China's strategy in Korean peninsula

A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
plawolf said:
That’s the kind of elementary economic ‘reasoning’ a high school economics student would be embarrassed about.

Trade wars damage ALL economies directly involved, and most economies not directly involved.

To even get the most basic idea of what might roughly happen in a trade war, you have to look at the composition of the trade between the economies; the composition and main contributors of the trade deficits;
the main players, owners and benefactors of that trade; the availability, price elasticity and supply side limitations of alternatives; the likely spillover impact on key 3rd party trading partners and their likely reactions and countermeasures.

And those are just the tip of the iceberg.

I do not have the time nor patience to give you the kind of comprehensive economic primer needed to have even the most basic understanding of how something as complex as a trade war will play out. Nor would the mods and other members want to wade through all that off topic talk.

So please, if you don’t have any background or even the most basic understanding in something, don’t assume that you can become an expert after reading a few circle jerk, rabble rousing fake news pieces from arts graduates who just write what their editors and readers want to read.

If a trade war with China was so simple and easy to win, why do you think every US President, including Trump, have suddenly and abruptly went to sing a very different tune about the idea after winning the White House and starts to get briefings from real experts about what their campaign rhetoric will mean in real life?
Click to expand...

Relax , mate.


The current system benefits the US upper class ,and it is not beneficial for the middle class and low class.

A trade war will be good for the middle/low income US guys.

The US politics dictated by the campaign donors.


And finaly : the trade imbalances transfering employment and labour demand from the deficit country ( US) to the surplus country ( china).
The job market surpluss lead stagnating / decreasing wages, and that decreasing the market demand for everything.
You know, basic of how the economy works.

Anyone can bluff up a lot of interesting and complex word and stuff to support given politics, but that doesn't effect the works of the market, only good to get political support to make a few guys rich.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Anlsvrthng said:
When Kim threatened SK?
Click to expand...
What? He used to say he would turn Seoul into a sea of fire. It was very stupid for him to do that and somewhat legitimize America's excuse of protecting SK. He should have said all along that North Korea loves its southern brothers and targets all weapons at foreign forces occupying Korean lands trying to divide the family. Seems to be on board now.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
What? He used to say he would turn Seoul into a sea of fire. It was very stupid for him to do that and somewhat legitimize America's excuse of protecting SK. He should have said all along that North Korea loves its southern brothers and targets all weapons at foreign forces occupying Korean lands trying to divide the family. Seems to be on board now.
Click to expand...
At that point of time he had chance to cover SK with fire.
Now the times change.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
OK, good to hear. But if it became apparent that the US was ready to invade NK and unify the Koreas by force under the US due to a military provocation by Kim (such as the Cheonan sinking), then the best plan is proactive regime change. If NK became indefensible because of their actions, (and considering China's growing strength, it's a strategic decision to push any direct confrontation with the US into the future,) then the only/best way to secure the northern peninsula is to take it from Kim before the US can do so, because they absolutely will.
Click to expand...
The 1950s Korean war comes to my mind. I believe China should do the same in the IFs. Kim need to take the blunt retaliation. China only enter the play when 38 is passed. Before that happens, I tolerate the bombing or surgical act by US to take Kim out. That's what Kim should pay for his own act. After the line is crossed, everything is changed, China would become defending her own interest (the buffer).

Proactive regime change on China's initiative is not my option. The key thing of all the failed regime changes is that it does not come within. Without home-grown desire of change, foreign imposed regime will never last. Both Soviet and USA have taught the world the same lesson for decades. All these regime changes only lead disasters to both the "changed" country and the "changing" country.

Of course, if Kim comes to his senses, stops threatening SK, and starts to act reasonably to justify its nuclear weapons (which, quite frankly, are really really easy to justify; all you have to do is say, "They are for defense from that lunatic threatening me" instead of "Here is a list of all the countries that I'd like to engulf in a sea of fire with my nukes.") and isolate the US as the trouble maker, I'd be happy to back this ally.
Click to expand...
I will never back NK for having nukes regardless what reason it promote. The non-proliferation regime is a foundation of the world order that benefit the world no matter how unfair and flawed it may be. It is better than nothing. NK's security concern should be addressed by any means except go nuclear. If we allow NK to go nuclear for what it claim to have no alternative (it does have, be a true ally of China just like SK relies on US), we would see the whole world full of nuclear weapons by almost every capable countries very soon. That is worse than an "unfair" international order.

If we want to see China to "preside" a prosperity world or "succeed USA" in dominating the world (depending who is speaking), we must always remember not to break everything established by USA, but only to adjust these established orders to benefit us and other disadvantaged people. To put it simple, police and prison are always needed regardless time, thief is always a thief regardless who he steel from.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
OK, good to hear. But if it became apparent that the US was ready to invade NK and unify the Koreas by force under the US due to a military provocation by Kim (such as the Cheonan sinking), then the best plan is proactive regime change. If NK became indefensible because of their actions, (and considering China's growing strength, it's a strategic decision to push any direct confrontation with the US into the future,) then the only/best way to secure the northern peninsula is to take it from Kim before the US can do so, because they absolutely will.

Of course, if Kim comes to his senses, stops threatening SK, and starts to act reasonably to justify its nuclear weapons (which, quite frankly, are really really easy to justify; all you have to do is say, "They are for defense from that lunatic threatening me" instead of "Here is a list of all the countries that I'd like to engulf in a sea of fire with my nukes.") and isolate the US as the trouble maker, I'd be happy to back this ally.
Click to expand...

Or, let US to shoot Kim first, then China can come to NK's aid? Once China has boots on the ground, comrades of Kim would be daring to topple him. The purge of NK leadership by Kim is a good example of his unpopularity within the NK leadership. Such toppling is more an internal purge rather than a foreign imposed regime change. The importance is that Purging Kim by his own comrades is far different from toppling the whole regime/institution. The previous one has happened in many countries (Khrushchev's removal in USSR and Arresting of Gang of Four in China), they are internal driven, so they last. The later one is USSR and USA in Afghanistan and USA in Iraq, they all ended up as disasters.

And it won't be late if China act in response than proactive, once boots on the ground, I don't believe anybody dare to engage a land war with China at her doorstep, the example has be set not long ago and China is only getting stronger than those days. Nothing to worry so long as China being prepared.
 
Last edited:
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
taxiya said:
Or, let US to shoot Kim first, then China can come to NK's aid? Once China has boots on the ground, comrades of Kim would be daring to topple him. The purge of NK leadership by Kim is a good example of his unpopularity within the NK leadership. Such toppling is more an internal purge rather than a foreign imposed regime change. The importance is that Purging Kim by his own comrades is far different from toppling the whole regime/institution. The previous one has happened in many countries (Khrushchev's removal in USSR and Arresting of Gang of Four in China), they are internal driven, so they last. The later one is USSR and USA in Afghanistan and USA in Iraq, they all ended up as disasters.

And it won't be late if China act in response than proactive, once boots on the ground, I don't believe anybody dare to engage a land war with China at her doorstep, the example has be set not long ago and China is only getting stronger than those days. Nothing to worry so long as China being prepared.
Click to expand...
What happens in NK with Kim dead is a toss-up. Only thing for sure is that SK will scramble at the opportunity to take over. What if they do? What if they don't and some worm takes over and is willing to sell out to the US for money? Can't risk any of it. If the US kills Kim, China needs to get in there ASAP to control as much territory as possible cus it'll be a race with the US. We'll have to share some because the US will have the head start on when things go down and Chinese and US forces will probably both have to stop and settle wherever they meet each other as opposed to killing each other for more space. If we proactively kill Kim, we'll have the head start and might control most/all of NK before the US can form a cohesive reaction.

In these situations, regime change is my second choice. Changing a regime is still indirect control. Best way is to get in, lock down the 38th, rig an election, and annex it into Chaoxian province. Who actually does the Kim-killing is not the biggest issue here. The point is that China must use force to control the Korean peninsula; we must not let any sort of semantics or "strict definition of defense" take away from this big picture. Problem permanently solved. They want nukes, they'll get 'em... as part of China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top