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

[CH86]

Americans want a lot of things. Removing troops will lead to war on the peninsula. A war that we will be drug into, one way or another. None of this happens in a vacuum.

War is coming no matter what. How is having 28,000 US soldiers and their dependents in the line of fire going to change anything? It won't. It will only add to our troubles. Withdraw from Korea and nuke the Chinese and the North Koreans from a distance.

Our troops are a tripwire. I was stationed along the DMZ for three years. We always knew we had a "die in place" mission. Why? Because when American troops die, Americans will back a war. If we withdraw and the norKs invaded, the American people would resist our involvement. But eventually, we would get involved anyway, so it's best to be involved from day one than trying to come into the fray later when it will be harder and require another invasion of a fully occupied country.

If we leave and China occupies the entire peninsula, then we will have a bigger, more damaging fight on our hands.

Perhaps we should try to goad China into war before they are ready. It might be a strategic move. But to think (as CH does) that we can nuke the north without expecting any repercussions from China is just wrong.

Except that China does not expect to be directly involved in a war in Korea. They Are clearly using the North Korean threats as leverage to force several bloodless victories while strengthening their own position. I highly doubt that Chinese leaders even seriously considered an actual US preemptive war on North Korea, Trump's rhetoric notwithstanding. They Assume that American leaders would back down which they had always done previously regarding NK. An actual US Nuclear strike on North Korea would be a surprising event to Xi Jinping and strategists in Beijing. By the time they recovered their bearings we would have at least seriously devastated North Korea. I do expect Chinese weapons and "volunteers" to possibly begin flowing into NK soon afterwards though, But a direct war, no.

[thomasglee]

War is coming no matter what. How is having 28,000 US soldiers and their dependents in the line of fire going to change anything? It won't. It will only add to our troubles. Withdraw from Korea and nuke the Chinese and the North Koreans from a distance.

Our troops are a tripwire. I was stationed along the DMZ for three years. We always knew we had a "die in place" mission. Why? Because when American troops die, Americans will back a war. If we withdraw and the norKs invaded, the American people would resist our involvement. But eventually, we would get involved anyway, so it's best to be involved from day one than trying to come into the fray later when it will be harder and require another invasion of a fully occupied country.

If we leave and China occupies the entire peninsula, then we will have a bigger, more damaging fight on our hands.

Perhaps we should try to goad China into war before they are ready. It might be a strategic move. But to think (as CH does) that we can nuke the north without expecting any repercussions from China is just wrong.

Except that China does not expect to be directly involved in a war in Korea. They Are clearly using the North Korean threats as leverage to force several bloodless victories while strengthening their own position. I highly doubt that Chinese leaders even seriously considered an actual US preemptive war on North Korea, Trump's rhetoric notwithstanding. They Assume that American leaders would back down which they had always done previously regarding NK. An actual US Nuclear strike on North Korea would be a surprising event to Xi Jinping and strategists in Beijing. By the time they recovered their bearings we would have at least seriously devastated North Korea. I do expect Chinese weapons and "volunteers" to possibly begin flowing into NK soon afterwards though, But a direct war, no.

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.

[CH86]

Our troops are a tripwire. I was stationed along the DMZ for three years. We always knew we had a "die in place" mission. Why? Because when American troops die, Americans will back a war. If we withdraw and the norKs invaded, the American people would resist our involvement. But eventually, we would get involved anyway, so it's best to be involved from day one than trying to come into the fray later when it will be harder and require another invasion of a fully occupied country.

If we leave and China occupies the entire peninsula, then we will have a bigger, more damaging fight on our hands.

Perhaps we should try to goad China into war before they are ready. It might be a strategic move. But to think (as CH does) that we can nuke the north without expecting any repercussions from China is just wrong.

Except that China does not expect to be directly involved in a war in Korea. They Are clearly using the North Korean threats as leverage to force several bloodless victories while strengthening their own position. I highly doubt that Chinese leaders even seriously considered an actual US preemptive war on North Korea, Trump's rhetoric notwithstanding. They Assume that American leaders would back down which they had always done previously regarding NK. An actual US Nuclear strike on North Korea would be a surprising event to Xi Jinping and strategists in Beijing. By the time they recovered their bearings we would have at least seriously devastated North Korea. I do expect Chinese weapons and "volunteers" to possibly begin flowing into NK soon afterwards though, But a direct war, no.

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.

The Chinese are also aware that the US historically had a "no preemptive strike" policy in regards to when America goes to war. This is mocked by China and regarded by them as a significant handicap for the US. A US first Strike would be out of Character for the US, Whenever an International Crisis occured that involved possible use of Nukes, the US has always sought a diplomatic solution. Since the Norks have made acquiring a Nuclear arsenal their national mission/project, only preemptive war would stop them. There so far hasn't been a second Korean war, why would China think the US would act any differently now.

[thomasglee]

Except that China does not expect to be directly involved in a war in Korea. They Are clearly using the North Korean threats as leverage to force several bloodless victories while strengthening their own position. I highly doubt that Chinese leaders even seriously considered an actual US preemptive war on North Korea, Trump's rhetoric notwithstanding. They Assume that American leaders would back down which they had always done previously regarding NK. An actual US Nuclear strike on North Korea would be a surprising event to Xi Jinping and strategists in Beijing. By the time they recovered their bearings we would have at least seriously devastated North Korea. I do expect Chinese weapons and "volunteers" to possibly begin flowing into NK soon afterwards though, But a direct war, no.

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.

The Chinese are also aware that the US historically had a "no preemptive strike" policy in regards to when America goes to war. This is mocked by China and regarded by them as a significant handicap for the US.

Just too much ignorance here to even continue.

[CH86]

Also a strike on North Korea would likely Mark the end of the global free trade international system. This would present Both advantages and disadvantages for China. Possible long-term advantages for China if they played their cards right yes, but there are also fundamental disadvantages for the Chinese of a remilitarized international system as well. You mention a strike possibly destroying America's alliance system, if that occurred, it is the allies who would have to deter China on their own, if the allies are dumb enough to tell the US to leave, then the US would say "you are on your own". After all China is a permanent threat to South Korea, Japan, India and Vietnam. China will always be their neighbor. They would have to re-militarize. China would be able to invade without needing to go to war with the US. After all China's territorial designs are against its neighbors, Not against the US itself. If the Allies reject US help just because the US broke its treaty by striking North Korea, then those countries would find themselves relying on the tender Mercies of China. They would have to re-militarize or perish.

A strike would trigger a global Re-militarization. This would NOT be the US attempting a checkmate move when it sees China currently attempting a Checkmate. It is America seeing China's current Move and then getting up and throwing the entire table off the ground, forcing both players to start the game over again.

[John]

> Also a strike on North Korea would likely Mark the end of the
> global free trade international system. This would present Both
> advantages and disadvantages for China. Possible long-term
> advantages for China if they played their cards right yes, but
> there are also fundamental disadvantages for the Chinese of a
> remilitarized international system as well. You mention a strike
> possibly destroying America's alliance system, if that occurred,
> it is the allies who would have to deter China on their own, if
> the allies are dumb enough to tell the US to leave, then the US
> would say "you are on your own". After all China is a permanent
> threat to South Korea, Japan, India and Vietnam. China will always
> be their neighbor. They would have to re-militarize. China would
> be able to invade without needing to go to war with the US. After
> all China's territorial designs are against its neighbors, Not
> against the US itself. If the Allies reject US help just because
> the US broke its treaty by striking North Korea, then those
> countries would find themselves relying on the tender Mercies of
> China. They would have to re-militarize or perish.

> A strike would trigger a global Re-militarization. This would NOT
> be the US attempting a checkmate move when it sees China currently
> attempting a Checkmate. It is America seeing China's current Move
> and then getting up and throwing the entire table off the ground,
> forcing both players to start the game over again.

Does it ever occur to you at all that the person you're arguing with
knows a million times more about the situation in Korea than you do,
and that you don't have the vaguest clue what you're talking about?

Does it ever occur to you that you should be trying to learn
from him, rather than saying one stupid thing after another?

[CH86]

> Also a strike on North Korea would likely Mark the end of the
> global free trade international system. This would present Both
> advantages and disadvantages for China. Possible long-term
> advantages for China if they played their cards right yes, but
> there are also fundamental disadvantages for the Chinese of a
> remilitarized international system as well. You mention a strike
> possibly destroying America's alliance system, if that occurred,
> it is the allies who would have to deter China on their own, if
> the allies are dumb enough to tell the US to leave, then the US
> would say "you are on your own". After all China is a permanent
> threat to South Korea, Japan, India and Vietnam. China will always
> be their neighbor. They would have to re-militarize. China would
> be able to invade without needing to go to war with the US. After
> all China's territorial designs are against its neighbors, Not
> against the US itself. If the Allies reject US help just because
> the US broke its treaty by striking North Korea, then those
> countries would find themselves relying on the tender Mercies of
> China. They would have to re-militarize or perish.

> A strike would trigger a global Re-militarization. This would NOT
> be the US attempting a checkmate move when it sees China currently
> attempting a Checkmate. It is America seeing China's current Move
> and then getting up and throwing the entire table off the ground,
> forcing both players to start the game over again.

Does it ever occur to you at all that the person you're arguing with
knows a million times more about the situation in Korea than you do,
and that you don't have the vaguest clue what you're talking about?

Does it ever occur to you that you should be trying to learn
from him, rather than saying one stupid thing after another?

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.

[John]

> 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.

[Cynic Hero 86]

The US is a status quo power. Both Russia and China are revisionist powers who seek the overthrow of the current system and preferably dominate. However a paradox has emerged over the past generation or so in that the US backed rules based order increasingly no longer benefits America itself materially. The best option is to throw over the chess board rather than continue to play the game. Boomers are obsessed with making the Choice of the American people whether to be the "good guy" or the "bad guy" for them in favor of the affirmative of being the "good guy" rather than allowing the American people to make that choice themselves. What boomers refused to realize is that the moment they made that interjection, they have divorced themselves from democratic and constitutional government.

To make an even more stark (albeit implausible) example. Suppose your among 1000 people running and suddenly they notice that a cliff/steep embankment approaches, they hold a vote whether to continue running or not, an executive is appointed to make the decision for all of them. In that vote 990 of the people vote to continue running toward the cliff, however you are the executive and you are among the 10 people who point out that this is crazy. Even So under genuine democracy you have no choice but to announce that they are continuing to run toward the cliff because to do otherwise would be implementing tyranny. Its the people that are supposed to make those decisions not political insiders. Westerners born after 1955 or so generally despise the boomer version of the system in which the experts get to overrule the citizenry's choices, when constitutionally they have no legal power to do so.

[Cynic Hero 86]

> 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.