North Korea

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.