Korea Situation

[Basileia ton Rhomaion]

Most needs to move at most like 10 km to hit Seoul, self-propelled artillery can often cover that distance under 15 to 20 minutes.


Breakthrough is usually used to mean combined infantry plus cavalry movement into enemy controlled territory. There's no breakthrough involved when firing non-rocket conventional high-explosive artillery, the things just fall from the sky and you can't do much about it.


As if NK didn't have air defense, and as if attacking hardened positions in the mountains was that easy. The reality is that, even if it came to it, it would take weeks for SK to actually clear the NK positions.


You overestimate such capabilities. How many proper aircraft can SK put in the sky at any given time? (edit: NK also keeps a significant proportion of ammunition at the unit level in hardened artillery sites, so the logistic point is moot)


Estimated rate of failure for NK artillery is between 75% and 85%. When they already have over 1000 conventional pieces within range, which can fire between 12 and over 24 rounds per hour (if we go by their 170mm guns), the best case scenario is over 12000 shells in a single hour, 9000 successfully detonating.

Their 'newer' 170mm pieces can do 12 rounds in a row under 5 minutes, then fall-back to a slower rate of fire. I just couldn't find a source saying how many of these NK has.

I'd read that. It's the reason I commented on preparedness.

Here's a map, the size of the circles are relative to the holding capacity:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These are what the signs look like:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yep. I've seen it every now and then living in Korea. Subway stations also have that sign. At least the public workers will know what to do in case of war because they do instruct them while private institutions don't really seem to care to hold the drill. Guess it is the desensitization issue.

[Diamat]

I actually recall those signs too. I just didn't know it specifically meant "bomb" shelter. They look so friendly.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Missile defense system that S.Korea's Moon also hastily deployed almost right after the election? The one that created the chasm between China and S.Korea right now? I am pretty sure Moon did not order the removal of such system from the country's U.S. military bases. Moon did never say that he doesn't want the system deployed in the U.S. military bases. But he did advocate for the proper assessment of environmental impact and such to delay the deployment, given the diplomatic mess he got elected into. S.Korea's liberals also did not really fervently oppose the system, it's just that they did not like the way it was done by ex-president Park which was virtually just a snap decision from her without much consideration of geopolitical implications. Personally, I am in agreement with the deployment of THAAD because it is a strategically valuable asset that can both pressure China and Russia while surveying on the N.Korea. It is very doubtful that we'd be in this mess had Trump reacted more diplomatically. Trump tried to talk about N.Korea without S.Korea, i.e. talking with Shinzo Abe about N.Korea. Then he tried pressuring China, worked somewhat, but from Trump's own tweets, he is not really pleased and even frustrated that it did not work. Then came Kim Jong-un in his new year's speech, proposing talks with S.Korea only. Which in turn, suddenly made S.Korea very relevant in this political game. Pretty sure it is clear that one cannot solve this problem without all the regional powers and that includes S.Korea.

If you go backwards in the thread you will know what I am talking about. Soon after taking office Moon and his Liberals were decrying the threat that THAAD posed to peace between ROK and DPRK and relations between the PRC and ROK. What happened almost immediately after which made Moon simply accept it and go back with his tail between his legs? Well it was the literal bombshell that the DPRK missile program was more advanced than anyone had known prior, and Kim Jong Un threatening to nuke the world. Why he has returned to the naive "let's negotiate with Kim Jong Un" Ronald Reagan style approach is unknown to me.

Typically anti-war Liberals love to go into the geopolitical implications and over analyze a situation. When someone points out how unreasonable and naive they are being they almost immediately switch to the "actually I'm not against taking decisive action when we really need it but I need to nitpick about whether or not we actually will", it's almost like a delaying tactic and an attempt to maintain their credibility when in the face of a clear pro-active threat. The history of modern Korea has shown the DPRK to be very proactive and the ROK to be extremely reactive, ROK foreign policy is reactive. Now I am certainly anti-war, the Iraq War and the Afghan War to be precise and I have definitely done this sort of thing before. It's so blatantly easy to recognize and see.

Again what ROK needs to accept is that they are not one of the geo-political movers in the area, the hegemon if you will. The two powers in Asia are the USA and China. Instead they adopt a sort of lukewarm reactionary position, Park for all her faults realized the inherent threat that China/PRC and the DPRK posed. After the fallout of her political scandals it was easy for the Liberals to criticize her relations with North Korea and her measures but given how rapidly the DPRK proved her correct this became an almost moot point on their part. Their suggestion that "see we were correct all along, if Park had not been so reactionary and painfully straightforward the DPRK wouldn't be bearing down on our heads" is clearly an incorrect statement. DPRK isn't some cub and China is clearly not interested in a regular relationship with the ROK. Whether Trump's mishandling of the situation with South Korea is their reason for Moon adopting this stance or not, Moon shouldn't be worrying about the medium by which Trump told him a fact, regardless Moon should have accepted that Trump's position with regards to the DPRK is the correct stance. Obviously Trump was being too pushy with the ROK but that doesn't mean that he is therefore inherently wrong and DPRK's actions and reactions prove this. Moreover I would argue that it provided the impetus for DPRK and China softening in their stance. The fact is that China and the DPRK only respond to our displays of power, heck Bill Clinton proved this.

S.Korea is not as irrelevant as early Trump administration's strategy seemed to have indicated and what you seem to suggest. This problem CANNOT be solved by China and America alone, it will have to involve all the powers (which also happens to be global powers like S.Korea, Russia, U.S., Japan, and China). None of these powers are irrelevant and they all made themselves relevant. N.Korea basically put S.Korea into the utmost importance by proposing talks before Olympics and by inviting Moon to Pyongyang. Which, in the process, it also made N.Korea more relevant than ever. China has been relevant because it is the biggest sponsor of N.Korea's existence. Russia is becoming more relevant with its fuel supply overtaking China. U.S. is basically receiving challenge to its hegemony in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, so they can't backdown. S.Korea was and is going to be a relevant player in this region because of its shared heritage with N.Korea and being a host of U.S. base all the while being geographically close to N.Korea. U.S. would not have been interested in N.Korea at all if there was no military base installments for its own interest (unlike what Trump claims... no countries do anything out of sheer altruism and good will).

And yet if tomorrow China told the DPRK to stop their saber rattling what would the DPRK do? Sure they could ignore China but how well would that go down if China was interested in ending the conflict (which they are not). China does not control the DPRK but the certainly have influence, if not with Kim Jong Un then with the party. You could list these sorts of things all the time but the main point that subverts these issues are that in the long run the DPRK cannot compete with neither the ROK nor the US hegemony and that the DPRK is completely dependent on the PRC and Russia can't do anything about that unless the Chinese change their minds and back down from the Korea issue entirely. The only reason that the Chinese have not backed the ROK is because it is governed by bottom tier politicians and statesmen who are still very much stuck in a Maoist train of thought.

The USA does not need bases in Korea to care about the Korea issue. Bases or no bases the fact is that the ROK make up the US hegemony in Asia and are one of the links in the archipelago chain. Obviously the USA wants to preserve this status quo but they also have no problem with subverting the status quo in order to achieve a winning objective. This is the opposite from China since they neither want the ROK to disappear in its entirety but they do not want the DPRK to disappear either. So essentially China is in a no win situation when pressured and they are forced to make a choice, so far they have backed the DPRK. Which takes me back to the inherent political realities that I have just discussed. If it was to protect their bases what really was the point of propping up Taiwan or becoming involved in the Korean War?

If the war does come, it will be likely fought on the Korean peninsular, not in China, not in U.S., not in Japan. Is it so wrong that S.Koreans, regardless of their political identity, not want war? It is hardly inept. It's much better than having another potential provocation during the Olympic games like it happened in 2002 World Cup. Moon engaging N.Korea with talks is not an action of ineptness. It's more of insuring that Olympics won't see provocations and end up being a Fearlympics and potentially endangering millions of lives. Again, the missile defense system controversies were more about the procedure and the process of deal making, not the system's deployment in itself. That's what Moon and his party argued in the first place. Had ex-president not hastily deployed THAAD without due process, it wouldn't be a problem.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting a bomb fall on your house, so long as you don't lie to yourself that it can never happen so long as you suck up to Kim Jong Un or don't start the war. The matter of the Olympics is almost something else entirely but Seoul does not need to host the Olympics. Well at least they are using it for what it was intended, using it as a means for negotiation has some historical precedence. It just won't work out though, the only English that Kim Jong Un understands is ICBM. That said Moon is wrong, there would always be a problem and 68 years of foreign relations with China and North Korea have proven this. It is dumb to think that China and North Korea have only rustled their jimmies now because of THAAD, as if no other precedent of this sort of thing happening exists.

U.S. and China can talk and even agree that N.Korea should dissolve. But that's about it, it's all talks. China's grip on N.Korea is not as firm as people think. I think Kim basically demonstrated that by exploiting the Chinese dilemma by being defiant and enjoying the continued support out of Chinese security interest. Only way this can end will be if S.Korea and N.Korea somehow reach a dramatic resolution that unites them together. I'd think at this point, it's not really a denial to say that this problem is a matter between all 6 parties in the region rather than U.S. - China problem. They can reach all the resolutions in the world and it might not even change a thing without other powers in the region, especially if 2 Koreas don't cooperate, especially when those 2 are not colonies of U.S. and China.

That isn't the point though. If China coaxes North Korea to bring down their rhetoric North Korea could agree, probably would have no choice but to agree, or they could show the desperate reality of the situation that DPRK does not intend to negotiate and is only biding their time to develop another weapon.

Also, about the N.Korean firepower thing, if anything, they themselves know they do not have capacity to operate all the artillery pieces, which some are so old that might be dysfunctional but still listed to bloat the number. If anything, recent defections from military makes the KPA functionality questionable. It may have the numbers, but large number of its military assets may not be able to carry out any missions or campaigns. They have... other concerns to get through. Which probably is the reason why they are so focused on nuclear arsenal and hacking to keep the money coming.

Defections and connections within China have also provided us with information that the DPRK is a paper tiger, and so is China for that matter. Mao said that the nuke was a paper tiger and if that is true then it is especially so for the people who rely on the nuke. Most of China's military doctrine comes in the form of said deterrents, as does North Korea. Though at least China can use diplomatic influence and economic pressure, and the ROK Liberals are playing exactly into China's hands.

[Exarch]

Fact is, even with a non America first President the Americans and Japanese are too pussy to actually fight China; Obama proved it in the SCS and the Japanese proved it when President Abe came begging for money at President Xi's feet.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

As I recall it was the Chinese AND North Koreans who backed down when Bill Clinton deployed a naval squadron to Asia.

[Exarch]

As I recall it was the Chinese AND North Koreans who backed down when Bill Clinton deployed a naval squadron to Asia.

LOL so what's stopping the US President from doing it again?

[Chukada1]

As I recall it was the Chinese AND North Koreans who backed down when Bill Clinton deployed a naval squadron to Asia.

..

China's GDP in 1996 was 863.75 billion (US) dollars. Only 7% of what is today. Today it is 12,250.39 trillion dollars. Your assessment of Chinese military capabilities should move past 1996.

China should avoid war at all costs. It can defeat US hegemony with trade and technology. Let the US bankrupt itself through war. China should spend their money on artificial intelligence, renewable clean energy, vertical farming, infrastructure, and military hardware and technology.

But never on war. War is a waste of money. Deterrence on the other hand is obviously needed, as the US gets more and more desperate it might start a nuclear holocaust just to ensure that a country full of Asians doesn't become too independent from US international order. Even if China doesn't threaten the US, ever.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

@Exarch, Do you really need me to list all of the geopolitical and economic reasons for why a war in Asia would be a bad idea? Though I don't see what an America first policy has to do with that, seeing as it is more conducive to isolationism rather than a war with China. Doesn't mean the Chinese could wage a war with the USA just because the USA doesn't actually want to spend the money to attack China... for the same economic reasons I mentioned. Yet if it came down to it the Chinese would be defeated make no mistake.

@Chukada, You're acting as if China just wants to trade peacefully instead of flooding the markets and then threatening to pull the plug when their trade partners don't do what they want. Either way the fact is that as it stands China is not even close to American military capabilities. Even with their new missiles and planes they could only effectively target Taiwan. If war is waged China would be more likely to go bankrupt because they depend on exports to stay economically afloat. Though Chinese GDP represents a portion of the world economy it is still smaller than America's. Moreover in GDP per capita the Chinese can't even compete because the average Chinese income does not compare to the likes of the USA, South Korea or Japan. So without exports the Chinese economy would likely collapse. That is why Chinese doctrine relies more on deterrence (soft power) rather than direct military action. The only area where China could compete is that they are still highly industrialized and have not yet shifted to the service economy that countries in the west have adopted. That gives them an early quantitative advantage in the form of war production, but gives them no points whatsoever in the realm of quality. Long term the USA would probably implement stronger war production and then out produce China in war material within a matter of time. Though more likely the Chinese would be defeated early on, so mass production might not factor in at all.

[Exarch]

Do you really need me to list all of the geopolitical and economic reasons for why a war in Asia would be a bad idea? Though I don't see what an America first policy has to do with that, see as it is more conducive to isolationism rather than a war with China. Doesn't mean the Chinese could wage a war with the USA just because the USA doesn't actually want to spend the money to attack China... for the same economic reasons I mentioned. Yet if it came down to it the Chinese would be defeated make no mistake.

You sure about that?

Judging by its behaviour, the US aint got the stomach for a fight in Asia whereas China, being the only hegemony in Asia is determined to fight for its rights in its own home. It's like expecting the US not to do anything about Russian nukes in Cuba or to just let Socialist governments in South America ignore the Monroe Doctrine.

Japan, ever eager to reclaim whatever samurai fantasy the hentai and anime shows are airing at the moment, aint even got the stomach for war, not when the most hawkish japanese president in history pays homage to China

[Chukada1]

Do you really need me to list all of the geopolitical and economic reasons for why a war in Asia would be a bad idea? Though I don't see what an America first policy has to do with that, see as it is more conducive to isolationism rather than a war with China. Doesn't mean the Chinese could wage a war with the USA just because the USA doesn't actually want to spend the money to attack China... for the same economic reasons I mentioned. Yet if it came down to it the Chinese would be defeated make no mistake.

Yeah, the US is isolationist. It is isolating itself right now in North-Eastern Syria.

"Whole of Chinese society a threat to the United States"
http://www.businessinsider.com/china...r-warns-2018-2

Threat includes students trying to get an education. >.>

China is attempting to lift 46 million people out of poverty by 2020, through evil Communist methods like giving them free homes, and then asking them to please move to the city.

Here is how Western Media portrays that evil wrong-doing.

"China’s War on Poverty Could Hurt the Poor Most"

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/...the-poor-most/

Improving people's lives = war on the poor, really?

Can you actually tell me why so many people outside of China perceive China and Chinese as a threat? I feel like the animosity between the West and China is because two great civilizations are integrating poorly with each other. In my mind, the blame is on the west, since it seems that the west can only tolerate 1 form of government, 1 economic model, and 1 type of society. Those naturally being: Liberal Democracy, Free-Market Capitalism, and Pluralist Liberal Society. I mean, US will make exceptions when countries are US allies. I really cannot understand why China is a 'threat'. All I see is they are trying to improve their country. Can you please tell me why, I actually want to understand the other perspective.

@Chukada, You're acting as if China just wants to trade peacefully instead of flooding the markets and then threatening to pull the plug when their trade partners don't do what they want. Either way the fact is that as it stands China is not even close to American military capabilities. Even with their new missiles and plains they could only effectively target Taiwan. If war is waged China would be more likely to go bankrupt because they depend on exports to stay economically afloat. Though Chinese GDP represents a portion of the world economy it is still smaller than America's. Moreover in GDP per capita the Chinese can't even compete because the average Chinese income does not compare to the likes of the USA, South Korea or Japan. So without exports the Chinese economy would likely collapse. That is why Chinese doctrine relies more on deterrence (soft power) rather than direct military action. The only area where China could compete is that they are still highly industrialized and have not yet shifted to the service economy that countries in the west have adopted. That gives them an early quantitative advantage in the form of war production, but gives them no points whatsoever in the realm of quality. Long term the USA would probably implement stronger war production and then out produce China in war material within a matter of time. Though more likely the Chinese would be defeated early on, so mass production might not factor in at all.

I don't really think that's important. As I said, China will deny the US a war. China will not fall for that trap. Money makes the world go round. If China amasses enough economic power and sustains it, while US wastes trillions destabilizing the middle east, China will find allies in the long run. The world will actually shift away from America.

But I don't know how that is a threat. The Chinese are doing this through innovation, economic growth, and trade. There's nothing malicious with this strategy of national security, and rising Chinese power. If China is competitive, you need to compete. Sentences like "flood the market" is hyperbolic. This is globalization, and globalization has hugely benefited the United States. Now it's China's turn.

With the one belt one road, now its Central Asia's turn.

You sure about that?

Judging by its behaviour, the US aint got the stomach for a fight in Asia whereas China, being the only hegemony in Asia is determined to fight for its rights in its own home. It's like expecting the US not to do anything about Russian nukes in Cuba or to just let Socialist governments in South America ignore the Monroe Doctrine.

Japan, ever eager to reclaim whatever samurai fantasy the hentai and anime shows are airing at the moment, aint even got the stomach for war, not when the most hawkish japanese president in history pays homage to China

I don't think this really helps. China needs to build a strong military to deter foreign powers from forcefully destabilizing and subverting Chinese economic growth like they did in 1856, 1931, and 1937, I don't think antagonizing western countries calling them cowards, is really that helpful. Peaceful co-existence, and economic/technological competition between Great Powers is preferable to any war that could destabilize economic growth in Eurasia.

I am aware of all the racist yellow peril stuff that is going on right now in Australian politics and Australian media, btw.

[Love Mountain]

There is a point I do want to stress. The insinuation that China is a paper tiger is only half-true. This is a country who's military spending is eclipsed only by America, and in real terms, adjusting for labor costs and the fact that America has many more military commitments than China, the reality is that China is likely very close if not at military parity with the US Navy in the pacific. Not in power projection obviously, but that's not really where China is focusing. China's grand strategy most likely involves a naval standoff and a fortress of islands and continental land assets in the South China Sea while securing dominance in ASEAN countries through either diplomacy (where China has already made great strides) as well as their impressive military.

China, for all intents and purposes, dominates the Asian continent. The only major players there are India and Russia. India and China are only enemies due to their size. They really don't have any significant geopolitical conflicts, but are scared of each other's size and power. Both however lack the technology and military to really threaten each other. They are simply too far apart, enjoy strong buffer zones, and aren't all that interested in each other. China has the upper hand anyway as they are one of Pakistan's key allies and suppliers of both technology and FDI in key areas. Russia is also not really that much of an enemy. While the Chinese threat to vulnerable Russian Far East territories is ever present and may be a key battlefield in many decades, as things stand right now they share the same goal; reducing the influence of US and their allies in the Pacific. In addition to that Russia represents a vital trade partner of technology. They are also an important fallback energy partner. China's energy policy is always under threat and Russian control of Central Asia and Caucasus complicates China's attempts to diversify their suppliers.

China will start with de-facto controlling the South China Sea. With how aggressively China has been constructing large surface combatants and submarines, it's increasingly clear to all security analysts that there will be very little that anyone could do about that. They will then want to dominate the Pacific, with the large number of US allies and the superiority of the US Navy in the region, its unlikely that China will be able to accomplish that in the next 20 years. However, the alliances in the region are very flexible and the Chinese are already dominating many governments through economic means alone. China is one of the largest importers of both raw materials, and advanced specialized goods that they themselves cannot produce. Though that is changing, and anyone who does not have something of value to the Chinese, will find themselves discarded, while those that do trade with China, typically does so in large enough quantities where the Chinese are now a key customer to satisfy. There may come a time where many nations will find it easier to switch to China as their security guarantor instead of America.

Considering the aversion that the word "Free Trade" has had in the media. It is possible to see a future where China outmaneuvers America politically in the region, and considering the very large navy that they are building, they will be able to deal with anybody who doesn't join China's "NATO" militarily while deterring any American aggression.

[Exarch]

I don't think this really helps. China needs to build a strong military to deter foreign powers from forcefully destabilizing and subverting Chinese economic growth like they did in 1856, 1931, and 1937, I don't think antagonizing western countries calling them cowards, is really that helpful. Peaceful co-existence, and economic/technological competition between Great Powers is preferable to any war that could destabilize economic growth in Eurasia.

western nations and japan historically only respect power, to paraphrase Somerset Maugham:

Do you know that we tried an experiment which is unique in the history of the world? We sought to rule this great country not by force, but by wisdom. And for centuries we succeed. Then why does the white man despise the yellow? Shall I tell you? Because he has invented the machine gun. This is your superiority. We are a defenseless horde and you can blow us into eternity. You have shattered the dream of our philosophers that the world could be governed by the power of law and order. And now you are teaching our young men your secret. You have thrust you hideous inventions upon us. Do you not know that we have a genius for mechanics? Do you not know that there are in this country four hundred millions of the most practical and industrious people in the world? Do you think it will take us long to learn? And what will become of your superiority when the yellow man can make as good guns as the white and fire them as straight? You have appealed to the machine gun and by the machine gun shall you be judged."

• Gu Hongming

Source:https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1633554449
live by the sword, die by the sword, or in this case the machine gun and railgun:
http://www.atimes.com/article/port-photos-show-pla-may-developed-first-naval-railgun/

[Basileia ton Rhomaion]

If you go backwards in the thread you will know what I am talking about. Soon after taking office Moon and his Liberals were decrying the threat that THAAD posed to peace between ROK and DPRK and relations between the PRC and ROK. What happened almost immediately after which made Moon simply accept it and go back with his tail between his legs? Well it was the literal bombshell that the DPRK missile program was more advanced than anyone had known prior, and Kim Jong Un threatening to nuke the world. Why he has returned to the naive "let's negotiate with Kim Jong Un" Ronald Reagan style approach is unknown to me.

Typically anti-war Liberals love to go into the geopolitical implications and over analyze a situation. When someone points out how unreasonable and naive they are being they almost immediately switch to the "actually I'm not against taking decisive action when we really need it but I need to nitpick about whether or not we actually will", it's almost like a delaying tactic and an attempt to maintain their credibility when in the face of a clear pro-active threat. The history of modern Korea has shown the DPRK to be very proactive and the ROK to be extremely reactive, ROK foreign policy is reactive. Now I am certainly anti-war, the Iraq War and the Afghan War to be precise and I have definitely done this sort of thing before. It's so blatantly easy to recognize and see.

Again what ROK needs to accept is that they are not one of the geo-political movers in the area, the hegemon if you will. The two powers in Asia are the USA and China. Instead they adopt a sort of lukewarm reactionary position, Park for all her faults realized the inherent threat that China/PRC and the DPRK posed. After the fallout of her political scandals it was easy for the Liberals to criticize her relations with North Korea and her measures but given how rapidly the DPRK proved her correct this became an almost moot point on their part. Their suggestion that "see we were correct all along, if Park had not been so reactionary and painfully straightforward the DPRK wouldn't be bearing down on our heads" is clearly an incorrect statement. DPRK isn't some cub and China is clearly not interested in a regular relationship with the ROK. Whether Trump's mishandling of the situation with South Korea is their reason for Moon adopting this stance or not, Moon shouldn't be worrying about the medium by which Trump told him a fact, regardless Moon should have accepted that Trump's position with regards to the DPRK is the correct stance. Obviously Trump was being too pushy with the ROK but that doesn't mean that he is therefore inherently wrong and DPRK's actions and reactions prove this. Moreover I would argue that it provided the impetus for DPRK and China softening in their stance. The fact is that China and the DPRK only respond to our displays of power, heck Bill Clinton proved this.


And yet if tomorrow China told the DPRK to stop their saber rattling what would the DPRK do? Sure they could ignore China but how well would that go down if China was interested in ending the conflict (which they are not). China does not control the DPRK but the certainly have influence, if not with Kim Jong Un then with the party. You could list these sorts of things all the time but the main point that subverts these issues are that in the long run the DPRK cannot compete with neither the ROK nor the US hegemony and that the DPRK is completely dependent on the PRC and Russia can't do anything about that unless the Chinese change their minds and back down from the Korea issue entirely. The only reason that the Chinese have not backed the ROK is because it is governed by bottom tier politicians and statesmen who are still very much stuck in a Maoist train of thought.

The USA does not need bases in Korea to care about the Korea issue. Bases or no bases the fact is that the ROK make up the US hegemony in Asia and are one of the links in the archipelago chain. Obviously the USA wants to preserve this status quo but they also have no problem with subverting the status quo in order to achieve a winning objective. This is the opposite from China since they neither want the ROK to disappear in its entirety but they do not want the DPRK to disappear either. So essentially China is in a no win situation when pressured and they are forced to make a choice, so far they have backed the DPRK. Which takes me back to the inherent political realities that I have just discussed. If it was to protect their bases what really was the point of propping up Taiwan or becoming involved in the Korean War?


There is nothing wrong with not wanting a bomb fall on your house, so long as you don't lie to yourself that it can never happen so long as you suck up to Kim Jong Un or don't start the war. The matter of the Olympics is almost something else entirely but Seoul does not need to host the Olympics. Well at least they are using it for what it was intended, using it as a means for negotiation has some historical precedence. It just won't work out though, the only English that Kim Jong Un understands is ICBM. That said Moon is wrong, there would always be a problem and 68 years of foreign relations with China and North Korea have proven this. It is dumb to think that China and North Korea have only rustled their jimmies now because of THAAD, as if no other precedent of this sort of thing happening exists.


That isn't the point though. If China coaxes North Korea to bring down their rhetoric North Korea could agree, probably would have no choice but to agree, or they could show the desperate reality of the situation that DPRK does not intend to negotiate and is only biding their time to develop another weapon.


Defections and connections within China have also provided us with information that the DPRK is a paper tiger, and so is China for that matter. Mao said that the nuke was a paper tiger and if that is true then it is especially so for the people who rely on the nuke. Most of China's military doctrine comes in the form of said deterrents, as does North Korea. Though at least China can use diplomatic influence and economic pressure, and the ROK Liberals are playing exactly into China's hands.

First of all, his idea of talking to DPRK did not go away. Not even one bit. If you followed the news on how things were going on in Korean peninsular, particularly in ROK news, he never once backed down on talking to N.Korea. He just wanted the talks to happen when the time was right which was more or less the view of Rex Tillerson at the time and to some degree, Trump before. They just have a difference in the "right timing". And that's exactly what happened when Kim announced that he'd be down for talking with ROK counterparts during his New Year's speech. Of course, it was for his own propaganda/lifting the sanction purposes but nonetheless, he offered the olive branch to his S.Korean counterparts. I am not so sure if you agree with the experts but Olympics being held in ROK was a boon and it ended up being one of the most successful Olympics while talking to North Koreans were made possible. Would this lead to de-nuclearization? Many doubt it and I am one of those many. However, it's way better than having constant missile flights and warhead testings at the moment. Yes, they might have prepared for SLBM testing before the Olympics, but pretty sure they will still wait it out until the end of Paralympics and the resumption of US-ROK joint military exercises. And I'd call that a success in defusing the tension. No matter how temporary this will be.

Second of all, ROK IS a mover in the geopolitics. To deny that would be a fairly dishonest of you to not admit that. It gets a strong reaction out of the other regional powers, so I'd say it is a mover, and it is very geographically close to N.Korea. It's like saying Ukraine is not a mover in geopolitics when it is actively engaged in a crisis in Crimea and that Russia and U.S. are the only movers. By being in the region alone and being involved, that makes ROK a mover in the geopolitics. For example, if ROK was to suddenly host Chinese military bases while taking American ones out, wouldn't that be a huge geopolitical shift? If Koreas were to be united, wouldn't that be a reshaping of geopolitics? If it plays a role in the political arena, it is a mover. You do not have to be a hegemon to be active about an issue.

And China and U.S. can talk about N.Korea all they want, and it won't change a thing if 1. Both Koreas (or even one of them) are not going to accept the result of those talks. 2.because S.Korea and N.Korea are not colonies/client states/vassals/protectorate of U.S. and China respectively. They may have backings of those two countries for obvious political reasons in the past, but they are definitely not colonies/client states/vassals/protectorate (whatever you think those 2 are) to be directed by mainland power a.k.a U.S. and China. Can U.S. and China pressure them with their own sizeable economy and force? Yes. But can they compromise the sovereignty of them without consequence? No. N.Korea being a client state is debatable but it sure did mark itself as independent sovereign entity in their own rights in the recent 2-3 years when Chinese pressured it to put a halt on its programs, let's just say it did not seem to have hindered the progress at the cost of civilian sufferings.

Military bases are the sole reason why they can maintain their influence in Far East Asia much stronger than anywhere else. Because, they can actually back their statements up really well by having their military so close to Chinese/Russian soils. Look what's happening in S.E Asia where there are no bases. They cannot actively manage Chinese threat to their hegemony there with just allies. If same situation arose without military bases in Korea. It is doubtful that they'd do beyond tough rhetoric other than THAAD system will be in Japan and in U.S. pacific island bases because they cannot actively manage this and probably won't want to manage it so actively.

And calling China a paper tiger as of now would be dangerous as their military begins to modernize. With Xi's purging of officials also bringing numbers down to more manageable and modernize-able size, it's getting dangerous. And it established its first overseas base in Sri Lanka I believe. Definitely seem to be able to project itself overseas at the same time in South China sea.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Aaaahh! I'm being flooded with yuuuuge responses.

Bit too busy to respond right now so I'll do it later. If I don't get around to it feel free to harass me until I do. If you want I can try bringing someone who knows more about the modern military apparatus than I do but I definitely will challenge the idea that the PLA is as impressive as might be claimed.

Edit: eh it, let's respond to one of these.

There is a point I do want to stress. The insinuation that China is a paper tiger is only half-true. This is a country who's military spending is eclipsed only by America, and in real terms, adjusting for labor costs and the fact that America has many more military commitments than China, the reality is that China is likely very close if not at military parity with the US Navy in the pacific. Not in power projection obviously, but that's not really where China is focusing. China's grand strategy most likely involves a naval standoff and a fortress of islands and continental land assets in the South China Sea while securing dominance in ASEAN countries through either diplomacy (where China has already made great strides) as well as their impressive military.

Sure in the long term and assuming the Chinese economy keeps growing then they could become a force to be reckoned with in the Pacific in say 20 years or more. While the Chinese spend a tonne of money on their military they still have a tonne of corruption to contend with. What exactly this money has been going towards is anyone's guess since the Chinese are still severely under equipped and poorly trained. Most likely the Chinese do not have any efficient sort of cost control so they end up spending more money to simply maintain their current army. Your average PLA soldier is not up to par with what the USA or the ROK have to offer. What is more the Chinese have an extremely bad officer corps and their high command is downright laughable. The PRC has never produced someone like James Mattis, David Petraeus, Norman Schwarzkopff etc. Even during the heyday of the PLA their top generals like Zhu De, Peng Dehuai and Lin Biao were not comparable to far better contemporaries produced in Germany, the USSR or even America for that matter. Heck I'm not even sure how they compared to the KMT generals or the Japanese generals (somewhat bottom tier as far as WW2 generals were concerned, though still capable of some impressive feats). Now that said they could probably bridge the gap using technology like missiles and drones but the Chinese still need capable officers to direct these operations.

Chinese doctrines revolves around the concept of deterrents. That is to say getting what they want without having to engage militarily. They use economic, political and social subversion combined with diplomatic pressure. So in many ways the assertion that the PRC is the paper tiger of all paper tigers is rather apt if only based on their record, their soft power record and rapidly backing down from most issues that they did not actually have a chance to win (various Indian stand offs, Trump sanctions and the Straights Crisis). If it ever came down to direct confrontation they would depend almost entirely on coastal defense and psychological attacks to turn the democracies on themselves. As it stands the Chinese might bomb Taiwan preemptively to cow them into submission and/or to destroy American bases and cripple the logistical ability to carry out campaigns against China. They might also deploy missiles and raiding squadrons to hit other targets in the Pacific. Whether the Chinese can even successfully knockout targets that far is up for debate. As it stands the Chinese are only poised to fight a defensive war using coastal defense, planes and missiles to turn any invasion into a veritable meat grinder but that assumes that the Americans would pursue that option in the first place. What is more the Americans would more than have the means to bomb Chinese bases and missile launchers. A simple blockade and solid coalition would easily cripple Chinese capabilities and the Americans don't go into an area without a coalition anyway.

China, for all intents and purposes, dominates the Asian continent. The only major players there are India and Russia. India and China are only enemies due to their size. They really don't have any significant geopolitical conflicts, but are scared of each other's size and power. Both however lack the technology and military to really threaten each other. They are simply too far apart, enjoy strong buffer zones, and aren't all that interested in each other. China has the upper hand anyway as they are one of Pakistan's key allies and suppliers of both technology and FDI in key areas. Russia is also not really that much of an enemy. While the Chinese threat to vulnerable Russian Far East territories is ever present and may be a key battlefield in many decades, as things stand right now they share the same goal; reducing the influence of US and their allies in the Pacific. In addition to that Russia represents a vital trade partner of technology. They are also an important fallback energy partner. China's energy policy is always under threat and Russian control of Central Asia and Caucasus complicates China's attempts to diversify their suppliers.

I suppose you could say that but using the term "dominance" rather loosely. If push came to shove I don't know that China would even have the economic or military industrial infrastructure to wage a war on any country without seriously hurting their economy and damaging their image. When it comes to waging war China would essentially be playing a game of chicken, the issue then starts if the other guy didn't back down. It is also worth pointing out that the Chinese have not waged a successful war since about 1966, against India in a very short limited war. Korea 1950-53 really tested their mettle but even in that case the Chinese had about an equal defeat to success ratio. Really the high point of their campaigns was when Peng Dehuai defeat MacArthur and took Seoul. But the next couple years saw near suicidal offensives launched against Ridgeway's defenses.

Neither India nor China really have a means to deal with the ultimate Himalayan defensive barrier. I mean assuming either side broke out of this natural barrier they don't have the means to make the final push. China only really gets any sort of advantage because they hold the roadway through Aksai Chin and have a Pakistani alliance, who is also an American ally. Likewise India is oddly enough, a Russian ally. China doesn't have the naval quantity or logistics to really compete with India in the Indian Ocean, even with Pakistani support the Indians could wipe out the port of Karachi in like a day. There wouldn't be a Karachi if India wanted, it would be a crater.

The only means that the Chinese have for an immediate response to America and their Coalition is by presenting the old Russia-China one two punch. When you remove one the other guy is severely isolated. Though at least Russia has enough military power to back up their threats and carry out retaliations against Europe. At the moment China could probably only really manhandle Taiwan. I'm not sure that the PLA could successfully invade Vietnam.

China will start with de-facto controlling the South China Sea. With how aggressively China has been constructing large surface combatants and submarines, it's increasingly clear to all security analysts that there will be very little that anyone could do about that. They will then want to dominate the Pacific, with the large number of US allies and the superiority of the US Navy in the region, its unlikely that China will be able to accomplish that in the next 20 years. However, the alliances in the region are very flexible and the Chinese are already dominating many governments through economic means alone. China is one of the largest importers of both raw materials, and advanced specialized goods that they themselves cannot produce. Though that is changing, and anyone who does not have something of value to the Chinese, will find themselves discarded, while those that do trade with China, typically does so in large enough quantities where the Chinese are now a key customer to satisfy. There may come a time where many nations will find it easier to switch to China as their security guarantor instead of America.

Considering the aversion that the word "Free Trade" has had in the media. It is possible to see a future where China outmaneuvers America politically in the region, and considering the very large navy that they are building, they will be able to deal with anybody who doesn't join China's "NATO" militarily while deterring any American aggression.

That is essentially what China is doing. The South China Sea is also an excellent target because it is a crucial choke point in the sea routes from Singapore and the Philippines. The only problem I see with this is that the Chinese (PLAN) do not have the means to deploy a decent fleet all that far and at least right now (and perhaps for the next decade) they don't have the logistical means or naval infrastructure to hold the area if the Americans dispatched an actual squadron with the intention of clearing the area. The USN could probably clear that entire area in 72 hours.

As of the Duterte election this is currently the crucial moment to see whether the Asian countries will begin to fall one by one like dominoes or if they will reject Chinese hegemony. As we can see North Korea is also playing a role in this as is Chinese amalgamation of the Asian economies as part of their own. Though the strategy of flooding markets but also having heavy handed protectionism (a very simplistic ploy) could easily backfire. Now the inherent problem with Chinese hegemony is that China demands a heavy toll where as America has not really taken all that much. As we saw with the election of Tsai Ing-wen, an anti-Chinese position does not lead to political failure. Likewise with the ousted Park Gyeun-hye of ROK.

While China's navy sounds impressive on paper one must realize that it is quantity over quality. Their equipment is outdated, their crews are not particularly well trained, their naval tactical and operational doctrine outside of the basics is fairly ludicrous, their naval officers are terrible and their ship construction is not really anything to brag about either. Were it not for coastal support from planes and missiles their navy would be completely untenable in a realistic situation. I can't see the PLAN standing up to the Japanese or Korean navies at all much less the full might of the USN. Now maybe they will improve within the next 20 years but in that amount of time any number of things could happen both within China and in the realm of geopolitics as a whole. That said I also need to stress that their planned naval expansion is not really that impressive. Their aircraft carriers would be considered outdated today much less in 20 years. The only reason that the PLAN has managed to make it this far is because of the hilariously bad foreign policies of the last two American administrations. So as can be seen the Chinese get by with their unorthodox methods but this says nothing in the way of actual sustainability.

I also need to include that for the Chinese to form their own block separate from the UN it would at least need to have the sanction of Russia. Member states would also need to realize that such a move would put them on a direct collision course with India if it includes anything in South East Asia. The only way for the Chinese to make a solid hegemony with legal control then the entire geopolitical situation would have to be one where the whole world becomes stratified into separate hegemonies or coalitions, which could happen, I mean god knows when but it would probably be caused by world economic collapse and given the state of China's economic effectiveness it might actually hurt China and paralyze them for some time before they figured out what to do next. By contrast Russia and the USA already have a defacto hegemony of sorts, Europe in itself might become its own hegemony as well. If that were to happen then the Chinese hegemony would lack easy targets since they would also be required to fight against other hegemonies.

[Mithradates]

North Korea Is Willing to Discuss Giving Up Nuclear Weapons, South Says

“The North Korean side clearly stated its willingness to denuclearize,” the statement said. “It made it clear that it would have no reason to keep nuclear weapons if the military threat to the North was eliminated and its security guaranteed.”

If the statement is corroborated by North Korea, it would be the first time Mr. Kim has indicated that his government is willing to discuss giving up nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States. Until now, North Korea has said its nuclear weapons were not for bargaining away.

Well, that was unexpected.

[NorseThing]

I would prefer that N Korea would want to begin negotiations to end the cease-fire and establish normal relations with S Korea and the USA. The nukes would of course be a part of this process. Otherwise it will be more of the same tactics the North has used over the years. Offer to negotiate something and wait for a crisis to come about and then demand food, fuel, etc. or war may start up again.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Another North Korean bait and switch.

[Diamat]

Precisely. Let's have two years of nuclear negotiations while North Korea perfects its delivery system. Wonderful idea.

[Vanoi]

They want the negotiations to go through simply to ease sanctions. They are taking a toll. But I agree with Norse that negotiations must include an actual peace treaty.

[Mithradates]

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump are to meet in person by the end of May, it has been announced, an extraordinary overture after months of mutual hostility.

Trump:
"Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!"

This sounds promising!