trump de-escalate with grace while allowing Trump to take full credit publically. And that is exactly what Trump desperately needed.
Chinese regulators ruling in favour of Trump Org in many longstanding legal disputes in China no doubt didn't hurt either. But Trump is of course above allowing such personal gains to affect his presidential decisions.
Excellent post!
Although I would question the role the Japanese invasion played in helping China to kick foreign concessions out of China.
The fact is that many western concessions remained firmly in place even after the Japanese overran the surrounding area.
The most famous illustration of this would be role foreign concessions played in helping to save Chinese civilians during the infamous rape of Najing.
It was only during the Chinese civil war, as Mao's Red Army approached that westerners finally gave up their concessions.
But as you say, that's all historical and not really relevant here.
On your point about the US looking to provoke a war with China, well, I think that is true, but only up to a certain extent.
Like the Japanese during WWII, the US is internally deeply divided on the matter. There are those in the US who sees China as an existential threat to the US, and so are pushing as hard as they can to start a war with China as soon as possible; but there are also others who thinks Russia is the bigger threat and wants to kill the bear before focusing on the Dragon; and there are those who don't want war at all.
But above all, those in the US who wants war with China knows they are in the minority, and that the American people will not tolerate or support a war with China that will cost thousands of American lives. That forces them to try and use third party forces instead of looking for direct confrontation.
I think Steve Bannon was firmly in the camp who wanted war with China, but with his fall from grace, there is a chance the US is no longer looking for a fight.
TBH, I think Hillary Clinton was a far more fanatical believer in the need to fight China than Trump, as exemplified during the time as Secretary of State.
Broadly speaking, the US hawks originally wanted to encourage all the other states in the SCS dispute to make sweeping land grabs, which they could then 'lease' to the US to build military bases on, which would allow the US to put a stranglehold on the world's busiest shipping lines which trillions of dollars of trade passes through, mostly headed to China!
The US hawks reasoned that the SCS is far enough that China may not have the will to fight for it, and even if it does, it is far away enough from Chinese mainland bases as to not allow the Chinese to enjoy home field advantage on a fight.
But China showed that it not only had the will to make the issue one of core national interest (thereby signalling its willingness to fight a war over the issue); it also surprised the US with its raw industrial might in being able to build massive, viable and mutually supportive military bases out of basically nothing.
Those major bases in the SCS are worth much more than their equivalent number of carriers in a fight. Not only could those bases support more and heavier aircraft than even USN supercarriers, those islands are pretty much invulnerable to attack. You can hit them with hundreds or even thousands of missiles and bombs, but they can be operational again within hours of the heaviest raids. OTOH, a supercarriers can be mission killed or even sunk outright if hit by a single weapon, especially something like the DF21D AShBM.
After their plans in the SCS fell through, the US war hawks turned their attention to NK.
But I think again, the goal was not to start a fight directly, but instead to try and pressure and trick China into attacking NK for America.
I can see Trump being tickled by the idea of tricking China into taking out NK and bearing the full military, diplomatic and post conflict economic reconstruction costs of such a calamity. But once it become obvious China wasnt going to take the bait, it left Trump rather exposed, as he is going to find it hard to walk all that rhetoric back without looking weak and stupid.
That's probably how and why Trump's attitude towards China changed so much - because Xi probably saw an opportunity and offered to help Trump de-escalate with grace while allowing Trump to take full credit publically. And that is exactly what Trump desperately needed.
Chinese regulators ruling in favour of Trump Org in many longstanding legal disputes in China no doubt didn't hurt either. But Trump is of course above allowing such personal gains to affect his presidential decisions.
sanblvd, NK has yet to demonstrate the ability to deliver his nukes, but once he does, the threat to cause widespread chaos across East Asia is real, as you illustrated. This is why I believe China should bite the bullet and denuclearize NK now, one way or another, as the situation can no longer wait.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Or the US could bite the bullet and sit down and talk with the DPRK instead of raising tensions and rhetoric for regime change.
If that could lead to denuclearization, sure, but NK's rockets will always have an easier time reaching Beijing than DC.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
People in Beijing aren't scared. People in DC making all the ruckus.
@plawolf
One question about the SCS bases withstanding hundreds/thousands of missiles.
How hardened are the fuel tanks and personnel/equipment bunkers so they can repair?
My view is that the bases are more of a tripwire in a full-scale war, but which can be resupplied by ships/seaplanes.
In any case, AG600 seaplanes should still be able to refuel and operate.
One question about the SCS bases withstanding hundreds/thousands of missiles.
How hardened are the fuel tanks and personnel/equipment bunkers so they can repair?
My view is that the bases are more of a tripwire in a full-scale war, but which can be resupplied by ships/seaplanes.
In any case, AG600 seaplanes should still be able to refuel and operate.