FranchiseBlade I' am not saying you are wrong.... it was just the way you had stated your facts.......there are more things involved than just the government spending too much money on the military... they are communists after all.... and there are consequences for it.. Hayes...nobody says Japan is in North-East Asia .....it is always referred to by asians as being in south east asia .... Plus your comment “the drive for nukes far predates the current US administration”…..your right!....though before it was of a status and a symbol of power….however it was what happened in Iraq that has opened the eyes of the other countries…. The fact that that there were no WMD in Iraq spoke volumes of the nature of the attack….this is usually down-played…later the reason of war became, “liberation of the people” …. Now its become “Al-Queida and Saddam” …. War reasons should’nt change…you have to have a secure reason for attack….if not then there are other motives IMHO…. There is a reason to why Iraq and not south korea was attacked…what that exact reason was/is well is debatable…and the general public will never know.
I agree, and I am not inherently against communism even. But I am against totalitarianism. Anytime everyone or almost everyone outside the government is mal nurished, then that is a problem, and shows that the country isn't being run well.
Uh, no. There is no bluff. US pullout = SK and Japan rearmament. Wouldn't matter. Nationalization of assets violates WTO regulation means China is on the outside looking in. Nationalization of assets mean China's economy goes boom - and i don't mean that in a good way. Chinese implosion mean severe problems within the PLA which has set modernization (ie the ability to buy new weapons systems) as priority number 1. Huge difference between Japan and Iran, lol. First its not a religious demogogue taking power. Second, Japan is first world, not third world. Third, Japan would have C & C unlike the second or 3rd world countries, which are major concerns with countries like Iran. Fourth, Japan could go nuclear in a matter of weeks - drawing a severe distinction between themselves and Iran, for instance. They would already be nuclear by the time the UN SC even considered it. Bottom line, you are silly if you think the 'global consensus' would support China nuking Japan. That's just stupid and you won't find any such conclusions in ANY international relations literature. The Taiwan situation is much like the Japanese. They would nuclearize far faster than China would react. In that case they could strike deep into China with devestating effect. China might launch missles, although I doubt it because they'd be risking Shanghai et al being vaporized. The NPT is dead. Take a look at North Korea or Iran, lol. I doubt Venezuala is going to prolif considering we'd bomb them back to the stone age. Since both we and the Chinese are allies of Pakistan, your scenario is most doubtful, comsidering NEasia has little to do with the subcontinent. If you'd like to elucidate on some real reason they would combine, please do so.
Uh, ok. Can't imagine why 'someone,' which you can please qualify, would think Japan is in Southeast Asia, lol. Why would they think that? The actual ACTORS would not think that, as that would be stupid. Please refer to ANY of the international relations literature - NONE of it refers to Japan as Southeast Asia. Why would it? Japan is NOT IN Southeast Asia, lol. Its in NORTHEAST ASIA. AND? Your point is what? Ramble as you may, NK's drive to acquire nukes predates Bush. Do you deny this? Does it materially change your opinion of the situation? Please elaborate.
So why would China rein in N. Korea when rearmament is inevitable? They could remain as passive observers. Under the table, they could give the N. Koreans ICBM capabilities as they are already within the N. Koreans strike range while the US isn't. China has been in that state before. They aren't going react to the whims of Japan and Taiwan. Public approval on action will offset the economic costs of being shut out again. Taiwan and Japan have focused investment on Japan more than any other country. While some are liquid, a lot aren't.
Just a bit of a subtle update regarding China's opinion of the subject from the New York Times. I think a useful way to view China's positions on Nort Korea would've been the way the United States dealt with Taiwan's recent grumblings about constitutional independance. Privately, the position of the US government was much more critical of Taiwan than publicly. When someone has been your close ally for as long as these two have, you go out of your way to be accomidative and helpful, even when you disagree, as long as the disagreement isn't too severe.
Hayes...okay i admit you were right... sort of.... well it is in EASTERN Asian....so i gues we both were wrong....but it could be argued to be in the North.... East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, and Mongolia) and Southeast Asia (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam).
I've only had a chance to skim this thread but a lot of interesting stuff. The PRC is playing a very dangerous game with NK that's starting to catch up with them. The know a nuclear NK isn't in their longterm interest and potential threat to them. At the same time NK is a great bargaining chip for them in dealing with the US. Many PRC political and military leaders already believe they are in a cold war with the US, not surprisingly many US leaders feel the same way too. NK provides a good leverage as the PRC's pitbull. They can tell the rest of the world, "we're the only ones who can keep NK on a leash so you better be careful." The PRC knows that NK is a huge headache to the US and Japan and likes it that way because it keeps US heat from them. Like keeping a pitbull though sometimes it will bite the hand that feeds it and there's been plenty of evidence lately that relations aren't all that rosy between Pyongyang and Beijing. The NK regime has made statements like "Our Chinese brothers have abandoned the true path of Socialism." and there's been simmering tensions regarding smuggling and illegal immigration and relations with SK. Just recently the PRC got fed up with NK enough that they sealed the border with NK effectively cutting off their remaining lifeline to foreign resources for a few days to send them a message. IMO the PRC is going to come to have to come to a decision whether they're going to back NK completely or oppose them. I think the answer will be oppose them becaue there's too much at stake for the PRC to sacrifice for the nuts running Pyongyang. That said depending on how things play out there's a lot of grey area that could swing things the other way. The PRC doesn't want another Korean War on the grounds that it would seriously destabalize the region and harm the PRC economically and socially as one of their main trading partners goes up in flames, trade routes are blocked and a wave of NK refugees sweep across the border. The PRC also doesn't want to see US troops right on their doorstep occupying NK. Its very likeley that the PRC will oppose diplomatically any moves in the UN or through other forums moves against NK in the short term. If it actually came to war I don't think they would commit troops either way but if the PRC feels threatened by aggressive US moves there's no telling what will happen. At this point from the US POV I think its probably best just to let NK hang itself. Short term aggressive moves aren't going to help the situation. The US should enter bi-lateral talks with NK since that's what NK wants and also what the PRC wants as it gives them an out from a messy situation. These talks need not be complicated but simply, a non-aggression agreement between us and NK. You don't attack anyone and we won't attack you. If you do attack SK or Japan we'll wipe you off the face of the earth. Leave aid and other negotiations to UN. At the same time the US should continue bi-lateral talks with the PRC. I think privately both countries can come to an understanding regarding NK. The PRC can be convinced that supporting the current NK regime isn't in their longterm interests and if given face saving options probably will be amenable to a deal that serves US interests. OTOH a public "with us or against us" stand directed at the PRC in regards to NK will harden opinions in the PRC. Anyway thats my two Yuan on the matter.
Good post Chang. China could care less about NK if not for its bargaining usage with US. However, about the China-US "cold war", I dont think political and military officials in both countries believe that with the exception of some hawks. China and US have too much business interests to ever think about a cold war. US is the biggest trade partner and investor of China. The only thing that might outweigh those is the Taiwan issue, and it's only for China (I dont think Taiwan is considered that important for US).
I distinctly recall the Dear Leader at the last Supreme Peoples Plenary say, Sura's unwillingness to pass the rock to Yao when he has position is the surest sign of the evil decadence of capitalism. Sura's bourgeois individulism will continue frustrate Comrade Van Gundy's efforts to orchestrate the next great leap forward for the noble proletariot.
A good point and I didn't mean to imply that this was accepted policy in either country. I was referring to hawks on both sides and in the PRC most wargaming these days involves a confronation with Taiwan, the US or both. While most leaders in both countries realize that economically they need each other there is still much wariness among both sides.
Ok VinceCarter, you are 100% wrong on this. I've been living IN South East Asia all my live (28 years), let me tell you this: not only is japan NOT geographically in South East Asia, it is also not referred to by asians as being in south east asia. There are a total of 10 countries in South East Asia: Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philipines, Myanmar, Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. No more, no less. As a matter of fact, newspapers and TV here in Singapore and Malaysia refers to Japan as in East Asia. AirCanada owned!
The fact is, EU is the biggest trade partner of China, not US anymore. And yes, I'm an ass. Also, some posters in this thread argued that Japan can pull its investments out of China and China will be in big trouble blablabla. Do you think that Japan is investing in China now for the benefits of China only? Do you think that Japan is not gaining anything? Do you think that Japan can simply withdraw its investments without also hurting itself? And do you know that Japan's exports to China outweighs its imports from China?
Right, but the point is that China cannot severe its relationship with Japan without sinking its own economy. That's the whole benefit of interdependece - it's likely to stop future wars. When someone postulates that China would STOP Japan from rearming that is unlikely for this reason (among others).
