4 ms·

No it wouldn't, because China doesn't really consider NK an ally worth fighting over, especially against USA, because unlike with NK China and USA are very stro

by yladiz 9y ago

No it wouldn't, because China doesn't really consider NK an ally worth fighting over, especially against USA, because unlike with NK China and USA are very strong trading partners. Of course China strongly prefers a buffer between South Korea and itself, but if some action did happen, likely China would just not participate in the war and then help with the cleanup and new government since they are a border state and would require any UN resolution to have compromises. The only way China would get involved is if it involved or risked their land or people, not NK.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
Losing the buffer state would be seen as a direct threat on their land and people, and the UN would be powerless in a conflict between two security council members. Strong trading ties doesn't stop war. This is one of the largest lessons of WWI, and why an isolationist leader of the US is terrifying. It's sold as putting America first, but its scarily similar to the mad dash for guaranteed access to necessary resources before WWII.
- yladiz 9y ago
  Are you joking? I know that China and USA do not have one, but there hasn't been a single conflict with any country that has a free trade agreement since WW2. Also, understand that the US has the backing (and mutual defect agreements) of South Korea, Japan, and NATO, and India would possibly join in a conflict against China as well. China wouldn't want a US backed state on its doorstep, but it would not want war against the US significantly more.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    There hasn't been a true war between great powers since WWII, and that's more likely due to nuclear bombs than free trade agreements. Mutual defense agreements don't matter if the US invades North Korea, the US is not the defensive party in the war. And it's easy to say that all of these sides would back the US now, an aggressive war in the region could change a lot of alliances. Invading North Korea is not a sane option for the US unless China consents. The best case scenario sees China allowing it while preparing for a future conflict, and all out war is very possible.

by yladiz 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Losing the buffer state would be seen as a direct threat on their land and people, and the UN would be powerless in a conflict between two security council members. Strong trading ties doesn't stop war. This is one of the largest lessons of WWI, and why an isolationist leader of the US is terrifying. It's sold as putting America first, but its scarily similar to the mad dash for guaranteed access to necessary resources before WWII.

yladiz 9y ago
Are you joking? I know that China and USA do not have one, but there hasn't been a single conflict with any country that has a free trade agreement since WW2. Also, understand that the US has the backing (and mutual defect agreements) of South Korea, Japan, and NATO, and India would possibly join in a conflict against China as well. China wouldn't want a US backed state on its doorstep, but it would not want war against the US significantly more.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  There hasn't been a true war between great powers since WWII, and that's more likely due to nuclear bombs than free trade agreements. Mutual defense agreements don't matter if the US invades North Korea, the US is not the defensive party in the war. And it's easy to say that all of these sides would back the US now, an aggressive war in the region could change a lot of alliances. Invading North Korea is not a sane option for the US unless China consents. The best case scenario sees China allowing it while preparing for a future conflict, and all out war is very possible.