4 ms·
And you think if the US were completely isolationist that China wouldn't assist North Korea in "unifying" the peninsula? I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on t
by tw04 5y ago
And you think if the US were completely isolationist that China wouldn't assist North Korea in "unifying" the peninsula?
I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on that.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoAnd just why would they do that? The only reason China supported North Korea historically is because they don't want US troops at their doorstep.
- oblio 5y agoPuppet states, influence, a thorn in the Japanese side. Why would China need or want Tibet or Xinjiang? Remote regions without Han populations.
- artificial 5y agoI’d say Tibet is for water. The Chinese built many dams and several big rivers which flow through several countries originate there.
- oblio 5y agoWell, not just water. Tibet is a high plateau overlooking the Chinese plains. It's an obvious entry point for a land invasion into the Chinese heartland. Xinjiang is a mountainous and desert region with a similar role. I know why they're doing it, it's just cynical for the locals. Similar story for Korea, if you're a great power, wouldn't you move the possible battle like a few hundreds of kilometers away from your capital? You would. It would still suck for the locals.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoAre you willing to bet on this?
- oblio 5y agoPossibly, but why?
- FooBarWidget 5y agoBecause it's easy to think cynically when nothing is at stake, when you don't have skin in the game. I bet $1000 that China won't help North Korea to invade South Korea. Bet ends 2030. You in?
- oblio 5y agoI would be, but there's one condition: the US pulls out of any military alliance/support for South Korea. Chine will obviously not risk another Korean War, there's nothing for them to gain. If South Korea loses US support, yup, I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoDeal.