How to best deal with North Korea

I think your response is known as question begging. (It contains the conclusion--i.e. that our cutting economic ties with China would result in a "crippling economic depression," and that the costs of goods "would skyrocket"--within the premise.)

We did okay prior to 1972 (when Nixon forayed into China).

And, in any case, we could purchase inexpensive goods from Mexico--or elsewhere.

 

How much of our goods were produced in China in 1971?

Are you going to claim Mexico has factories pre-ready to produce all the goods we would normally get from China?

 

I am strongly in favor of nationalism--and equally strongly opposed to globalism.

Consider me retrograde, if you wish--I really do not care--but those are my views.

Of course not.

But it is an act of aggression--it amounts to a tin-pot dictator's giving the middle finger to the US--and we simply should not stand for it.

You make a good point that nuclear weapons are forbidden to Japan's Constitution.

Yet that can always be changed.

And actually, Japan was the recipient of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945; nuclear devices came later (and were exponentially more powerful).

 

That is precisely what China has been desiring for decades now: a de-coupling of the US from South Korea, and our banishment from the Pacific Rim.

It is not "inevitable" if the US strongly contests it.

 

Nothing good came from Germany reunifying. Rather, the ultimately obliteration of Germany as they elected an East German Russian agent, Merkel, over and over.

There is NO reason for N. Korea and S. Korea to reunite. The two populations have diametric opposite views of economics and just about everything else. To reunify the Koreas would bring chaos to S. Korea.

 

No country ever prevailed in war by attacking civilians. If N. Korea's military defense is to attack civilians of S. Korea, it would be tactically absurd on N. Korea's part.

I see no reason for us not to leave S. Korea to their own defenses and make decisions based singularly on the best interests of the USA. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, that is between the two Koreas. It N. Korea attacks S. Korea if we attack N. Korea, it would not be our fault. It would be N. Korea's fault.

 

Dunno.

Same answer as above.

But here is the bottom line:

Our foreign policy decisions should never--never!--be held hostage to our economic well-being.

No exceptions.

 

In chinese history the 1900's are just like yesterday

How do you think china got to be so big in the first place?

 

So we should make stupid short sighted decisions that cripple the economic futures for millions of
Americans?

 

Nonsense. NK is running an extortion racket. Pay up, or we'll continue to act like a bad seed. We pay, they continue anyway. That's what's going on.

 

We can only buy Chinese??? What about the rest of the world? Prices will go up short term. And it hurts the Chinese. I don't think they do anything. Why?

 

I think the Japanese constitution forbids them from going to war against a foreign nation or in support of an ally. You have to attack them.

My Mrs is a Jap. I have worked with the Japanese for 30 years.
I remember taking them to "the history of the nuclear bomb" museum early on in my career. What an enormous faux pas that was.
Hiroshima makes me think they will accept no more nukes from America.
Nagasaki.

They also don't want to make themselves into a target for foreign nukes. For some reason, like being the only people ever to have been nuked, they are very sensitive to nukes indeed.




Like South Korea and Taiwan, Japan also has a strong political movement to get rid of American military presence in Japan.

They are not a nation known for their warlike mentality. Not a nation that feels enmity to China or North Korea. Or indeed anyone at all.



Discussion of military deployments causes riots in their parliament. They physically kick off in rage at the idea.

The only time ever in my life my Mrs has had a bad word to say about anything at all. ever... was when I pointed out to her that Japan is under threat from China and that they needed American defence.
That got me a very bad response indeed. By her standards anyway. I can't remember her exact words but they were along the lines of America is the aggressor. Not China.

Haven't asked her about NK.
That is the single and only time she has made a negative comment about anyone in the 20 years I have known her.
Hence I have remembered it.


Missile shoot down capability.

They had a successful test the other week. The first one.
Assuming it is not propaganda explicitly designed to address the NK situation, and lets face it, it is exactly that; assuming that this successful test is to be taken at face value at all, it is under test conditions. Any attack on NK missiles, won't be.

In order to shoot down a satellite using the same weapons, they had an enormous amount of telemetry online. It must have taken weeks just to organise it. If NK launches, they will have a window of seconds to respond, assuming they even manage to detect it's launch in the first place.

 

for about 2 thousands year or so, china territory didn't change that much. they tend to keep in Asia, and as a most influential player in asia. They go big just like how US/Canada/russia got big.

 

Jung of N. Korea continually threatens nuclear weapons attack against the USA and is actively pursuing the missiles to do just that. He is a proven sociopath mass murderer and torturer for the joy of doing so in the most literal sense.

What is notable is that any discussions of military response against someone threatening to attack US with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is always the same: "But what about civilians in Japan and S. Korea?!" - while pointing out that neither country wants us there to defend them.

The answer is obvious. Our president and commander-in-chief is ONLY president of the United States. Accordingly, his concern should ONLY be about us Americans. If Jung responded to US attacking in self defense against his threats by attacking S. Korea and Japan, that is the concern of S. Korea and Japan, not us. Those are issues for THEIR government, not ours.

The ONLY legitimate question for US is an we eliminate Kim of N. Korea from being able to carry out his threats and even promises to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads at the USA? The answer - NOW - is yes because he does not yet have the capability.

As a note, if Kim did respond to the USA attacking N, Korea by pointlessly killing millions of S. Koreans and Japanese just for the joy of doing so (since it would have no military purpose), that would prove that he would have used nuclear weapons against the USA when capable also just for the joy of doing so. We should eliminate that possibility while we still can without risk to us.

 

Historically, for centuries Korea was referred to as "a dagger pointed at the heart of China" as it was from Korea that Japan attacked China.

 

This is a silly post. I'm attacking your stand here not you. Most of the world is against NK and its brutal totalitarian regime. They sponsor terrorism including trading missile and nuclear secrets with the Iranians. They are very likely to sell nukes to people like ISIS etc. No one wants them except those that can use them and China isn't happy with them. They are just using them as well.

It needs to go away before they decide one day to set off an EMP over Alaska or Hawaii. And one day if unchecked they will be able to destroy cities in Japan, Taiwan and the US.

NK wants to survive and that maniac will do anything to achieve that goal. Otherwise wild dogs will tear him apart and all that supported the oppression of the NK people. This regime is no different than Nazi Germany. It needs to go away.

And if you think NK will peacefully unify with SK you're in la la land. They will take over the country and destroy it and the entire Korean peninsula will eventually look like the North.

 

Bullshit. America did.
Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Not to mention Britain and America in Germany. Rwanadans. And pretty much every winner of any war ever with ethnic cleasning. Of which there are a great many.

Singapore was lost to the British with all it's entire pacific army.... without firing a shot.. because the Japs turned off the water supply to the city. The civilians were all going to die so we surrendered.

In the Korean war, Pyongyang was bombed shitless. Bio weapons dropped.
WMD'd their capital city. They haven't forgotton.

 

Seems highly possible. On the other hand, Germany didn't go commie. West Germany did not turn into east Germany, the opposite occured. There is precedent.
All you have to do to peacefully reunify, is not fight. Tensions and democracy rallies still occur in Hong Kong.
But it has been peaceful. In the hand over, they dropped parachutists in. No one attacked them. And although Hong Kong became commies, they didn't lose their identity or their way of life especially. China adapted to them just as much as they adapted to China.

NK and SK do have reunification talks. Do have an ongoing discussion about this. But SK is divided in this issue.
The anti war people got into office. This is their politics. What they are about.

 

Forget all the nonsense about the joy Mr Kim feels in mass murder.
Okinawa is a target in any war in NK.
Whatever your bases in SK are called, they are targets in SK.

If Kim attacks you, Koreans and Japs are in the firing line because you are standing amongst them. Using them as human shields might not work out. Probably won't work out in my opinion.

If he is as smart as Saddam was, and he will be, he can make play of the weakness of those alliances. Attempt to divide you.

 

yes over the course of thousands years. consider from 1900 to now, how many war china involve in vs US.

 

what you talking about HK was given back to China after the lease expired.

 

From our perspective, that is what happened. From China's perspective, they took it.
Had we have been a bigger military power, they would have had to renew the lease. But those days are over.

So while we were having formal hand overs, they were dropping paratroopers.

 

One.
The Korean War.


However when you look at the size of the Chinese Navy, there is clearly only one reason they have so many vessels. America is the threat they have built their forces to counter.

They have a defence pact with North Korea.
What more can you say?

 

China is not confining themselves to asia anymore

They have global ambitions

 

You are forgetting the border clashes with India and Vietnam that China has been involved in