 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:27
|
|
Got it on AFP news service:
" Kim Jong-Il visited China, won nuclear crisis backing -- report (11/04/2003)
SEOUL (AFP) North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il paid a secret visit to China last month, shortly after the start of the war in Iraq, according to a US-based global intelligence consultancy citing Russian intelligence sources.
During his visit, the reclusive Kim met new Chinese President Hu Jintao, who said China would not "stand idle" if relations deteriorated further between Pyongyang and Washington, according to Strategic Forecasts.
The visit occurred during a 50-day period which ended last week and during which Kim, 61, disappeared from public view in Pyongyang, the report said.
North Korea is engaged in a standoff with the United States over its atomic weapons ambitions, with Washington demanding the Stalinist state scrap its nuclear programmes before it enters into dialogue.
South Korean officials said they were unable to confirm the visit, which Strategic Forecasts said succeeded in healing a rift between Pyongyang and Beijing over Beijing's detention in October of Yang Bin, a Chinese citizen chosen by North Korea to head a proposed new economic zone at Sinuiju on the border with China."
Lovely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I can understand China tolerating NK playing games with the US and irritating the White House. I find it hard to believe that they really want a nuclear armed unstable dictatorship on their border, particularly since it will hardly encourage economic investment in southern China.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
China can't even take an island 80 miles off its coast. when the US decides to do an 'iraq' to NK, China will do what china can... sit back and watch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
'The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).'
same fluff i heard 4 weeks ago... hmmm...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
its also likely that the US would employ MAD in the region and arm japan w/ nukes. which would scare the bajeezus out of china/n. korea.
so I dont see the upside for china.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
'The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).'
same fluff i heard 4 weeks ago... hmmm... |
pardon me while i bitterly laugh.
fluff? easy for you to say when it's not your relatives under the gun, mwhc.
seoul is a scant 40 miles from the DMZ, which has probably on the order of three-quarters of a million north korean troops stationed near or on it. north korea also has many thousands of hardened artillery placements and missile artillery placements which can strike much of south korea, seoul included.
furthermore, any path to invading south korea would have to go through seoul; the mountains in the east are far too difficult to invade by; and all the major highways in south korea go to seoul.
how is any of this fluff?
in an armed conflict, seoul would be pulverized. thousands, if not tens of thousands, of koreans would be killed and injured. maybe more.
perhaps you don't care, mwhc, because they're only statistics? statistics in a nation that is half a world away, even?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes japan has suffered two nuclear blasts and now north korea threatans a third.
it is less likely now that we seem to be moving under the idea of the US controls everything. but it would be much more hands off to hand nukes to japan. and I dont think it would start the arms race u think.
its not like the US/USSR cold war. japan would only posess limited MAD ability. how would china building more things counter that MAD ability? it wouldn't. there is no logistical counter. so ne buildup that china/ north korea would do would be independant in goal from whether or not japan has nukes.
and frankly I'm not worried about large stable democracies posessing nukes. its the ppl who aren't, they worry me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
it is less likely now that we seem to be moving under the idea of the US controls everything. but it would be much more hands off to hand nukes to japan. and I dont think it would start the arms race u think. |
why not? i doubt you have much knowledge of the political climate of the region, nor do you seem to be well versed in the history of east asia.
a militarized japan will only create an extremely nervous south korea and an worried china--which would cause an arms race in the interest of both nations never again losing to japan.
it appears you also haven't taken the lessons of south asia to heart. a nuclear india did nothing but cause pakistan to reveal its nuclear capability. now, less than a decade later, both nations have aggressively been developing their nuclear weapons programs and missile programs, as well as investing heavily in their militaries. how is that not an arms race?
quote:
its not like the US/USSR cold war. japan would only posess limited MAD ability. |
you don't seem to understand the concept of mad. mad is mutually assured destruction, and it only worked between the us and ussr. why? because only those two nations had enough capability to wipe out each other ENTIRELY did it work. japan having a few nukes means that it could conceivably only strike a few locations in nkorea OR china, not both; china would naturally build more than enough nuclear weapons to take care of all japan, and then invest some more to be able to fend off the us. nkorea does not have enough to assure destruction of japan.
the idea of mad is that a few nukes are bad. an overabundance of ready nukes is good.
quote:
how would china building more things counter that MAD ability? it wouldn't. there is no logistical counter. |
there was a reason why the us and the ussr kept building nuclear weapons until together the could have vaporized every single city on earth four times over. overproduction of nuclear weapons IS the logistical counter in mad. why? second-strike. that's another big part of mad.
naturally, your opponent will try to take out your nuclear facilities in his first strike and wipe you out as well. the only way to counter that and mutually assure his destruction is have so many nuclear weapons he cannot hope to destroy them all.
quote:
so ne buildup that china/ north korea would do would be independant in goal from whether or not japan has nukes. |
false. japan is a major economic power in the region as well as a nation with a history of aggression towards its neighbors. people do not forget.
please, in the future, use less abbreviations. i could care less about capitalization, but i don't like having to read the shortened words.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
china already has all the nuclear capability it needs in respect to japan and north korea is stretching its limit militarily right now. they're gna have as much military as they can afford whether or not japan has this or that. sure they might use it as justification for being more open, but that wont prevent them either way.
as for south korea, maybe it will. they certainly have a history of intensely hating each other. I just dont see tensions rising between japan/south korea over military matters nemore. they're both democracies both are becoming increasingly pacifist(especially japan).
japan was militaristic but so was germany, now both are paranoidal pacifists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
thats probably true but then ur talking economically. I mean tensions rise n fall between america and europe, we don't threatan lobbing nukes at each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
hrrrm I think increased spending could occur. I dont buy ur ludicrous amts. both are capitalist whores and are fully apprised of how well their std of living is doing because of it.
they are hardly gna simply shift gears because a nation they dont even think military conflict is a viable option w/ has nukes when countries that scare ne sane person more ALREADY HAVE THEM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
hrrrm I think increased spending could occur. I dont buy ur ludicrous amts. both are capitalist whores and are fully apprised of how well their std of living is doing because of it. |
america is a "capitalist whore" as well... and i think it's spending ludicrous amounts on the military.
at least, in the wrong places in the military--for instance, i honestly doubt we need as many nuclear weapons as we do. it's expensive to maintain them. but we do.
why? because that's precisely how mad works. we have more than enough nuclear weapons to take on any nation that strikes us with a nuclear blast. not only do we have more than enough for a second strike capability, we have enough to postively annihialate them. that's how our nuclear deterrent works.
in the case of japan and south korea, where they both won't have enough resources to construct enough nuclear weapons to mutually annihialate each other, or even mount a credible second strike capability against china, the situation would become a lot less stable--you'd have to be willing to trust the sanity, stability, and have faith that they won't engage in gung-ho adventurism. that's much less effective, seeing how both india and pakistan treat each other.
neither of them, in spending ludicrous amounts, would be "shifting gears", as you say. both nations have such productivity that they both spend less than 5% of their GDP on defense; even a small increase, say, to 6 or 7%, would not hurt their economies all that much (perhaps even give them a boost, as they might purchase from native corporations).
furthermore, with the low quantities of nuclear weapons that we are assuming both japan and south korea can field, one would consider that conventional forces would be used in any and all engagements unless one nation were in danger of being completely overrun.
how best to avoid such an event? invest in a few nuclear weapons to raise that spectre, and then invest far more in a larger, stronger conventional force to ensure that any such notions are dropped before confrontations occur.
even so, this matters not because the true issue at hand is whether japan should go nuclear to deter nkorea. i'm saying no--because the risks of touching off an arms race is too great, and you have shown nothing to prove that an arms race would NOT occur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
US spends 4% of its gdp on military and last I checked 15% of its budget.
ummm I certainly have given points to the contrary, just cuz u dont like em doesn't negate their existance.
also its pretty clear ur biasing a lot of ur points w/ adjectives like ludicrous. and the seemingly random US bashing is a lil disturbing too. basically ur saying "omg japan has nukes" we're s. korea lets build a shitload! and Im saying tha twont happen. I not saying s. korea wont get any, just that this ever escalating japan/s. korea arms race wont happen.
u've conceeded neither consider military action as a viable resolution of conflict between the two. and that there are more dangerous nations in the region THAT ALREADY HAVE NUKES. but u still u insist an ardent pacifist like japan posessing nukes will ignite a firestorm th elikes of which the world has not witnessed before.
I'm sure if n. korea was a sleeping giant and japan started gettin nukes n. korea would go crazy. but thats not the case. n. korea is a spent starving nation w/ an undetermined future. it spends all it really can on its military.
china might play games but they have all the nukes they need wrt japan. like I've already said and u haven't disagreed w/.
so I really dont know where that leaves u? I guess to flame me again. I really thot this was winding down then all of a sudden u flared it back up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2003 13:03
|