North Korea

mirwillbeback

I don't post in this forum but am an eager follower of many threads.

With the latest announcements regarding North Korea threatening the United States with a military strike, I can't help wonder is this is yet another way for the US to go to war.

I may be totally wrong, and this is just based on a general unease I have, but -

- how do we really know that this threat was issued as often the media can say anything
- why would North Korea make such a threat when they have far more limited war resources and weapons than the US
- the US economy and currency is not performing well, and this has appeared to lead to wars in the past
- the US appear to be the country most eager to go to war

Please don't rubbish the idea, I really don't know, just something to debate?

Jonny7

The North Korean leadership uses the threat of war as a tool to receive concessions from the international community and their neighbours which they are heavily reliant on

Their only allies in the region, China, got pretty peeved earlier this year after the third nuclear test and decided with the US to push some sanctions that the North Korean leadership really doesn't like (it targets many of their ruling elite's funds, banking and luxuries)

Most know that these threats are just bluster, but the problem is that an incident (like the previous sinking of the Cheonan) could seriously escalate. Hence the international community and neighbours like China, as much as they disapprove of the current regime in North Korea - would rather just give in and provide concessions that face a pointless bloody war that benefits no one.

weisses

Im very curious what would happen if Iran would use the same rhetoric as NK is using now

Wacker The Attacker

mirwillbeback wrote: »

I don't post in this forum but am an eager follower of many threads.

With the latest announcements regarding North Korea threatening the United States with a military strike, I can't help wonder is this is yet another way for the US to go to war.

I may be totally wrong, and this is just based on a general unease I have, but -

- how do we really know that this threat was issued as often the media can say anything
- why would North Korea make such a threat when they have far more limited war resources and weapons than the US
- the US economy and currency is not performing well, and this has appeared to lead to wars in the past
- the US appear to be the country most eager to go to war

Please don't rubbish the idea, I really don't know, just something to debate?

What possible motive is there for war?

Park Royal

Kim Jong-un do you know there is a cruise missile with your name on it.....

as soon a you kick off hostilities , it will go up your "xxx".......with a drone

recording the unfortunate event........:o

PS. is everybody in North Korea on the same BMI.....Body Mass Index...?

or are there a few exceptions......?.

Jonny7

Park Royal wrote: »

PS. is everybody in North Korea on the same BMI.....Body Mass Index...?

or are there a few exceptions......?.

Odd, but teenagers in North Korea are on average 8 inches shorter than their Southern counterparts because of malnutrition

Tabnabs

This being the conspiracy forum, could there be a false flag threat here? I've seen some outlandish suggestions about an EMP over the US (Texas was identified).

studiorat

mirwillbeback wrote: »

I may be totally wrong, and this is just based on a general unease I have, but -

- how do we really know that this threat was issued as often the media can say anything

We really know because we can read North Koreas media.

mirwillbeback wrote: »

- why would North Korea make such a threat when they have far more limited war resources and weapons than the US

From said media :

Only the powerful nuclear forces can guarantee peace and prosperity and happy life of the people.
Now, the determinations and morale of the KPA officers and men to annihilate the enemy are towering into the sky.
They are filled with the will to mercilessly smash all the aggressors and their strongholds with our miniaturized, lightened and diversified nukes.
The stronger our nuclear force, the more enthusiastic we will be in our trainings to prepare ourselves politically, ideologically, and in military technique.
And so we will give full play to the courage of the strong revolutionary army of Mt. Parktu and reunify the country at any cost.

http://www.rodong.rep.kp/InterKo/

Tzar Chasm

reunify the country at any cost

except the obvious one, open the borders and end hostilities.

they don't necessarily have to stop being comunistical, they can embrace the chinese model

Park Royal

Jonny7 wrote: »

Odd, but teenagers in North Korea are on average 8 inches shorter than their Southern counterparts because of malnutrition

Theres at least one small fat guy in North Korea, the fat is just bursting out of

him, while everybody else looks a bit thin....due to lack of food,,,,,

the whole situation in the North reminds me of George Orwell's "1984".....

the people are trapped ...and cant find a way to change things yet,,,!

Nino Brown

North Korea know that they can say whatever they want, but nobody will preemptively strike them, because its an undesirable war and they have a history of talking total sh!t, so the whole world knows they're bluffing. The US and South Korea have to engage in the trash talk so they don't look weak on the international stage, but everyone knows this war is a non starter.
Iran on the other hand want a bit of breathing space, there is a very real threat of war in Iran, and they are an ally of North Korea. I may be way off the mark here, but I would not be at all surprised if the Iranians are behind all this trash talk coming out of North Korea. They could be paying the North Koreans in nuclear materials, or food, just to stir the pot and take some heat off them.

Torakx

From looking at how events have unfolded, alot of the time I have felt sideblinded by acts of war.
It could well be a setup for a war in the middle east.Or something worse, like East V West meeting in the middle.
America are clearly pushing themselves all the way to Chinas doorstep.
And so far from the western medias view, the Chinese arent doing a whole lot about it.
In reality they are doing some things that I know of.
For example protecting their territories on the seas.
Im curious have they been doing anything in the middle east too that I might have missed?
Or have America and China/Russia decided between themselves, that China gets africa and America gets middle east? Not sure where Russia might fit into that theory though.
My Geography is terrible in general.
But this frame of reference helps me a little when trying to think of the overall picture.
Look at the size of Russia.I know alot of that might be useless land..maybe.
Its quite interesting how small countries can have so much power.
Or is it that they dont in reality?
And on that note, why the hell has China allowed America to get into South Korea? ^^
Because of the Hiroshima threat?
Sorry I can be ignorant to some aspects of history.



Sorry map is massive ^^
At least you all have a frame of reference if you need lol

lg123

when i turned on the news here in sydney this morning there is more of this threat from north korea. tbh i am totally sick of this kim jong guy. my first reaction was nuke this fat prick, i have had enough BS form you!!

thank god i don't have a 'Deploy nuclear weapons' button on the tv remote.

Sonics2k

Torakx wrote: »

From looking at how events have unfolded, alot of the time I have felt sideblinded by acts of war.
It could well be a setup for a war in the middle east.Or something worse, like East V West meeting in the middle.
America are clearly pushing themselves all the way to Chinas doorstep.
And so far from the western medias view, the Chinese arent doing a whole lot about it.
In reality they are doing some things that I know of.
For example protecting their territories on the seas.
Im curious have they been doing anything in the middle east too that I might have missed?
Or have America and China/Russia decided between themselves, that China gets africa and America gets middle east? Not sure where Russia might fit into that theory though.
My Geography is terrible in general.
But this frame of reference helps me a little when trying to think of the overall picture.
Look at the size of Russia.I know alot of that might be useless land..maybe.
Its quite interesting how small countries can have so much power.
Or is it that they dont in reality?
And on that note, why the hell has China allowed America to get into South Korea? ^^
Because of the Hiroshima threat?
Sorry I can be ignorant to some aspects of history.



Sorry map is massive ^^
At least you all have a frame of reference if you need lol

No offence here, but maybe you should read up on history, geography and politics of the area, because that was honestly a stream of nonsense.

Torakx

Well add your opinion on the topic then
Thats why im here.

Does that comment mean you dont think China are doing anything politically or militarily?

Or are you basing most of that criticism on my comments relating to South Korea?
I mentioned I am ignorant in some aspects of history.So fill me in.You dont need to re-highlight my overall ignorance, lets get specific at least ,if your going to be my critic.

Unless you literally dissagree with everything, in which case you should read up on Chinas fairly recent activities, along their sea borders and areas of control.

My overall theory was that the big names in global power are cooperating to an extent.Slightly more than is percievable or aknowledged.

Nino Brown

Torakx wrote: »

Does that comment mean you don't think China are doing anything politically or militarily?

China, like any other powerful country are flexing their military muscle to try to gain resources, its no more than Britain, or the US, or Russia do on a regular basis. Its not something I'd be overly concerned about.
They did get involved to some extent in the last Korean war, but had a much weaker military back then.
As for china getting involved in the next Korean war (which wont happen anytime soon), they really couldn't care less about North Korea. North Korea have been like a noisy neighbour that China would rather live without. What they don't want is US troops on a Chinese border. Would they be willing to go to war to prevent that from happening? I doubt it. China and the US are so intertwined economically that they will not engage in direct combat, they both have the power to destroy each others country without ever firing a shot.

Torakx

Which is an interesting dynamic when the US are pretty much invading next door.
IF the US is more dependant on China economically than vice versa,they are playing a dangerous game.
But maybe it goes both ways in that respect?What does the US bring to the table economically for China?
Surely China would rather deal with North Korea's retarded state heads, than a focussed American war machine moving in next door.
That goes from nosey neighbour to psychopath moving in next door in my view.
Trying to make sense of things.And the first thing that comes to mind is they have made prior agreements.US and China that is.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Most know that these threats are just bluster, but the problem is that an incident (like the previous sinking of the Cheonan) could seriously escalate.

Problems are opportunities. Obama's first choice for White House Chief-of-Staff and son of a terrorist Rahm Emanuel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hence the international community and neighbours like China, as much as they disapprove of the current regime in North Korea - would rather just give in and provide concessions that face a pointless bloody war that benefits no one.

Pointless bloody war benefits many people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/meet-the-001-percent-war_b_1034971.html

Nino Brown

Torakx wrote: »

IF the US is more dependant on China economically than vice versa,they are playing a dangerous game.
But maybe it goes both ways in that respect?What does the US bring to the table economically for China?
Surely China would rather deal with North Korea's retarded state heads, than a focussed American war machine moving in next door.
That goes from nosey neighbour to psychopath moving in next door in my view.

Roughly 20% Of China's exports is to the US, now combine that with US companies moving their operations out of China, and that is a potential massive crash for the Chinese economy if they went to war.
If the Chinese were to dump their dollar reserves the US dollar would most likely totally collapse. Neither scenario is desirable for either party. If NK was to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, nobody would really care. Both China and America's primary concern is money, if war doesnt make economic sense they wont do it, and in a War with China and the US nobody wins.
If The US were to be on a Chinese border, would it really make that much difference? I mean they can strike chine from the US if they want. Sure it would make a ground invasion easier, but you cant move enough troops to invade China onto the Korean Peninsula without it being pretty damn obvious whats happening anyway so there is no element of suprise.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Problems are opportunities. Obama's first choice for White House Chief-of-Staff and son of a terrorist Rahm Emanuel:

Guilt by association.

Pointless bloody war benefits many people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/meet-the-001-percent-war_b_1034971.html

War has always benefited someone. It's the higher opportunity cost of peace which generally prevails (in most situations thankfully)

It's very simple to try to break things down into black and white reasons to underscore a narrative, e.g. someone is making money on those Hamas and Hezbollah rockets fired into Israel, ergo that must be the reason.

The bolded part is the faulty logic.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Guilt by association.

No. Just a statement of fact . He is the son of a terrorist. What was important was his statement i.e. that "problems" can be opportunities. Therefore there is the motive to engineer/fabricate problems as has been the case in history including Korea.

Jonny7 wrote: »

War has always benefited someone. It's the higher opportunity cost of peace which generally prevails (in most situations thankfully)

It's very simple to try to break things down into black and white reasons to underscore a narrative, e.g. someone is making money on those Hamas and Hezbollah rockets fired into Israel, ergo that must be the reason.

The bolded part is the faulty logic.

No idea what you are talking about to be fair. First you said war benefits nobody and now you say it "always benefits someone".

Which is it?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Just a statement of fact . He is the son of a terrorist. What was important was his statement i.e. that "problems" can be opportunities. Therefore there is the motive to engineer/fabricate problems as has been the case in history including Korea.

Here's the full context of the quote (not a very carefully chosen few words) Note he's talking about energy, healthcare, tax, education and financial regulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk

No idea what you are talking about to be fair. First you said war benefits nobody and now you say it "always benefits someone".

Which is it?

Here is what I said

Hence the international community and neighbours like China, as much as they disapprove of the current regime in North Korea - would rather just give in and provide concessions that face a pointless bloody war that benefits no one.

I'm obviously referring to a war in North Korea, not war in general. I'm by "no one" I mean no country in the region. So you misunderstood me.

Secondly I said someone always benefits from war, since the dawn of time, weapon manufacturers, people who make brass buttons for uniforms - hence I made my point about those who manufacture rockets for Hamas and Hezbollah making the same profit.

I hope that clears it up.

Torakx

Nino Brown wrote: »

Roughly 20% Of China's exports is to the US, now combine that with US companies moving their operations out of China, and that is a potential massive crash for the Chinese economy if they went to war.
If the Chinese were to dump their dollar reserves the US dollar would most likely totally collapse. Neither scenario is desirable for either party. If NK was to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, nobody would really care. Both China and America's primary concern is money, if war doesnt make economic sense they wont do it, and in a War with China and the US nobody wins.
If The US were to be on a Chinese border, would it really make that much difference? I mean they can strike chine from the US if they want. Sure it would make a ground invasion easier, but you cant move enough troops to invade China onto the Korean Peninsula without it being pretty damn obvious whats happening anyway so there is no element of suprise.

Good points.
I suppose by being on their doorstep it doesnt make any difference once they are tied economically as you laid out.
I had thought the Chinese economy was more sustainable compared to the US.As in, the Chinese would survive alot better than the US if they had to go to war.
Under the bases that the Chinese export alot of products and have a fairly strong military already at the same time.
Argueably the Chinese should prefer taking areas with troops(at least in an economical crises I presume they have the advantage mainly when it comes to soldier numbers), which is why I am suprised they apparently dont make enough threats when the US move in next door.

The US survive it seems mostly by pillaging other countries resources.
If they move in on Chinas turf that must be a problem.

But everything considered, do you think they have sorted out agreements on who gets what area?

Nino Brown

Torakx wrote: »

Good points.
I had thought the Chinese economy was more sustainable compared to the US.As in, the Chinese would survive alot better than the US if they had to go to war.

But everything considered, do you think they have sorted out agreements on who gets what area?

China's economy would be in better shape, but they still can't compete with the US miltary. The US spends more each year on its military than the entire rest of the world combined, even if the economy went down they'd still have more than enough hardware to defeat China, but again is so undesireabale for all parties it wont happen anytime soon.

Nobody will have sorted anything out because (a) Everybody knows this war wont happen, and (b) nobody wants North Korea anyway.

LD13

It doesnt matter what motives the US has for going to war with N.Korea, the reality is that it has its own people living in fear! I hope America and its allies blow the North Korean government into the sky! and let its people live in relative peace for the first time in its history. Casualties happen in war and people will have to be sacrificed for the sake of generatons to come

SamHarris

Torakx wrote: »

Good points.
I had thought the Chinese economy was more sustainable compared to the US.As in, the Chinese would survive alot better than the US if they had to go to war.

Exact opposite. Look at domestic consumption. The US accounts for about 60% of world scientific output, China incredibly hard to say but almost certainly less than 3%. China relies almost enirelly on imported oil from the ocean. The US could easily sustain its military at a high rate with domestic, let alone allied, production. They also have a navy that could almost certainly match the rest of the worlds combined - that means Chinas oil supplies will quickly dry up.

The technology advantage would only become more pronounced with time, the resource issue would be a problem almost immediately.

China cannot project its power much beyond its own borders.

This is to say nothing of the US' capability advantage, which is in another league entirely.

No, a China US war over this issue is an almost non existant possibility but a Chinese victory in a larger sense is only a possibility in the most ideologically driven minds. Maybe in 40 years time.[/QUOTE]

Torakx wrote: »

Under the bases that the Chinese export alot of products and have a fairly strong military already at the same time.
Argueably the Chinese should prefer taking areas with troops(at least in an economical crises I presume they have the advantage mainly when it comes to soldier numbers), which is why I am suprised they apparently dont make enough threats when the US move in next door.

Mainly because numbers is their only advantage. And it is nearly a non existent advantage, becoming less of a factor for decades. The Iraqi army was enormous, far bigger than the amount of troops the US had deployed in the region. It was steamrolled in weeks.

Torakx wrote: »

The US survive it seems mostly by pillaging other countries resources.
If they move in on Chinas turf that must be a problem.

Um... Just out of curiousity where was the last place it pillaged and by pillage do you mean "buy" because even then you would be wrong.

It doesn't have to be a mystery or something you guess at. Economic data clearly shows where the vast majority of US wealth comes from - advanced services and technological, scientific and service innovation. It is where the vast majority of the advanced goods people enjoy all over the world is developed. The fact that these are high skilled areas - with high pay and high profits explains why the US remains rich per head to an extent no other country even approaching its population level can attain. A country the size of Norway can make all its citizens well off purely through use of natural resources - one the size of the US would need untold levels available to fund the population and wealth it generates.

Again, easy to google US economic data to see detailed information on all this , I see no reason why guessing should even occur to someone as an option

Torakx wrote: »

But everything considered, do you think they have sorted out agreements on who gets what area?

Ah a question that doesn't have an answer someone can find in seconds with google! And interesting at that!

Maybe not now, it would unsettle China too much. However I have no doubt that if this were to escalate to full scale war China will insist on some sort of buffer between itself and a unified, US allied, Korea.

SamHarris

Nino Brown wrote: »

China's economy would be in better shape,

The Chinese economy is about half the size of the US economy. It also depends on foreign investment, exports to the EU and the US to an extent that terrifies the Chinese leadership (and is leading to big attempts at diversification).

Isnt it weird how people idea of an economy collapsing because of war or being helped because of it seems almost entirely based on the political point people are trying to make at that particular time. I just noticed it now, its not exactly pertinent to your post just an observation in general.

SamHarris

Nino Brown wrote: »

.
If the Chinese were to dump their dollar reserves the US dollar would most likely totally collapse.

What do you mean by 'dump'? If you mean destroy, it would have the opposite effect, less dollars means an increase in the worth of those still around.

If you mean they will stop buying US debt, it is not necessarily true. China owns about 7% of US debt, and it is the currency in which every major business and country have their reserves in. Because of this, its value collapsing would he DISASTROUS for every one of them, they would far more likely pick up the slack than allow a collapse.

To give you an idea of how bad it would be, if you have 1 million dollars in savings and the US dollar value lost 50% you would now have 500,000 dollars (or its equivalent spending power) in savings. There're trillions of dollars of US dollars in reserve around the world - a 1% drop means billions of dollars of losses in value. I hope this makes it clear exactly how unlikely it is that anyone with any money would allow this to happen.

Perhaps most importantly in this case, China has its reserves in dollars (trillions of dollars). Perhaps its hard to understand, but any drop in the value of the US dollar means that China - as the entity with the single biggest reserves, loses the most wealth. A 1% drop would mean little to the US in economic terms - values fluctuate and it can be good or bad depending on the nations situation at a given time - but to China it would mean suddenly owning billions of dollars less in relative value.

I could get into a collapse of its value actually making US debt meaningless, but there is little point.

LD13

There is no chance of the U.S and China going to war over North Korea!! The U.S has nothing to fear if they invade N.Korea. China knows this they are just worried about the prescence of the Americans in their region. Economics and all that crap doesnt come into it plain and simple its about military power!

thiarfearr

Its just bluster from Kim, only danger is something small escalating or Kim getting some religious notion that they time is now for the Koreans to forge their destiny or some Hitler type notion. I'd say he enjoys his comforts too much though.
If Russia were smart they'd stoke up the tensions and sit back while the US and China weaken each other or waste money and resources on the region

thiarfearr

Torakx wrote: »

?
And on that note, why the hell has China allowed America to get into South Korea? ^^
Because of the Hiroshima threat?
Sorry I can be ignorant to some aspects of history.

I assume you know about the Korean war, which was basically China vs the US/UN, following the post WW2 Soviet/US partition?

Bit off topic but the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea & China was mooted, I wonder how different the world would be if that happened? Would we even be here if the use of weapons weren't seen as taboo and instead as a viable weapon? Or would their destructive force mean even less chance of a clash between the USSR and the West. Can't imagine what China would have turned out like either

SamHarris

thiarfearr wrote: »

I assume you know about the Korean war, which was basically China vs the US/UN, following the post WW2 Soviet/US partition?

Bit off topic but the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea & China was mooted, I wonder how different the world would be if that happened? Would we even be here if the use of weapons weren't seen as taboo and instead as a viable weapon? Or would their destructive force mean even less chance of a clash between the USSR and the West. Can't imagine what China would have turned out like either

It almost certainly prevented hostilities escalating during the cold war to world war 3. MAD was preeminent in the minds of all policy makers at the time, thats made pretty clear at least from, say, biographies of US Presidents that served at the time. How could it NOT be? There have been nation that were far less ideologically opposed and with far less tensions at various times than those between the US/USSR that escalated into fullscale conflict. Its interesting to think that, so far, the most destructive weapons ever devised have almost without doubt saved (probably not the right word, more spared) far more lives than they have taken. Also that that could change completely in a matter of minutes should something go wrong

Ive always been fascinated by the period when the US had nuclear weapons alone. Which would have been much longer had the US continued to be on a war footing, the security failures that allowed the Soviets to advance their program so quickly almost certainly would not have happened in that enhanced security enviroment

Its irrelevant, however. For a not insubstantial period America unequivocally had the keys to world domination in their hands, and did not use them. It is absolutely certain, given their actions in the decades following, that had it been, say, the UK or France that had created the weapon they would not have allowed their Empires to collapse in the aftermath. Indeed they probably would have expanded them. They may well still exist today.

Nino Brown

SamHarris wrote: »

What do you mean by 'dump'? If you mean destroy, it would have the opposite effect, less dollars means an increase in the worth of those still around.

If you mean they will stop buying US debt, it is not necessarily true. China owns about 7% of US debt, and it is the currency in which every major business and country have their reserves in. Because of this, its value collapsing would he DISASTROUS for every one of them, they would far more likely pick up the slack than allow a collapse.

To give you an idea of how bad it would be, if you have 1 million dollars in savings and the US dollar value lost 50% you would now have 500,000 dollars (or its equivalent spending power) in savings. There're trillions of dollars of US dollars in reserve around the world - a 1% drop means billions of dollars of losses in value. I hope this makes it clear exactly how unlikely it is that anyone with any money would allow this to happen.

Perhaps most importantly in this case, China has its reserves in dollars (trillions of dollars). Perhaps its hard to understand, but any drop in the value of the US dollar means that China - as the entity with the single biggest reserves, loses the most wealth. A 1% drop would mean little to the US in economic terms - values fluctuate and it can be good or bad depending on the nations situation at a given time - but to China it would mean suddenly owning billions of dollars less in relative value.

I could get into a collapse of its value actually making US debt meaningless, but there is little point.

I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or agreeing with me here. By China "Dumping" US dollars I mean selling their estimated $1.3trn in US dollar reserves, potentially causing the value of the US dollar to plummet because of an increase of the mount of dollars in circulation. You say if China does that they lose the most wealth because of their dollar holdings, but how can can they lose the value on something they don't have anymore.
You say others would pick up the slack, but I'm not so sure, that would mean money printing on a phenomenal scale to buy something with the potential to become worthless quickly, due to a shock to the confidence in the Dollar , that's very risky, it could sink every currency.
Obviously this has major negative implications for China too, such as a rapid increase in the value of the Yaun, and decreasing exports. But that's part of my point, I'm saying these things are possible but extremely unlikely because they suck so badly for everyone involved.

Sonics2k

Torakx wrote: »

Well add your opinion on the topic then
Thats why im here.

Does that comment mean you dont think China are doing anything politically or militarily?

Or are you basing most of that criticism on my comments relating to South Korea?
I mentioned I am ignorant in some aspects of history.So fill me in.You dont need to re-highlight my overall ignorance, lets get specific at least ,if your going to be my critic.

Unless you literally dissagree with everything, in which case you should read up on Chinas fairly recent activities, along their sea borders and areas of control.

My overall theory was that the big names in global power are cooperating to an extent.Slightly more than is percievable or aknowledged.

You made a claim that China has an interest in Africa, despite the fact they've not made a single motion towards that entire continent, FYI China is in Asia in case you're not sure.

China has been telling North Korea to knock it off, because they know that any war will not end well for Koreans and parts of China.

The idea of the USA and China coming to some kind of agreement about who gets what land is laughable, they can't even agree on basic trade agreements, and members of the US senate have even accused Huwaii of trying to steal tech info for om America.

I'd respond to the rest, but it's a real pain via mobile. But yes, I stand by my statement that what you said is nonsense.

thiarfearr

China has been making moves in Africa, Zimbabwe in particular if I remember correctly

Nino Brown

thiarfearr wrote: »

China has been making moves in Africa, Zimbabwe in particular if I remember correctly

You mean Chinese companies right?, Not the Chinese military.

SamHarris

Nino Brown wrote: »

You mean Chinese companies right?, Not the Chinese military.

One and the same, looking at the structure of their economy.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

You made a claim that China has an interest in Africa, despite the fact they've not made a single motion towards that entire continent, FYI China is in Asia in case you're not sure.
.

???

China have been all over Africa non-militarily making commercial deals with various states.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

China have been all over Africa non-militarily making commercial deals with various states.

Very deliberately non-military deals, me thinks. They know there is no way they could compete with the US in military or cultural projection, at least at the moment.

But also note they are deals that give enormous leverage with those particular nations, so they are using what hey DO have, that is to say capitol reserves, to begin projecting influence elsewhere. I have no doubt there is more than just economic interests that drive such deals (Especially considering who runs the major companies in china ie the Party) to be made.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

China have been all over Africa non-militarily making commercial deals with various states.

China also has non-military deals with North America, Europe and Australia. What's the big deal?

The guy I quoted was hinting at something more.

studiorat

China's investment in Africa is less than it's investment in the US and roughly equal to that in Europe. However only 4 countries in Africa have received about 70% of Chinese "investment" namely Nigeria, Angola, Ethiopia and Sudan.

SamHarris

studiorat wrote: »

China's investment in Africa is less than it's investment in the US and roughly equal to that in Europe. However only 4 countries in Africa have received about 70% of Chinese "investment" namely Nigeria, Angola, Ethiopia and Sudan.

well keep in mind the size of those countries in proportion to others in Africa. Also many have oil reserves, my guess is China is starting to secure their own supply, as that without a doubt is the biggest single national security issue they face. Especially with an almost omni-powerful US Navy and how and where they get their supplies from.

SamHarris

Sonics2k wrote: »

China also has non-military deals with North America, Europe and Australia. What's the big deal?

The guy I quoted was hinting at something more.

The nature of the deals of very different - they are massive infrastructure deals that lock the country to china very tightly for a long period of time. Further, Europe, US et al have massive investment coming in from nearly every quarter, to a greater or lesser extent. Many of these African states become completly reliant on Chinese expertise and capitol. Its very similiar to the early relationship with the US and Saudi Arabia (these similarities I actually wrote a paper on recently, and they are many).

ilkhanid

Torakx wrote: »

But this frame of reference helps me a little when trying to think of the overall picture.
Look at the size of Russia.I know alot of that might be useless land..maybe.

That's the mercator projection. Russia (and Canada and Greenland) isn't anything like as big as it looks on that map.

Torakx wrote: »

And on that note, why the hell has China allowed America to get into South Korea? ^^
Because of the Hiroshima threat?
Sorry I can be ignorant to some aspects of history.

After the defeat of Japan, the USA landed in the south of Japanese-occupied Korea and the USSR occupied the North. As it was in Germany, they couldn't agree on a common government, so both installed regimes in the parts they controlled. China didn't get a say. It was engaged in a civil war. Later,ruled now by the Communists, it co-operated with the Soviets and the Communist regime to try to conquer the Southern part, but it didn't work out. Unlike in Eastern Europe where the Soviets controlled the local communists (except in Yugoslavia) there were two Communist powers, so Kim Il Sung could play the Soviets and the Chinese off each other and do his own thing.

SamHarris wrote: »

One and the same, looking at the structure of their economy.

It's called "Soft Power". It's also making moves in South And Central America. Its helping Nicaragua to build a new trans-isthimus canal...if the project ever comes off.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/chinas-fantasy-canal-doing-real-damage-in-nicaragua/

Torakx wrote: »

Which is an interesting dynamic when the US are pretty much invading next door.
IF the US is more dependant on China economically than vice versa,they are playing a dangerous game.
But maybe it goes both ways in that respect?What does the US bring to the table economically for China?
Surely China would rather deal with North Korea's retarded state heads, than a focussed American war machine moving in next door.
That goes from nosey neighbour to psychopath moving in next door in my view.
Trying to make sense of things.And the first thing that comes to mind is they have made prior agreements.US and China that is.

The USA will not be moving military power up to the Chinese border. What purpose would that serve? In any case a land invasion of China is impossible. The USA can defeat anybody out on the seas but fighting China on it's own ground is another matter.
If everything exploded China and the USA would make an agreement that satisfies everybody. Three possibilities. Status Quo but a smaller, helpless North Korea occupying a smaller area. South Korea gains territory. China installs a compliant puppet in rump North Korea.
South takes over North and becomes neutral, American forces leave.
China occupies part of North Korea and therby has a direct border with South Korea.