North Korean Military.

[hauritz]

Yes putting Nukes next door to Russia and China...
I can't see anything going wrong in that scenario and I am sure Putin would welcome those nukes in his backyard with open arms

Actually the US would have a fairly legitimate reason for basing nukes in South Korea. North Korea is a genuine nuclear threat to the US and its allies.

Basing nukes ... or at least threatening to base nukes in South Korea might just be enough motivation to get China and Russia to help fix the problem with its errant ally.

 

[t68]

It appears they have launched another missile but failed again,

North Korea missile launch reportedly fails - 9news.com.au


"The North attempted to launch an unidentified missile from near the Sinpo region this morning but it is suspected to have failed," the South's Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.

 

[STURM]

To a rational that may be the case, but it seem they are far from rational, they may have a use it or lose policy.

Actually, there is - despite their behaviour - a method behind their madness. If they were completely irrational they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have.

Their nukes are solely intended to safeguard themselves against regime change. They're convinced that the only thing preventing others from doing another Iraq or Libya is the fact that they have nukes.

Actually the US would have a fairly legitimate reason for basing nukes in South Korea.

No doubt the vast majority of South Koreans agree that North Korea is a possible threat but whether or not the vast majority of South Koreans would agree to the basing of U.S. nukes on their soil is a different matter.

Basing nukes ... or at least threatening to base nukes in South Korea might just be enough motivation to get China and Russia to help fix the problem with its errant ally.

Such a move could also backfire. China might be forced to take certain steps in retaliation. China recently said that if North Korea gave up its nukes, the country would come under Chinese protection. I believe that was a message intended not only for North Korea but also at others.

Any moves undertaken by the U.S. over North Korea that is unacceptable to China will have consequences. We only have to look at what happened in 1950. Despite what ever displeasure China has with North Korea, that country still lies in China's backyard and China will do whatever it takes to safeguards its own national interests. Despite all the rhetoric about how the U.S. might have to deal with North Korea on its own; Trump and his advisors are aware that they have to tread carefully.

 

[gazzzwp]

Any moves undertaken by the U.S. over North Korea that is unacceptable to China will have consequences. We only have to look at what happened in 1950. Despite what ever displeasure China has with North Korea, that country still lies in China's backyard and China will do whatever it takes to safeguards its own national interests. Despite all the rhetoric about how the U.S. might have to deal with North Korea on its own; Trump and his advisors are aware that they have to tread carefully.

I'm not sure I agree with this talk of China fiercely defending it's territory. From what and whom? The worst case scenario is for fat boy's regime to collapse and a take over by S Korea in the style of West and East German reunification. China would have a wealthy nation on it's border to trade with and so would Russia; a stable and prosperous partner. Why would the US need to be further involved as a protectorate?

The whole situation has to be better than a starving unstable third world nation ruled by a nuclear wielding Roman emperor despot with tens of thousands of citizens still in concentration camps many of whom risk their lives desperately trying to cross the border.

Edit to add:

With potential for growth and investment as millions of poorly educated civilians need training, basic facilities, and infrastructure.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With potential for growth and investment as millions of poorly educated civilians need training, basic facilities, and infrastructure.

have to say that I stand by my previous and support what Sturm is saying

China doesn't want a merged korea on her doorstep. As inconvenient as it can be at times, having a hostile to the west NK on her doorstep serves a purpose, its an instant defensive tripwire and buffer

She also doesn't need or want a wealthy democracy on her border which brings its own inherent leakage problems and where the concern about destabilisation that would also come with that geographical shift would then disrupt the govt narrative on masses of chinese that don't travel

eg the china on the common borders of NK isn't exactly Shenzen, HK or Shanghai. it would create an internal political dimension that they have studiously avoided and continue to seek to keep away.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not sure I agree with this talk of China fiercely defending it's territory. From what and whom? The worst case scenario is for fat boy's regime to collapse and a take over by S Korea in the style of West and East German reunification. China would have a wealthy nation on it's border to trade with and so would Russia; a stable and prosperous partner. Why would the US need to be further involved as a protectorate?

Methinks that you need to read your history. When the Korean War kicked off, the PRC was not actively involved. It was only after the success of the Inchon landings that the North Korean forces south of Seoul retreated very quickly north because of the threat of encirclement and destruction. The UN forces quickly chased them and it was only after they came close to the Chinese border, that the PRC intervened and the PLA swarmed across the border.

Because of that the PRC will never allow a western aligned state to exist north of the 38th parallel on the Korean Peninsula. When the USSR shipped nukes to Cuba in 1962 the US spat the dummy hugely, rightly or wrongly, and WW3 just about kicked off. IIRC he US had nuclear tipped SRBM or MRBM based in Turkey at the time, basically on the Soviet borders, so the Soviets thought what was good for the goose was good for the gander. The PRC are more paranoid about US nukes in South Korea than the US were about Soviet nukes in Cuba. the reasons for that, you just have look at Chinese history from about 1800 onwards. They call the period from 1841 - 1949 the 100 years of shame with good reason.

Finally, some observations:

• The whole world does not revolve around the US and the US is not the gods gift to the world. It never was; never will be and that is the same for any nation, religious or political system. There are only two certainties in life; death and taxes.
• You cannot analyse a non US society / nation viewed through a strictly US lens or prism. In effect you are analysing that society through viewpoints and a cultural identity that is yours and not theirs, therefore leading to false conclusions. They think differently, have a totally different cultural and social dynamic. history and philosophical dynamic to what you do. It is within that context that you have to analyse them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

IIRC he US had nuclear tipped SRBM or MRBM based in Turkey at the time, basically on the Soviet borders, so the Soviets thought what was good for the goose was good for the gander. The PRC are more paranoid about US nukes in South Korea than the US were about Soviet nukes in Cuba. the reasons for that, you just have look at Chinese history from about 1800 onwards. They call the period from 1841 - 1949 the 100 years of shame with good reason.

Pershing - which ended up becoming part of the backdoor negotiations with Kruschev post Cuban crisis

 

[t68]

Pershing - which ended up becoming part of the backdoor negotiations with Kruschev post Cuban crisis

Yes they were obsolete and were going to be pulled out anyway, but was under the impression it was the Jupiter missiles that were withdrawn

 

[gazzzwp]

Finally, some observations:

• The whole world does not revolve around the US and the US is not the gods gift to the world. It never was; never will be and that is the same for any nation, religious or political system. There are only two certainties in life; death and taxes.
• You cannot analyse a non US society / nation viewed through a strictly US lens or prism. In effect you are analysing that society through viewpoints and a cultural identity that is yours and not theirs, therefore leading to false conclusions. They think differently, have a totally different cultural and social dynamic. history and philosophical dynamic to what you do. It is within that context that you have to analyse them.

Also for you (respectfully) to bear in mind:

1) We in the west arguably would not be in the position that we enjoy today were it not for the might and superiority of US military power. They assisted us greatly in two world wars and more importantly served as our protector from Soviet enslavement. The latter being by far the most anti-humanitarian regime the world has ever known.

2) It is no good looking at North Korea as a sovereign nation in it's own right when the majority of the population live as primitive slaves, frightened, and down trodden where escaping at all costs is commonplace. Offering a guarantee of sovereignty (By the US and China) unfortunately may be the only way forward to avoid a holocaust but that is a sad reflection on the lack of options that the region now is faced with.

It would good to remember where we would all be without the US.

I'm sorry but it's time that China took a more active role in sorting out the problem along with Russia and not just leaving it to the US. In the long term China has more to lose than the US and it's ostrich stance will cost it dearly in the end.

Everyone moans about the US. Then I say let the others pitch for in real or shut up.

China needs to look forward and embrace a new paradigm; a new friendlier regime on it's border. It must happen and will happen soon to the relief and freedom of the millions in that miserable country rife with starvation and deprivation.

The history of the Korean war (which all are aware of anyway) holds little value to me other than as I have already stated; the US must stop leaving jobs half done. It always pays more in the end.

 

[Feanor]

I'm not sure I agree with this talk of China fiercely defending it's territory. From what and whom? The worst case scenario is for fat boy's regime to collapse and a take over by S Korea in the style of West and East German reunification. China would have a wealthy nation on it's border to trade with and so would Russia; a stable and prosperous partner. Why would the US need to be further involved as a protectorate?

This has been discussed repeatedly on this forum. Why you still ignore the basic reality is beyond me. How do you just magically jump from an impoverished and collapsing post-Kim North to a prosperous unified Korea with nothing in between and with nothing but immediate benefits for China?

A unified Korea would not be stable or prosperous for years, maybe decades. It would be a destabilized South desperately pouring resources into a ruined North, in the hopes that eventually it would pay off. China would be looking at a large and permanent (at least as permanent as anything is these days) South Korean military presence much closer to their own border. There would also likely be a US military presence.

And no the worst case scenario is not the fairy tale you have painted. The worst case scenario is that North Korea sets off some of it's nuclear arsenal, as the regime desperately tries to do anything they can to survive. Consequently millions die, radiation is scattered over a large area (including parts of China and Russia) and the ensuing mess is left festering for decades to come.

 

[swerve]

Pershing - which ended up becoming part of the backdoor negotiations with Kruschev post Cuban crisis

I think you're confusing the Pershing missile (MGM-31) with the Jupiter (MGM-19).

Jupiter was deployed in Turkey before the Cuban crisis. Pershing wasn't operational until after the Cuban crisis was over, & never in Turkey. Germany from the mid-60s, replaced by Pershing 2 in the 1980s. I remember the fuss here about the simultaneous deployment here of GLCM.

 

[vonnoobie]

On the topic of a unified Korea, People should take the Karelian question into account.

In the Winter War/WWII Karelia was annexed by Russia, Since the end of the Cold War the topic of returning Karelia to Finland has popped up from time to time mostly in civilian topics of discussion rather then official government talks.

Due to the lower standard of living on the Russian side of the border most Finn's appose reacquiring Karelia due to the cost, With the less then half a million living there and the cost to bring the area up to the same standard of living as the average Finn estimated at 30 billion Euro's.

Compare that to NK and SK where the difference in standard of living are drastically different then that of Finland and Russia. The far larger population. etc. You would be needing hundreds of billions at the lowest estimate, possibly north of a trillion at the worst estimate. A unified Korea would bankrupt them.

And non of that takes into account damages inflicted onto SK, reduced trade, investment, falling dollar value, collapsing economy etc.

Financially a unified Korea just doesnt stack up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you're confusing the Pershing missile (MGM-31) with the Jupiter (MGM-19).

Jupiter was deployed in Turkey before the Cuban crisis. Pershing wasn't operational until after the Cuban crisis was over, & never in Turkey. Germany from the mid-60s, replaced by Pershing 2 in the 1980s. I remember the fuss here about the simultaneous deployment here of GLCM.

yep, nice catch. I was thinking of Jupiter. It was already redundant from a US perspective when they offered to pull it as part of the cuban crisis negs. but it was symbolic and allowed the russians to have a quid pro quo

 

[STURM]

The worst case scenario is for fat boy's regime to collapse and a take over by S Korea in the style of West and East German reunification.

Has it occurred to you that South Korea at present might not be too eager for reunification?

It would good to remember where we would all be without the US.

No doubts there; the U.S.has contributed and sacrificed a lot but does this mean that we should refrain from any criticism of the U.S.?

I'm sorry but it's time that China took a more active role in sorting out the problem along with Russia and not just leaving it to the US.

Who says that China is just ''just leaving it to the US''? Just because China is not beating the war drums or holding naval maneuvers near the North Korean coast doesn't mean it's not doing anything. Different countries have different ways of doing things and culture plays a part too. China probably feels that dealing with North Korea via back door diplomacy and other means is more effective. I would think that the Chinese have a far better understanding of the North Korean psyche and what makes them tick than the U.S.

The history of the Korean war (which all are aware of anyway) holds little value to me other than as I have already stated;

The fact remains that history teaches us a lot and history provides clear indications as to how certain countries still conduct their dealings now and in the future. U.S. troops nearing the Yalu was a ''red line'' [to use a cliche] that had been crossed; one that China was not willing to tolerate. If in the future others cross China's ''red line''; China will not sit back idly given that North Korea is in its backyard.

 

[swerve]

On the topic of a unified Korea, People should take the Karelian question into account.

In the Winter War/WWII Karelia was annexed by Russia, Since the end of the Cold War the topic of returning Karelia to Finland has popped up from time to time mostly in civilian topics of discussion rather then official government talks.

Due to the lower standard of living on the Russian side of the border most Finn's appose reacquiring Karelia due to the cost, With the less then half a million living there and the cost to bring the area up to the same standard of living as the average Finn estimated at 30 billion Euro's. ....

Big difference: pretty much all the Karelians left Karelia in 1940-44, & were replaced by Russians. Karelia's been Russian, inhabited by Russians, for over 70 years now. Why would Finns want to shower money on a bunch of Russians? It's easy to see why they wouldn't want to incorporate all those Russians into Finland. I can't see Karelia rejoining Finland as long as it's inhabited by Russians, & nobody's going to throw 'em all out.

Regardless of the difference in the standard of living, North Korea is inhabited by Koreans. They've not been replaced. Karelia is irrelevant.

Germany is better, but the example of E. Germany doesn't show how much it'd cost to integrate N. Korea, but how not to do it.

There have been many proposals for how to do it better, & most assume that economic & political integration wouldn't be immediate & absolute, but gradual, by stages. Instead of turning Western firms loose on the new territory to bring its infrastructure up to the standard of the rest of the country ASAP, at western cost levels, it's suggested that it'd make a lot more sense to employ North Koreans to rebuild their own country, at more like their cost levels, while freeing the rest of them to do legally what many are already doing in the shadows, i.e. working on their own initiative, & providing a legal system & supporting structures to facilitate it.

 

[Rob c]

While some. especially in South Korea would have an emotional leaning towards unification. I think that the best solution for North Korea would be a Chinese style government or even a Chinese take-over. While this solution would grate for some people and is not ideal, it would keep China from getting agitated and allow an improvement in their living standards for the North Koreans. It is extremely unlikely that a solution that pleases everyone is available. But I do say that Fat Boy has to go, how is the only question.

 

[ngatimozart]

While some. especially in South Korea would have an emotional leaning towards unification. I think that the best solution for North Korea would be a Chinese style government or even a Chinese take-over. While this solution would grate for some people and is not ideal, it would keep China from getting agitated and allow an improvement in their living standards for the North Koreans. It is extremely unlikely that a solution that pleases everyone is available. But I do say that Fat Boy has to go, how is the only question.

I would have to agree that this could be a way out of the current situation and would allay fears that currently exist. There would be consequences, some unintended, but politically such action could be supported upon humanitarian grounds. It would have to be a PRC operation though, preferably under a UN mandate. Such an action could be acceptable to the Security Council if the PRC, US and Russia support the idea.

 

[gf0012-aust]

some new vehicles from the birthday parade (and some reconstructed old ones)

Analysis New combat vehicles and tanks at military parade in North Korea by Army Recognition 11704172 | April 2017 Global Defense Security news industry | Defense Security global news industry army 2017 | Archive News year

 

[t68]

some new vehicles from the birthday parade (and some reconstructed old ones)

Analysis New combat vehicles and tanks at military parade in North Korea by Army Recognition 11704172 | April 2017 Global Defense Security news industry | Defense Security global news industry army 2017 | Archive News year

They seem to have a fascination on nice white trim lines on their split rims and tracked vehicles, a bit different from our use of vaseline to give the old landies a nice little shine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They seem to have a fascination on nice white trim lines on their split rims and tracked vehicles, a bit different from our use of vaseline to give the old landies a nice little shine.

whitewalls is a common communist mayday feature from the old cold war days. russia and china used to run whitewalls on may day parades etc...