27-Apr-18 World View -- North Korea's negotiating position collapses, along with Mount Mantap

[CH86]

> The "experts" have gotten things wrong for the past 30 years. With
> that kind of track record why would anyone take the experts
> advice. When expert guidance has failed, an unorthodox method must
> be applied.

You don't have any "method," unorthodox or otherwise. All you have is
your vitriolic hatred of Boomers, probably derived from your vitriolic
hatred of your father. Beyond that, you know absolutely nothing. The
stupidest people are the ones that don't even realize how stupid they
are.

Your Assuming that Chinese have a schlieffen type war plan in which if US forces mobilize for any reason even if those reasons have nothing to do with China (if a middle east war or a Russian war begins, or if another 9/11 occurs, or if the president simply decides to put the US military at a higher state of peacetime readiness) Chinese forces would immediately attack the US. Countries make war plans based on the situation on the ground or on the planned situation in the case of aggressive wars.

As per my previous post my Contention is that no such plan exists. If China is currently using NK to blackmail the US, then they must be assuming the US would back down which would confirm those voices within China who assume US weakness. This would be a misguided but very human assumption for the Chinese to make given that the US has usually backed down or sought a diplomatic solution whenever North Korea flared up. Your logic has a fundamental disconnect, if the US has usually backed down and Chinese plans Assume a US back down, why would a contingency against a uncharacteristic US response exist? There would be no need to make one.

[Guest]

Once again, you show no clear understanding of history or of the geopolitical climate in Asia. China has already been involved in a war in Korea and, since the war is still ongoing (only a truce is in place), they are still involved. China even has troops stationed in north Korea. To say China has never contemplated America making a "first strike" in Korea is farcical. I am starting to realize your thinking is detached from reality.

I have never heard of any Chinese troops being stationed in Korea since the 1950s. The North ordered foreign armies out after the war stopped. The North has always used this fact as a propaganda club against the South. The South was an occupied puppet state as opposed to a 'free' North Korea.

Where are the Chinese troops stationed in North Korea?

[thomasglee]

Once again, you show no clear understanding of history or of the geopolitical climate in Asia. China has already been involved in a war in Korea and, since the war is still ongoing (only a truce is in place), they are still involved. China even has troops stationed in north Korea. To say China has never contemplated America making a "first strike" in Korea is farcical. I am starting to realize your thinking is detached from reality.

I have never heard of any Chinese troops being stationed in Korea since the 1950s. The North ordered foreign armies out after the war stopped. The North has always used this fact as a propaganda club against the South. The South was an occupied puppet state as opposed to a 'free' North Korea.

Where are the Chinese troops stationed in North Korea?

Frankly, I might be wrong about this claim - now. A few years ago China was building a port in Rason, north Korea as part of a Special Economic Zone.
At the time, the Chinese military was overseeing the construction and had troops in north Korea protecting the port. But today I tried searching on the subject and it appears they abandoned the project. So I will admit I may stand corrected on this point.

Even though I am mistaken on that point, that does not mean that China would just sit by if the USA attacked north Korea. As a matter-of-fact, the 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance agreement obligates China to intervene against unprovoked aggression.

[John]

> Once again, you show no clear understanding of history or of the
> geopolitical climate in Asia. China has already been involved in a
> war in Korea and, since the war is still ongoing (only a truce is
> in place), they are still involved. China even has troops
> stationed in north Korea. To say China has never contemplated
> America making a "first strike" in Korea is farcical. I am
> starting to realize your thinking is detached from reality.
>

> I have never heard of any Chinese troops being stationed in Korea
> since the 1950s. The North ordered foreign armies out after the
> war stopped. The North has always used this fact as a propaganda
> club against the South. The South was an occupied puppet state as
> opposed to a 'free' North Korea. Where are the Chinese troops
> stationed in North Korea?

> Frankly, I might be wrong about this claim - now. A few years ago
> China was building a port in Rason, north Korea as part of a
> Special Economic Zone.

> At the time, the Chinese military was overseeing the construction
> and had troops in north Korea protecting the port. But today I
> tried searching on the subject and it appears they abandoned the
> project. So I will admit I may stand corrected on this point.

> Even though I am mistaken on that point, that does not mean that
> China would just sit by if the USA attacked north Korea. As a
> matter-of-fact, the 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship,
> Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance agreement obligates China to
> intervene against unprovoked aggression.

China may not have troops stationed in North Korea, but they
definitely have tens or hundreds (depending on whom you believe)
thousands of troops stationed within China along the border with North
Korea.

[thomasglee]

China may not have troops stationed in North Korea, but they
definitely have tens or hundreds (depending on whom you believe)
thousands of troops stationed within China along the border with North
Korea.

Yes, this I know is true.

[CH86]

You Are Making assessments based on the bipolar Asia-pacific of the 1950s. However such assessments are non-applicable for any time after the sino-soviet split of the early 1960s. Today's Asia-pacific is multi-polar and polycentric in terms of its international relations, very different from what existed during the early 1950s. China and North Korea don't even have a peacetime border with each other, their border is a military border. The conventional wisdom of an automatic Chinese Intervention in the case of a strike on NK is therefore quite flawed.

[thomasglee]

These two are up to no good.

Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un hold talks in Dalian - 8 May 2018

[CH86]

The scenario you propose would require us breaking several treaties and it would push China into having no other option but to respond. If you think we could sell out allies like India and Taiwan without any repercussions from other allies, then you really do not understand geopolitics and you discount how much such a sell out would damage the US in the eyes of the world.

Countries Break Treaties all the time: It's called national interests.

You missed the overall point. If we break treaties, other break treaties with us. Then we are a fighting alone. Not a smart move.

Except that this would be THEIR war, not ours. The South Koreans cannot rationally make a deal with North Korea because the Norths objective is the Conquest of the South, an objective that would be pursued regardless of whether US troops were there or not. The US can make such a deal (although taking a prestige hit if it did so) because North Korea has no territorial designs on US territory. Same With Vietnam and the Phillippines. China has ambitions of conquering those islands which would be present regardless of whether Vietnam and the Philippines are allied with the US or Not, or regardless of any alliance with Russia that may be sought. If the South Koreans and ASEAN nations abandon the alliance with the US just because the US chose to liquidate NK and/or made a deal with China to facilitate said liquidation: The allies would still have to deal with Chinese Ambitions to take their territories, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they abandoned the alliance.

[John]

A Breitbart commenter posted the following in response to another
commenter:

> The real point is that if China's purpose is to get everyone in a
> state of war preparedness and armed and have Japan leave pacifism
> and again become militaristic and have China surrounded by armed
> enemies then China is successful.

I thought that was very well said.

[CH86]

A Breitbart commenter posted the following in response to another
commenter:

> The real point is that if China's purpose is to get everyone in a
> state of war preparedness and armed and have Japan leave pacifism
> and again become militaristic and have China surrounded by armed
> enemies then China is successful.

I thought that was very well said.

This is delusional, China's objective is to invade the disputed territories with the minimum of opposition possible. China would NOT want a nuclear Japan because that would mean Japan would return to effective great power status. What use could China possibly want with Nuclear rearmed japan? Such a creation would be directly contrary to Chinese National Interests AND Chinese ambitions, This is especially true given the bad experience the Chinese had the last time Japan was an true great power on the world stage.