China's strategy in Korean peninsula

AndrewS said:

If there is a China-SK alignment, it's just a matter of time before NK is absorbed.

Click to expand...

The way to do that it to achieve independence for South Korea. The North is clearly already independent. So the US forces must de removed from South Korea and and having them install the THAAD system is a step in the wrong direction. South Korea might declare itself independent and ask neighbouring countries for guarantees but how would US react to that?
After South Korean independence the two parts can start a reunification process that might take years but that would include early on the building of rail, road, pipeline and glass fibre connections between the South and the North, China and Russia.

delft said:

The way to do that it to achieve independence for South Korea. The North is clearly already independent. So the US forces must de removed from South Korea and and having them install the THAAD system is a step in the wrong direction. South Korea might declare itself independent and ask neighbouring countries for guarantees but how would US react to that?
After South Korean independence the two parts can start a reunification process that might take years but that would include early on the building of rail, road, pipeline and glass fibre connections between the South and the North, China and Russia.

Click to expand...

Yes, for South Korea to become independent, they would need to terminate the SK-US military alliance. But that carries all sorts of risks as well. The only way for them to mitigate this would be

a) a security guarantee from China
and/or
b) a concerted increase in military spending, so that South Korea can stand on its own without outside assistance.

Course A is difficult given the existing China-NK relationship, but not impossible given the contempt that China holds for NK.

Course B would face a lot of resistance, as there are many interests in SK who are happy to underspend on the military. SK really should be spending around 5.8% of GDP on the military like Israel or UAE, which would be twice what they spend today.

---

And if SK asked China for a security guarantee, the US would not react well at all.

AndrewS said:

Yes, for South Korea to become independent, they would need to terminate the SK-US military alliance. But that carries all sorts of risks as well. The only way for them to mitigate this would be

a) a security guarantee from China
and/or
b) a concerted increase in military spending, so that South Korea can stand on its own without outside assistance.

Course A is difficult given the existing China-NK relationship, but not impossible given the contempt that China holds for NK.

Course B would face a lot of resistance, as there are many interests in SK who are happy to underspend on the military. SK really should be spending around 5.8% of GDP on the military like Israel or UAE, which would be twice what they spend today.

---

And if SK asked China for a security guarantee, the US would not react well at all.

Click to expand...

Already in 1996 and according to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the State Department South Korea's defence budget was 2.43 times that of the North. ( ACDA was abolished by Bush Jr. ) There is no way North Korea could achieve anything by invading the South and the other way round. US forces are in the South to defend US interests, not to defend the South against the North. That was why the US Commander-in-Chief also the Commander-in-Chief of the South Korean armed forces until 2015 and he would retake that position in case of a next Korean war.
So your last sentence is the improtant one.

delft said:

Already in 1996 and according to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the State Department South Korea's defence budget was 2.43 times that of the North. ( ACDA was abolished by Bush Jr. ) There is no way North Korea could achieve anything by invading the South and the other way round. US forces are in the South to defend US interests, not to defend the South against the North. That was why the US Commander-in-Chief also the Commander-in-Chief of the South Korean armed forces until 2015 and he would retake that position in case of a next Korean war.
So your last sentence is the improtant one.

Click to expand...

SK really needs it's own BMD programme, so that it doesn't need THAAD from the USA.

That's at least $15billion alone. Then there's all the other stuff that comes with having a self-sufficient military-industrial complex.

That is why I say SK should be spending twice as much as it is today.

And come to think of it, $15billion for a Korean THAAD is probably CHEAP compared to the economic costs that China has and will impose on SK for hosting US THAAD.

But alas, SK didn't have the foresight to start development 10 years ago for its own THAAD system.

AndrewS said:

Yes, for South Korea to become independent, they would need to terminate the SK-US military alliance. But that carries all sorts of risks as well. The only way for them to mitigate this would be

a) a security guarantee from China
and/or
b) a concerted increase in military spending, so that South Korea can stand on its own without outside assistance.

Course A is difficult given the existing China-NK relationship, but not impossible given the contempt that China holds for NK.

Course B would face a lot of resistance, as there are many interests in SK who are happy to underspend on the military. SK really should be spending around 5.8% of GDP on the military like Israel or UAE, which would be twice what they spend today.

---

And if SK asked China for a security guarantee, the US would not react well at all.

Click to expand...

The US rejection/sabotage aside, I'd think a Chinese guarantee to SK is easier than you think. I'd replace "not impossible" with "(China) willingly or actively offering". The reason for that is not because of China's "contempt" to NK (if there is serious contempt).

There is no reason for China not to help/defend/guarantee the safety of a friendly country and important partner if SK choose to be. China defend NK for her own strategic safety. China will defend SK for her own economical and also strategic safety. The motivation to defend SK (in the future) is only more not less than to NK for at least economical/trade reasons.

Another thought about SK/NK reunification, two separate securities' guarantee will by itself serve as a guarantee of China's influence on the reunification process and a final settlement of a friendly peninsular. Only when that friendliness is secured as China feels will those guarantees go away, and only after that will China endorse the reunification. I think China has no objections to that eventual reunification if both NK and SK want, but China prefers status quo before seeing the friendliness. The recent article by Global times has pointed that (status quo) out very loud "no regime change, no crossing of 38 line".

AndrewS said:

SK really needs it's own BMD programme, so that it doesn't need THAAD from the USA.

That's at least $15billion alone. Then there's all the other stuff that comes with having a self-sufficient military-industrial complex.

That is why I say SK should be spending twice as much as it is today.

And come to think of it, $15billion for a Korean THAAD is probably CHEAP compared to the economic costs that China has and will impose on SK for hosting US THAAD.

But alas, SK didn't have the foresight to start development 10 years ago for its own THAAD system.

Click to expand...

That would be like "头疼医头，脚疼医脚" (treating the symptom than the root cause). There will be no end of whatever new problems may show up down the road. IF SK does not allow (if it can) US to mount massive drill against NK aiming for a regime change, there would not be a need for THAAD like program. The NK crisis had a very good chance to deescalate around the Clinton time, only to be reversed by Bush Jr. when he labeled NK to be one of three evils to be destroyed. SK's problem is that it let US to dictate its (and the peninsular) future rather than standing on its own feet. In this respect and only in this respect, NK does much better than SK in that NK is much more independent from China/Russia than SK from US.

taxiya said:

That would be like "头疼医头，脚疼医脚" (treating the symptom than the root cause). There will be no end of whatever new problems may show up down the road. IF SK does not allow (if it can) US to mount massive drill against NK aiming for a regime change, there would not be a need for THAAD like program. The NK crisis had a very good chance to deescalate around the Clinton time, only to be reversed by Bush Jr. when he labeled NK to be one of three evils to be destroyed. SK's problem is that it let US to dictate its (and the peninsular) future rather than standing on its own feet. In this respect and only in this respect, NK does much better than SK in that NK is much more independent from China/Russia than SK from US.

Click to expand...

I would disagree that SK building its own missile defence is just treating the sympton rather than the cause.

If SK is more secure militarily through its own means, then it can be much more independent and not have to depend on the USA and follow whatever Bush Jr or Trump wants to do.

But I think what we see is the "shrimp among whales" mentality coming through. Eg. SK has much larger neighbours so struggles to be independent because there was always an alignment with a larger power.

It's bad in that SK struggles to define an independent mindset.
But good from the point of view that SK is more likely to follow China, if China is powerful enough.

AndrewS said:

SK really needs it's own BMD programme, so that it doesn't need THAAD from the USA.

That's at least $15billion alone. Then there's all the other stuff that comes with having a self-sufficient military-industrial complex.

That is why I say SK should be spending twice as much as it is today.

And come to think of it, $15billion for a Korean THAAD is probably CHEAP compared to the economic costs that China has and will impose on SK for hosting US THAAD.

But alas, SK didn't have the foresight to start development 10 years ago for its own THAAD system.

Click to expand...

I don't think SK will choose this path, but If SK choose to do so, it won't be limited to a BMD program. It will become a mini arm race directly against NK, but also alarms Japan to join in because Japan will not trust a militarily independent SK from US. Japan's move will then trigger China and Russia to step up. It is a chain reaction that SK will loose even more than not to do so.

But on the evil side of the thought, pulling more money from maintaining SK's tech advancement into spiraling military cost does serve China well. When there is no Samsung (or the likes) around, SK will be more cooperative or less of a concern to China.

AndrewS said:

I would disagree that SK building its own missile defence is just treating the sympton rather than the cause.

If SK is more secure militarily through its own means, then it can be much more independent and not have to depend on the USA and follow whatever Bush Jr or Trump wants to do.

Click to expand...

hmm, sounds like we are in a "chicken vs. egg" situation. If SK was independent, SK would not let the crisis escalate to today's situation, but to do that, it need the capability and spending of something like THAAD which it did not have or more likely NOT willing to pay the cost.

To have that kind of capability and bear the cost, SK would have been acting like NK (military first). NK is poor because it is trying to maintain its independence from China and Russia (USSR), it is their price to pay. SK would have to pay the same price if it choose to do without any super-power (US or China). SK simply chose to be rich. It can not have both.

On the film industry.

Given the huge success of Wolf Warrior 2, will Hollywood follow the money and start casting male Chinese leads in future movies?

Soft power indeed