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

[John]

John, what ar your predictions for the Trump summit with Kim? Will Trump walk? I wonder if the commies in NK will be able to string DT along for very long. I agree, NK will never give up their nukes.

Can't be predicted.

[CH86]

Nope, The problem is that boomers are outright REFUSING to nuke North Korea. This is NOT like 9/11 or pearl harbor where a possible enemy was not detected as in the case of 9/11, or underestimated as in the case of pearl harbor. Here the threat is blatantly obvious but the logical course of action is refused for purely ideological reasons. How long must the American people and the US military have a giant leash equipped on them. Globalists, stop making life and death decisions for us, its tyrannical.

[thomasglee]

Nope, The problem is that boomers are outright REFUSING to nuke North Korea. This is NOT like 9/11 or pearl harbor where a possible enemy was not detected as in the case of 9/11, or underestimated as in the case of pearl harbor. Here the threat is blatantly obvious but the logical course of action is refused for purely ideological reasons. How long must the American people and the US military have a giant leash equipped on them. Globalists, stop making life and death decisions for us, its tyrannical.

It's funny (not really) because you are exhibiting just the kind of attitude that leads to the next crisis war. Remember, the further we get from the last crisis the more likely we will repeat. We repeat because people decide finding solutions isn't the answer and that only war is the answer. So nuking them, and creating a crisis war is the answer in your book?

[CH86]

Nope, The problem is that boomers are outright REFUSING to nuke North Korea. This is NOT like 9/11 or pearl harbor where a possible enemy was not detected as in the case of 9/11, or underestimated as in the case of pearl harbor. Here the threat is blatantly obvious but the logical course of action is refused for purely ideological reasons. How long must the American people and the US military have a giant leash equipped on them. Globalists, stop making life and death decisions for us, its tyrannical.

It's funny (not really) because you are exhibiting just the kind of attitude that leads to the next crisis war. Remember, the further we get from the last crisis the more likely we will repeat. We repeat because people decide finding solutions isn't the answer and that only war is the answer. So nuking them, and creating a crisis war is the answer in your book?

Nuking them would NOT create a crisis war, and in fact allow america several years of peace before the crisis war but also allow the US to remain neutral in the opening and escalation stages of the crisis war, in effect delaying the crisis war for the US until the rest of the world is in a state of full-scale war. Yes, a strike would mean war with North Korea with boots on the ground. But a nuclear strike on North Korea would ensure an american victory; also a successful liquidation of the North Korean threat would massively enhance American Prestige militarily. Regarding the reaction of rival powers; Russia and China would do nothing because first; both countries leadership would be stunned that the US had taken such a bold action after 30 years of america doing everything "by the book", because any action taken by China or Russia Post-strike would have the potential of an unlimited escalation and since no Russian and Chinese assets were targeted: Putin and Xi would take the path of least resistance and do nothing. Boomers because of their "moral" and ideological Biases refuse to take that particular path and are biased against the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea.

[thomasglee]

Nope, The problem is that boomers are outright REFUSING to nuke North Korea. This is NOT like 9/11 or pearl harbor where a possible enemy was not detected as in the case of 9/11, or underestimated as in the case of pearl harbor. Here the threat is blatantly obvious but the logical course of action is refused for purely ideological reasons. How long must the American people and the US military have a giant leash equipped on them. Globalists, stop making life and death decisions for us, its tyrannical.

It's funny (not really) because you are exhibiting just the kind of attitude that leads to the next crisis war. Remember, the further we get from the last crisis the more likely we will repeat. We repeat because people decide finding solutions isn't the answer and that only war is the answer. So nuking them, and creating a crisis war is the answer in your book?

Nuking them would NOT create a crisis war, and in fact allow america several years of peace before the crisis war but also allow the US to remain neutral in the opening and escalation stages of the crisis war, in effect delaying the crisis war for the US until the rest of the world is in a state of full-scale war. Yes, a strike would mean war with North Korea with boots on the ground. But a nuclear strike on North Korea would ensure an american victory; also a successful liquidation of the North Korean threat would massively enhance American Prestige militarily. Regarding the reaction of rival powers; Russia and China would do nothing because first; both countries leadership would be stunned that the US had taken such a bold action after 30 years of america doing everything "by the book", because any action taken by China or Russia Post-strike would have the potential of an unlimited escalation and since no Russian and Chinese assets were targeted: Putin and Xi would take the path of least resistance and do nothing. Boomers because of their "moral" and ideological Biases refuse to take that particular path and are biased against the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea.

A nuclear strike on the Korean peninsula, which China truly views as a principality, would result in an immediate military response. Thinking anything less is naive.

[CH86]

It's funny (not really) because you are exhibiting just the kind of attitude that leads to the next crisis war. Remember, the further we get from the last crisis the more likely we will repeat. We repeat because people decide finding solutions isn't the answer and that only war is the answer. So nuking them, and creating a crisis war is the answer in your book?

Nuking them would NOT create a crisis war, and in fact allow america several years of peace before the crisis war but also allow the US to remain neutral in the opening and escalation stages of the crisis war, in effect delaying the crisis war for the US until the rest of the world is in a state of full-scale war. Yes, a strike would mean war with North Korea with boots on the ground. But a nuclear strike on North Korea would ensure an american victory; also a successful liquidation of the North Korean threat would massively enhance American Prestige militarily. Regarding the reaction of rival powers; Russia and China would do nothing because first; both countries leadership would be stunned that the US had taken such a bold action after 30 years of america doing everything "by the book", because any action taken by China or Russia Post-strike would have the potential of an unlimited escalation and since no Russian and Chinese assets were targeted: Putin and Xi would take the path of least resistance and do nothing. Boomers because of their "moral" and ideological Biases refuse to take that particular path and are biased against the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea.

A nuclear strike on the Korean peninsula, which China truly views as a principality, would result in an immediate military response. Thinking anything less is naive.

China did not respond at Doklam which directly borders Chinese soil, they would do nothing for NK which doesn't. The worst that would happen is that Chinese weapons and "volunteers" would appear at the front line, as in 1950. But in terms of a direct response, there would be nothing of the sort. Outside of the Korean peninsula in the long term; A strike would open up other possibilities such as an invasion of Iran.

[thomasglee]

Nuking them would NOT create a crisis war, and in fact allow america several years of peace before the crisis war but also allow the US to remain neutral in the opening and escalation stages of the crisis war, in effect delaying the crisis war for the US until the rest of the world is in a state of full-scale war. Yes, a strike would mean war with North Korea with boots on the ground. But a nuclear strike on North Korea would ensure an american victory; also a successful liquidation of the North Korean threat would massively enhance American Prestige militarily. Regarding the reaction of rival powers; Russia and China would do nothing because first; both countries leadership would be stunned that the US had taken such a bold action after 30 years of america doing everything "by the book", because any action taken by China or Russia Post-strike would have the potential of an unlimited escalation and since no Russian and Chinese assets were targeted: Putin and Xi would take the path of least resistance and do nothing. Boomers because of their "moral" and ideological Biases refuse to take that particular path and are biased against the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea.

A nuclear strike on the Korean peninsula, which China truly views as a principality, would result in an immediate military response. Thinking anything less is naive.

China did not respond at Doklam which directly borders Chinese soil, they would do nothing for NK which doesn't. The worst that would happen is that Chinese weapons and "volunteers" would appear at the front line, as in 1950. But in terms of a direct response, there would be nothing of the sort.

Did you really just claim that North Korea and China do not share a border? lol

[CH86]

A nuclear strike on the Korean peninsula, which China truly views as a principality, would result in an immediate military response. Thinking anything less is naive.

China did not respond at Doklam which directly borders Chinese soil, they would do nothing for NK which doesn't. The worst that would happen is that Chinese weapons and "volunteers" would appear at the front line, as in 1950. But in terms of a direct response, there would be nothing of the sort.

Did you really just claim that North Korea and China do not share a border? lol

They Share a border, but Korea was never considered direct Chinese soil unlike at doklam, Both Chinese and Russian preparations probably assume that the US is operating under the existing Rules. A First-strike on North Korea immediately Changes the Rules from what had been the prevailing operational assumptions since at least the late 1980s.

Also Negotiations on the subject of strategic "spheres of influence" and Strategic Borders would be opened with Beijing simultaneously with the Strike on North Korea.

[thomasglee]

China did not respond at Doklam which directly borders Chinese soil, they would do nothing for NK which doesn't. The worst that would happen is that Chinese weapons and "volunteers" would appear at the front line, as in 1950. But in terms of a direct response, there would be nothing of the sort.

Did you really just claim that North Korea and China do not share a border? lol

They Share a border, but Korea was never considered direct Chinese soil unlike at doklam, Both Chinese and Russian preparations probably assume that the US is operating under the existing Rules. A First-strike on North Korea immediately Changes the Rules from what had been the prevailing operational assumptions since at least the late 1980s.

Also Negotiations on the subject of strategic "spheres of influence" and Strategic Borders would be opened with Beijing simultaneously with the Strike on North Korea.

Not being rude, but you clearly do not know much about Korean history. I lived and worked in Korea for many years (total of over two decades) and I can tell you that historically, Korea has often been considered a vassal state by China.

Korea (Joseon) was a tributary state of the Manchus and Qing Empire from 1636 to 1876. Before then, they paid tribute from time to time to the Yuan and Ming dynasties. As I have mentioned on this site many times, the king of Korea was free to rule Korea and in Korea, he was a king. However, when he went to Beijing, he was nothing more than a prince and as such, was required to acknowledge the Qing Emperor as his overlord, and send regular tribute to China, which included slaves and trade commodities. North Korea's "tribute" to China since 1953 has been being a thorn in the side of the USA.

When KJU recently visited China he was given a lot of nice gifts by Xi. This fits the history of the Chinese Joseon relationship (By the way, north Koreans still refer to themselves as Joseon [조선], while the ROK refers to themselves as Hankuk [한국]). Historically, the Emporer of China (Xi just made himself ruler for life, which, in effect, is an emperor) would show appreciation for Joseon's tributes by offering 'gifts' of Chinese products (which is exactly what Xi did when KJU visited China). The gifts are intended to demonstrate the emperor's benevolence and generosity, but in practice, the tribute system amounted to a form of government-sanctioned international trade.

To me, it appears as if the Joseon/Chinese relationship status is being overtly reestablished and advertised to the world. I am surprised that other Korea watchers haven't picked up on this (I haven't read anything pointing this out).

As Ecclesiastes tells us, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

There are over 3 million Koreans living in Yeonbyeon (연변), which is an autonomous prefecture in northeastern Jilin Province, China. So there are much longer and stronger historical ties between China and Joseon than between China and Doklam.

I share all that just to point out that an attack on north Korea, in any form, is an attack on China. Period.

[John]

No one seriously believes that China backed off on Doklam because
it was giving up. The reason that China backed off is because
they aren't ready yet to launch a full-scale war.

In the meantime, China has been building up military infrastructure
along the border with Doklam, in preparation for when a full-scale
attack will be launched.

China has not yet attacked Taiwan, because it's not yet ready
for full-scale war. In the meantime, China is preparing its
navy and air force for the time when a full-scale attack
will be launched.

China has been supporting the US sanctions, because China does
not want a US military strike on North Korea, which would trigger
a full-scale war before China is ready to launch it.

China has been building up huge military bases in the South
China Sea in preparation for a full-scale attack.

China has been sending fleets to circle the Senkaku Islands,
in preparation for the planned full-scale attack on Japan.

China is attacking US planes in Djibouti with high-grade lasers
in preparation for full-scale war with the US in the horn
of Africa.

China has deployed a bridage of ICBMs on the border with Russia's Far
East. These can used to attack the US over the North Pole, and can
also be turned on Moscow.

China is preparing for war on all fronts. They know that if they risk
war over Doklam, over NK, over the South China Sea, over Djibouti,
over the Senkakus, etc., then they will be in a full-scale world war
immediately. They won't launch one attack until they're ready to
launch all attacks simultaneously.