North Korea Mega Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 05:37:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  North Korea Mega Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 34
Author Topic: North Korea Mega Thread  (Read 78199 times)
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,737


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #525 on: September 08, 2017, 01:14:28 PM »


Oh, that is fascinating.

I wonder how we should react if North Korea lobs a nuclear missile at China, instead of Guam or the continental United States.  More importantly, how would China respond?  Would it flood troops into North Korea, and effectively annex it after annihilating the Kim dynasty root and branch?  

I don't think annexing North Korea is on the PRC's wishlist. Their wishlist would go more towards installing a pliant puppet ruler who was dependent on PLA soldiers and cash to stay in power who would be less willing to do crazy rogue state antics while still being a buffer against South Korea.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,924
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #526 on: September 08, 2017, 01:44:08 PM »

Annexation of any part of Korea is off the table from a Chinese perspective. Without even getting into the obvious practical concerns, a not-insignificant part of Han self-esteem, at least from a political and cultural perspective, comes from the (not inaccurate) perception that Koreans admire and emulate them.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #527 on: September 08, 2017, 11:21:14 PM »


Oh, that is fascinating.

I wonder how we should react if North Korea lobs a nuclear missile at China, instead of Guam or the continental United States.  More importantly, how would China respond?  Would it flood troops into North Korea, and effectively annex it after annihilating the Kim dynasty root and branch?  

I don't think annexing North Korea is on the PRC's wishlist. Their wishlist would go more towards installing a pliant puppet ruler who was dependent on PLA soldiers and cash to stay in power who would be less willing to do crazy rogue state antics while still being a buffer against South Korea.

Honestly I'd be cool with this outcome, realpolitik as it may be. The Kims are out-of-their-gourds insane
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,669
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #528 on: September 09, 2017, 04:27:31 AM »

A missile launch is coming. I can feel it.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,541
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #529 on: September 09, 2017, 10:34:12 AM »


Oh, that is fascinating.

I wonder how we should react if North Korea lobs a nuclear missile at China, instead of Guam or the continental United States.  More importantly, how would China respond?  Would it flood troops into North Korea, and effectively annex it after annihilating the Kim dynasty root and branch?  

I think they would invade, but I can't see a scenario where annexation is a plausible long-term solution. With annexation + presumable liberalization of North Korea that comes with that, there's no way that North Koreans will want to live under Chinese rule when they people who are culturally more similar them, who they feel a sense of nationhood with are to the south. On the Chinese side, I find it hard to believe they'll feel enthusiastic to inherit the mess that North Korea is, especially when you how unwilling South Korea is. On a similar note, it's also an open question on how South Korea will feel about China invading territory they technically claim.

Considering that any invasion in the aftermath of an unprovoked nuclear attack with mass civilian casualties would likely result in the utter destruction of the North Korean military (and unavoidably high losses on the part of the invader), I don't think China would accept anything less than an indefinite occupation of North Korea to ensure it never poses a threat to them ever again. 
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,401
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #530 on: September 09, 2017, 10:44:26 AM »

Would China possibly OK South Korea getting all of the North knowing SK would be heavily distracted for years to come integrating the area?
Logged
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,071


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #531 on: September 09, 2017, 11:13:45 AM »

Would China possibly OK South Korea getting all of the North knowing SK would be heavily distracted for years to come integrating the area?

I don't think the Chinese would mind too much since it's not the Cold War anymore but who knows
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,737


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #532 on: September 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM »

Would China possibly OK South Korea getting all of the North knowing SK would be heavily distracted for years to come integrating the area?
They don't like this idea because the ROK is an American ally and they're concerned that the second the DPRK merges with its southern neighbor, construction will go up on US bases all over the former North Korea and the American soldiers stationed in the South will just move north a few dozen miles into the old North to be even closer to China.
Logged
HisGrace
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,557
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #533 on: September 10, 2017, 01:21:11 PM »

China would go to war to stop a unification of Korea from South to North. They continue to make that very clear and have obviously done it before. One of the many reason a first strike against the North is unacceptable.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,708


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #534 on: September 10, 2017, 11:12:27 PM »

China would go to war to stop a unification of Korea from South to North. They continue to make that very clear and have obviously done it before. One of the many reason a first strike against the North is unacceptable.

Some in China wouldn't mind a Seoul led united Korea if there were no US troops north of the DMZ and they weren't going to be hostile to China.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #535 on: September 11, 2017, 11:04:29 AM »

I can imagine some Chinese demands for a re-unified Korea:

1. No military alliance with Japan, Taiwan, or the USA.
2. Favorable trade treatment with China.
3. Legalization of Communist Parties other than the Korean Workers' Party (which would be outlawed much like the Nazis in Germany and Austria).
4. NUCLEAR FREE Korea.

Korea can still have a democracy and free enterprise.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,924
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #536 on: September 11, 2017, 11:15:01 AM »

I can imagine some Chinese demands for a re-unified Korea:

1. No military alliance with Japan, Taiwan, or the USA.
2. Favorable trade treatment with China.
3. Legalization of Communist Parties other than the Korean Workers' Party (which would be outlawed much like the Nazis in Germany and Austria).
4. NUCLEAR FREE Korea.

Korea can still have a democracy and free enterprise.

The #1 rule of any negotiation is that your starting offer shouldn't get you laughed out of the room.
Logged
swf541
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,916


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #537 on: September 11, 2017, 01:08:33 PM »

I can imagine some Chinese demands for a re-unified Korea:

1. No military alliance with Japan, Taiwan, or the USA.
2. Favorable trade treatment with China.
3. Legalization of Communist Parties other than the Korean Workers' Party (which would be outlawed much like the Nazis in Germany and Austria).
4. NUCLEAR FREE Korea.

Korea can still have a democracy and free enterprise.

The #1 rule of any negotiation is that your starting offer shouldn't get you laughed out of the room.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,737


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #538 on: September 11, 2017, 01:37:07 PM »

Top Chinese demands for a unified Korea would likely be withdrawal of all US forces from the Korean peninsula, a drastic reduction in the militarization of the peninsula (S. Korea has 700,000 in the military, N. Korea has 1 million in the military...a unified Korea could easily do with a military a third the size of South Korea's), and strict border controls to prevent people from illegally immigrating into China.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,080
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #539 on: September 11, 2017, 05:33:33 PM »

Nikki Haley kicking ass again in the Security Council
Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,202
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #540 on: September 12, 2017, 03:26:23 PM »

North Korea could be facing a 'perfect storm'
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,669
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #541 on: September 12, 2017, 05:36:23 PM »

Anyone else think Nikki Haley should be Secretary of State instead of Tillerson?
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,624


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #542 on: September 12, 2017, 05:45:50 PM »

Anyone else think Nikki Haley should be Secretary of State instead of Tillerson?

I think she'd be a much better fit for the job.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,874


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #543 on: September 12, 2017, 10:56:54 PM »

Anyone else think Nikki Haley should be Secretary of State instead of Tillerson?

I think she'd be a much better fit for the job.

Why? She's more neoconish. What would she do differently than Tillerson?
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,624


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #544 on: September 13, 2017, 06:03:46 AM »

Anyone else think Nikki Haley should be Secretary of State instead of Tillerson?

I think she'd be a much better fit for the job.

Why? She's more neoconish. What would she do differently than Tillerson?

Because she's experienced in government and seems like a capable administrator.  Tillerson clearly is not and is letting the State Department go to hell, during a world situation when we really need it to be functioning well.  I think Haley would run the department much better. 

In terms of foreign policy?  Yeah, probably not much difference.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,326
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #545 on: September 14, 2017, 05:24:40 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2017, 05:27:07 PM by Hindsight is 2020 »

Oh god they launched another missile
http://news.sky.com/story/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-11036058
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #546 on: September 14, 2017, 05:31:50 PM »

And Japan has warned its citizens to take shelter.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #547 on: September 14, 2017, 07:07:41 PM »

Im getting to the point of not giving a crap. Its apparent nothing will happen unless North Korea actually hits someone, and I dont think Kim Jung Un has the balls to do it.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,985


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #548 on: September 14, 2017, 07:46:01 PM »

Why is Trump's red line not a bigger deal than Obama's? Does nobody remember the 'fire and fury' threat he made last month and he did nothing...
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,439


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #549 on: September 14, 2017, 07:58:55 PM »

Why is Trump's red line not a bigger deal than Obama's? Does nobody remember the 'fire and fury' threat he made last month and he did nothing...

Because Trump has no reputation to lose. Everyone already knows he's a chaotic, idiotic blowhard and expects him to act accordingly. He's the global equivalent of the struggling toddler who gets praise for not soiling his pants today.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 34  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.