![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#61 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
I'm not sure we've got the hint. During that ex, we've been saying it was for Taiwan. Now, looking back and further reading the 39GA's training, they may have been for Korea but it certainly was not publicized that way.
__________________
Chimo |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 (permalink) |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
More nations would go nuclear faster than America can attack them all. Nuclear weapons would just have to be accepted in the future. America's just going to help delay it, and that too not by much.
The only way anyone EVER taking the nuclear disarmament argument seriously is when someone gets up and says "Ok lets ALL disarm". Similar case with Iran. Israel can nuke Iran, Iran should be able to nuke Israel. Arabs now want nukes too because of Israel. You can nuke NK, so should NK be able to nuke you. |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 (permalink) |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
China wouldn't physically stop it either nor will allow a US attack. It's main purpose of support to NK is to keep US and its allies away from China.
The Chinese objections to NK shouldn't be misunderstood to assume that the Chinese would turn their back on them any time soon. NK depended on China for 80% of its food and energy needs, so China could've easily flexed its muscle long ago to influence a desicion. Whatever's happening right now probably is going to be accepted by China in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Are you in Antarctica? What the hell do you think the Chinese are doing? They've had enough and is closing down KJI's enterprises. His border criminal activities are being shut down one by one. His ringleaders are being arrested. Some even carrying NK diplomatic papers. They have not released NK funds and all NK warehouses in China are now in PAP hands.
And get this through your head. The NKs don't have a nuke. They have a dud. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 (permalink) |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
so you think China is going to join hands and you both will attack NK now like one big happy family?
aaaaand how did the last talks end...? Of course its a dud, so? Still a pretty big boom. Hey I agree China's a little frustrated over North Korea being so uncontrollable but the reason its supported NK in the first place was to prevent war. I think there was way too much international condemnation of NK when it conducted the test. It would have been PR suicide if China still didn't get tough on NK. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 (permalink) | |
|
Contrary by nature.
Military Professional
|
Quote:
China doe snot owe Kim anything, it like all natiosn will look out for itself. Kim has becoem a liability that could expose China to radioactive fallout, and criple 1-3 major trading partners (They may not like Japan but they like the Yen), and subject china to a flood of refugees. So yes if push come sot shove working with the US to achive a solution to the Korean problem is not to far out in left feild. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 (permalink) | ||
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
And how fast did China replaced the border guards with PLA troops and shut the border tight? How fast did China cancelled three oil shipments? How fast did China demanded loans repayment? That's what happenned the last time. For a nuke, it was a dud, not worth the effort. They could have done better damage with thermobarics. Quote:
No one is saving KJI now. The question is how to manage his removal but make no mistake, the Chinese have determined that he shall be removed. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#69 (permalink) |
|
Contributor
|
I agree with the Colonel.
Both SKorea and Japan are huge trading partners with China. If either of them are threatened, it would not be in China's best interest. On the other hand, NKorea (more specifically, KJI) is nothing but a pain in the ass, despite the purpose it serves to the Chinese (that of being a buffer). I think it's a matter of time before military actions are taken. More likely it'll be a Chinese backed coup rather than a full scale invasion....
__________________
...If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space! |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 (permalink) | ||
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Quote:
But still its a fluid situation. I won't agree with you in stating that, that is the only fate left for KJI. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#73 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Strategic reasons make it a nice ally to have, even if it is a pain in the butt sometimes.
__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu My bow is stretched for its task |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Finger pointing and gleening info sounds about on target. ![]()
__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death | Leader | Political Discussions | 43 | 08-20-2007 04:30 AM |
| Do G4 have a case. | crooks | Political Discussions | 165 | 12-31-2006 06:58 AM |
| Articles and links for the Military Professional | Officer of Engineers | The Staff College | 115 | 11-20-2006 11:28 AM |
| U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export | Tronic | Political Discussions | 0 | 10-19-2006 23:21 PM |
| Why the U.S. must withdraw from Iraq | lulldapull | The War in Iraq | 56 | 01-04-2005 14:20 PM |