6 ms·

This is a pretty big misunderstanding of the situation imo. The reason the US won't directly strike NK is because of the risk to Seoul. It has nothing to do the

This is a pretty big misunderstanding of the situation imo. The reason the US won't directly strike NK is because of the risk to Seoul. It has nothing to do the UN (which is essentially a useless and meaningless body at this point, as Russia and China don't agree with the West on almost literally anything). Moreover, China isn't going to risk a war with the US over NK.

vkou 9y ago
The United States risked a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba. What makes you 100% certain that China won't risk a war over North Korea? North Korea is an important buffer state for China.
- chibg10 9y ago
  The US was facing a direct nuclear threat. Risking nuclear war with the USSR was hardly an escalation. Also, there's a large difference between "risking"and "acting." China has much more to lose than gain (economically and militarily) by warring with the US over NK.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Serious wars between evenly-matched participants always result in said participants losing more then they gain. Somehow, though, we never learn from history. If the US invaded North Korea, and China did nothing, it would be the equivalent of China invading Canada and Mexico, and the United States doing nothing but issuing nasty diplomatic protests. Even if it did not threaten its interests directly, the loss of face would be immense. Wars have been started over far less. Have you forgotten how half of the US government wanted war with Russia over Crimea? A little Ukranian province, on the other side of the world? Completely insignificant to US interests? Compared to the Crimean war, unilaterally invading North Korea is like striking a match in a gunpowder factory. I'm sure that the fools who will authorize and cheerlead it will not for one moment think that it will turn nuclear.
    - mobilefriendly 9y ago
      Crimea isn't really Ukrainian, either, it is historically and ethnically Russian (and Tatar), it was an accident of Soviet history that it ended up in the country of Ukraine.
    - chibg10 9y ago
      Comparing NK to Canada and Mexico is pretty silly. Neither of them threaten China with nuclear weapons, China doesn't have the capability to project military power across the Pacific and challenge the US, and the US is very friendly with both of them. I'd also argue China is more dependent economically on the US than vice versa, though that's admittedly debatable. While China ostensibly supports NK because it's preferable to the US, the relationship isn't nearly as close as US with other NAFTA nations. This is supported by the original article. It isn't as much of a face loss as you're supposing.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    China has went to war with the US over North Korea before, at a time where they didn't even have a nuclear option. Saying things won't happen due to economic and military losses is the exact rhetoric you heard before WWI and a WWII.
    - chibg10 9y ago
      China very nearly didn't go into the Korean war, and was betting on getting support from the Soviets when they did. Furthermore, the US wasn't under direct threat in the Korean war and was war weary from WW2. A new Korean war would likely have a more invested US, no outside help (except potentially on the US side), and a China with worse relations with NK. In addition, the primary fear for the CCP was that the US would try to march all the way to Beijing. There's no way that would happen today, so China has much less to fear from a modern Korean War than it did in the first.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        You are much more confident than I that no one would help an attacked China via North Korea and that the US would never march on Beijing for a third (fourth? Not sure how many US troops were involved in the Opium Wars) time. Both things seem very possible in a world where the US invades an ally of China.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
Yes, China would take an invasion of a bordering ally as an act of war on them. It wouldn't be a risk of war, it would be the US declaring war on China, and much of the world's favor would go to the defender. And yeah, the UN resolution is incredibly unlikely. That's why it would work, if China consented to the move it wouldn't trigger WWIII.
- chibg10 9y ago
  I'm not going to take the time to find the link, but it's been reported in the WSJ that even Obama (who is presumably more dovish than Trump) said he would order strikes on NK if it was possible to do so without risk to Seoul. It seems unlikely Obama was willing to risk war with China over NK during his term
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    That's likely true for some sort of missile strike, but a missile strike also doesn't remove the problem. Even in the event we killed Kim in a strike, the replacement would be unlikely to be western friendly. This discussion is about "going in," which I take to mean an invasion. Any invasion attempt would start with the understanding that Seoul is going to look like London after the blitz at best.
    - chibg10 9y ago
      The point of the strike would be to destroy threats to Seoul prior to an invasion (i.e. removing the obstacle). As even you noted, the US wouldn't strike and wait as that creates more problems than it solves.
      - RugnirViking 9y ago
        The threat to Seoul is mobile artillery near the border. It doesn't even have to be cruise missiles on anything like that; Seoul is close enough to the border that indiscriminate shelling at the city is probable Mobile artillery is a very difficult problem to remove all with one strike, because it is mobile for the precise reason that its difficult to know where they all are. That's why many nuclear missiles have been deployed on trucks, so that they can be stationed in remote areas and moved at a moments notice, similarly to submarines

vkou 9y ago

The United States risked a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba. What makes you 100% certain that China won't risk a war over North Korea? North Korea is an important buffer state for China.

chibg10 9y ago
The US was facing a direct nuclear threat. Risking nuclear war with the USSR was hardly an escalation. Also, there's a large difference between "risking"and "acting." China has much more to lose than gain (economically and militarily) by warring with the US over NK.
- vkou 9y ago
  Serious wars between evenly-matched participants always result in said participants losing more then they gain. Somehow, though, we never learn from history. If the US invaded North Korea, and China did nothing, it would be the equivalent of China invading Canada and Mexico, and the United States doing nothing but issuing nasty diplomatic protests. Even if it did not threaten its interests directly, the loss of face would be immense. Wars have been started over far less. Have you forgotten how half of the US government wanted war with Russia over Crimea? A little Ukranian province, on the other side of the world? Completely insignificant to US interests? Compared to the Crimean war, unilaterally invading North Korea is like striking a match in a gunpowder factory. I'm sure that the fools who will authorize and cheerlead it will not for one moment think that it will turn nuclear.
  - mobilefriendly 9y ago
    Crimea isn't really Ukrainian, either, it is historically and ethnically Russian (and Tatar), it was an accident of Soviet history that it ended up in the country of Ukraine.
  - chibg10 9y ago
    Comparing NK to Canada and Mexico is pretty silly. Neither of them threaten China with nuclear weapons, China doesn't have the capability to project military power across the Pacific and challenge the US, and the US is very friendly with both of them. I'd also argue China is more dependent economically on the US than vice versa, though that's admittedly debatable. While China ostensibly supports NK because it's preferable to the US, the relationship isn't nearly as close as US with other NAFTA nations. This is supported by the original article. It isn't as much of a face loss as you're supposing.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  China has went to war with the US over North Korea before, at a time where they didn't even have a nuclear option. Saying things won't happen due to economic and military losses is the exact rhetoric you heard before WWI and a WWII.
  - chibg10 9y ago
    China very nearly didn't go into the Korean war, and was betting on getting support from the Soviets when they did. Furthermore, the US wasn't under direct threat in the Korean war and was war weary from WW2. A new Korean war would likely have a more invested US, no outside help (except potentially on the US side), and a China with worse relations with NK. In addition, the primary fear for the CCP was that the US would try to march all the way to Beijing. There's no way that would happen today, so China has much less to fear from a modern Korean War than it did in the first.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      You are much more confident than I that no one would help an attacked China via North Korea and that the US would never march on Beijing for a third (fourth? Not sure how many US troops were involved in the Opium Wars) time. Both things seem very possible in a world where the US invades an ally of China.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Yes, China would take an invasion of a bordering ally as an act of war on them. It wouldn't be a risk of war, it would be the US declaring war on China, and much of the world's favor would go to the defender. And yeah, the UN resolution is incredibly unlikely. That's why it would work, if China consented to the move it wouldn't trigger WWIII.

chibg10 9y ago
I'm not going to take the time to find the link, but it's been reported in the WSJ that even Obama (who is presumably more dovish than Trump) said he would order strikes on NK if it was possible to do so without risk to Seoul. It seems unlikely Obama was willing to risk war with China over NK during his term
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  That's likely true for some sort of missile strike, but a missile strike also doesn't remove the problem. Even in the event we killed Kim in a strike, the replacement would be unlikely to be western friendly. This discussion is about "going in," which I take to mean an invasion. Any invasion attempt would start with the understanding that Seoul is going to look like London after the blitz at best.
  - chibg10 9y ago
    The point of the strike would be to destroy threats to Seoul prior to an invasion (i.e. removing the obstacle). As even you noted, the US wouldn't strike and wait as that creates more problems than it solves.
    - RugnirViking 9y ago
      The threat to Seoul is mobile artillery near the border. It doesn't even have to be cruise missiles on anything like that; Seoul is close enough to the border that indiscriminate shelling at the city is probable Mobile artillery is a very difficult problem to remove all with one strike, because it is mobile for the precise reason that its difficult to know where they all are. That's why many nuclear missiles have been deployed on trucks, so that they can be stationed in remote areas and moved at a moments notice, similarly to submarines