5 ms·

Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?

by mercer 10y ago

cjslep 10y ago
The Korean War has technically not achieved a final peace, only reached an armstice [0]. There's been many incidents along the border [1], notably the Axe Murder Incident [2]. The Korean war was a conflict primarily between North Korea and China versus South Korea and the United States. However, a relative was in the CIA at the time and I have the distinct impression from them that the US was also shooting down Russian airplanes, as they were shooting down ours, in the conflict. Should conflict restart, there's no telling who would get involved again. Taiwan has a complicated history where Japan had gotten China to cede the island in the 19th Century, then tried to leverage it to take over China during WWII, then when WWII was over and the Chinese Civil War went into full swing the losing Republic of China (which had replaced the Qing dynasty) fled millions of people to the island. The ROC government remains there governing Taiwan defacto, but the PRC considers it part of its borders in a dejure fashion. Since recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would 100% surely anger China, the US has not done so [3]. The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict. This would destabilize the region and threaten a significant amount of the world's shipping [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident [3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping_routes_red_black.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping...
- studentrob 10y ago
  > The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict I'm not sure anything is definite. Neither side has made any real moves to resolve the conflict, just feints. The rest of the world seems to support easing tensions when they arise rather than exacerbating them.
  - cjslep 10y ago
    Historically, neither side has made real moves and no one wants to increase tension precisely because of each side understands their opponent is still highly committed to defending their way of life. The US does not want to attempt to get China to back down because that would just anger them. And the US does not want to lose a possible ally in Taiwan in getting them to back down. China does not want to overtly bully Taiwan because it does not want US relations to degrade. So with diplomacy out, neither side wants to resort to "forceful diplomacy"/"military persuasion"/whatever newspeak. So both sides have, until recently, acted paralyzed in the status quo. But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day. The nine-dash-line strategy means China is no longer acting paralyzed in the region. I'm not qualified to guess whether it is part of a long Taiwan game or something different, but I would assert it certainly is not a feint and not easing tensions.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day Maybe saying "feeling each other out" would be better than "feints". At any rate, that's just my perception. I'm also not qualified to say what's what. Countries continue to trade with each other, and there are diplomatic ties between the US, China and Russia. They continue to have some common goals, in spite of some differences. I think overall that's a positive thing. I trust our leaders to decide how to deal with various strategies put forth by other countries. History was pretty interesting and tense at times. So is the present. I believe the ties are better these days among nations than they were 40-70 years ago. Monarchies used to send family members to each other to keep the peace. We try to do the same with diplomacy where possible.
studentrob 10y ago
Start with WW II up until now. Korean war, Taiwan strait crises, and the re-opening of China. Kissinger is a good story teller and has written many books. The latest is called "World Order". He lived through all of it and was involved in a lot of our foreign policy moves. He's given a few talks at Google, e.g. [1]. There are a lot of other videos of him on Youtube. He answers tough questions about state decisions, including POW's in Vietnam, for which he is often accused of being a war criminal. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA
simonh 10y ago
North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control. Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies apart. In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes, but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and the DPRK are existential.
- exar0815 10y ago
  Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Well, Russia guaranteed their territorial integrity as well but nobody saw the annexation of Crimea coming. We were caught flat footed and presented with a fait accompli. But in any case I don't think we had any military obligation under the treaty. No such excuse in SE Asia.
    - kahnpro 10y ago
      Nor any desire. Ukraine is unstable and Crimea contains the Sevastopol base. Obama probably fist-bumped Putin and said "it's all good bro".
      - xixi77 10y ago
        Ugh how so? I have a lot of issues with Obama, but just because he believes that a direct military intervention is not the best way to deal with the problem, doesn't mean that he "fist-bumped Putin". He does see Russian antics as a threat (other than a few delusional paleocons, pretty much everyone does), but just as it was with Soviet Union, Russian greatest weakness today is economic, which is where the pressure is applied. It's not nearly as effective as it could be due to the boneheaded attitudes of a few people, but hopefully that changes soon enough...

Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?

by mercer 10y ago

Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?

The Korean War has technically not achieved a final peace, only reached an armstice [0]. There's been many incidents along the border [1], notably the Axe Murder Incident [2]. The Korean war was a conflict primarily between North Korea and China versus South Korea and the United States. However, a relative was in the CIA at the time and I have the distinct impression from them that the US was also shooting down Russian airplanes, as they were shooting down ours, in the conflict. Should conflict restart, there's no telling who would get involved again. Taiwan has a complicated history where Japan had gotten China to cede the island in the 19th Century, then tried to leverage it to take over China during WWII, then when WWII was over and the Chinese Civil War went into full swing the losing Republic of China (which had replaced the Qing dynasty) fled millions of people to the island. The ROC government remains there governing Taiwan defacto, but the PRC considers it part of its borders in a dejure fashion. Since recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would 100% surely anger China, the US has not done so [3]. The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict. This would destabilize the region and threaten a significant amount of the world's shipping [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident [3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping_routes_red_black.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping...

studentrob 10y ago
> The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict I'm not sure anything is definite. Neither side has made any real moves to resolve the conflict, just feints. The rest of the world seems to support easing tensions when they arise rather than exacerbating them.
- cjslep 10y ago
  Historically, neither side has made real moves and no one wants to increase tension precisely because of each side understands their opponent is still highly committed to defending their way of life. The US does not want to attempt to get China to back down because that would just anger them. And the US does not want to lose a possible ally in Taiwan in getting them to back down. China does not want to overtly bully Taiwan because it does not want US relations to degrade. So with diplomacy out, neither side wants to resort to "forceful diplomacy"/"military persuasion"/whatever newspeak. So both sides have, until recently, acted paralyzed in the status quo. But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day. The nine-dash-line strategy means China is no longer acting paralyzed in the region. I'm not qualified to guess whether it is part of a long Taiwan game or something different, but I would assert it certainly is not a feint and not easing tensions.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day Maybe saying "feeling each other out" would be better than "feints". At any rate, that's just my perception. I'm also not qualified to say what's what. Countries continue to trade with each other, and there are diplomatic ties between the US, China and Russia. They continue to have some common goals, in spite of some differences. I think overall that's a positive thing. I trust our leaders to decide how to deal with various strategies put forth by other countries. History was pretty interesting and tense at times. So is the present. I believe the ties are better these days among nations than they were 40-70 years ago. Monarchies used to send family members to each other to keep the peace. We try to do the same with diplomacy where possible.

studentrob 10y ago

Start with WW II up until now. Korean war, Taiwan strait crises, and the re-opening of China. Kissinger is a good story teller and has written many books. The latest is called "World Order". He lived through all of it and was involved in a lot of our foreign policy moves. He's given a few talks at Google, e.g. [1]. There are a lot of other videos of him on Youtube. He answers tough questions about state decisions, including POW's in Vietnam, for which he is often accused of being a war criminal. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA

simonh 10y ago

North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control. Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies apart. In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes, but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and the DPRK are existential.

exar0815 10y ago
Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.
- simonh 10y ago
  Well, Russia guaranteed their territorial integrity as well but nobody saw the annexation of Crimea coming. We were caught flat footed and presented with a fait accompli. But in any case I don't think we had any military obligation under the treaty. No such excuse in SE Asia.
  - kahnpro 10y ago
    Nor any desire. Ukraine is unstable and Crimea contains the Sevastopol base. Obama probably fist-bumped Putin and said "it's all good bro".
    - xixi77 10y ago
      Ugh how so? I have a lot of issues with Obama, but just because he believes that a direct military intervention is not the best way to deal with the problem, doesn't mean that he "fist-bumped Putin". He does see Russian antics as a threat (other than a few delusional paleocons, pretty much everyone does), but just as it was with Soviet Union, Russian greatest weakness today is economic, which is where the pressure is applied. It's not nearly as effective as it could be due to the boneheaded attitudes of a few people, but hopefully that changes soon enough...