Korea Thread: Liberal Moon Jae In Elected

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm also surprised Putin hasn't shown his hand much on North Korea. On paper a war in Korea is something Putin probably would like. He has no real invested stake in North Korea, and it would basically consume so much U.S. resources he'd have free reign in his area of current interest which is to the West and South of Russia.

[Valmy]

On the other hand North Korea does border Russia and would potentially put US troops right on his doorstep.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I doubt that is actually what would happen. China would almost certainly (begrudgingly) take North Korea over as a client state if war broke out and the Kim regime topples, I don't think they'd allow the U.S. to have a military presence in NK like they do in South Korea, and to be honest I'm not sure we'd want one.

Plus, that little sliver of far east Russia probably doesn't weigh heavily on Putin's mind versus the thought of trillions of U.S. dollars blown away in a Korean War II, with huge troop involvements and consequent lack of ability for us to do as much in the Middle East or Eastern Europe (maybe a good time for Putin to push the boundaries more in Ukraine.) Plus we've had troops on Russia's borders for 60 some years if you view the Warsaw Pact as an extension of Russia during the Cold War (which I do), and in a true literal sense with the Baltic states that have joined NATO. And that's in Western Russia which has always been the part its leaders most cared about.

[Barrister]

I doubt that is actually what would happen. China would almost certainly (begrudgingly) take North Korea over as a client state if war broke out and the Kim regime topples, I don't think they'd allow the U.S. to have a military presence in NK like they do in South Korea, and to be honest I'm not sure we'd want one.

Plus, that little sliver of far east Russia probably doesn't weigh heavily on Putin's mind versus the thought of trillions of U.S. dollars blown away in a Korean War II, with huge troop involvements and consequent lack of ability for us to do as much in the Middle East or Eastern Europe (maybe a good time for Putin to push the boundaries more in Ukraine.) Plus we've had troops on Russia's borders for 60 some years if you view the Warsaw Pact as an extension of Russia during the Cold War (which I do), and in a true literal sense with the Baltic states that have joined NATO. And that's in Western Russia which has always been the part its leaders most cared about.

If the Kim regime actually topples, I'm pretty sure China would prefer for ROK to take over and pay the trillions of dollars to rebuild than for China to do so itself.  Presumably a quid pro quo could be negotiated where China acquiesces in exchange for a US withdrawal of troops.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think China would only be okay with reunification if U.S. troops left the peninsula, so I guess we're in agreement. I'm not sure we'd agree to leave, but maybe South Korea would want us to, in which case we'd likely leave.

[frunk]

If the Kim regime actually topples, I'm pretty sure China would prefer for ROK to take over and pay the trillions of dollars to rebuild than for China to do so itself.  Presumably a quid pro quo could be negotiated where China acquiesces in exchange for a US withdrawal of troops.

I think China would be fine with propping up another tinpot and not put any money in.  Better a basket case NK then a unified and potentially more powerful Korea.

[Barrister]

If the Kim regime actually topples, I'm pretty sure China would prefer for ROK to take over and pay the trillions of dollars to rebuild than for China to do so itself.  Presumably a quid pro quo could be negotiated where China acquiesces in exchange for a US withdrawal of troops.

I think China would be fine with propping up another tinpot and not put any money in.  Better a basket case NK then a unified and potentially more powerful Korea.

That's what they're doing already.  But what about the case of a North Korean collapse.  In that case there's no tin pot dictator to prop up, unless the Chinese go in and install one.

[frunk]

That's what they're doing already.  But what about the case of a North Korean collapse.  In that case there's no tin pot dictator to prop up, unless the Chinese go in and install one.

I'm saying they would go in and install a new one, maybe make some token investment or changes but not anything substantial.

[alfred russel]

A reunified Korea would likely not be so stable. Apart from many other problems, who can know how 25 million North Korean citizens would vote in a democracy?

I would think a reunified Korea would want US troops considering its long border with China, Chinese interests in the region, and some expected reunification pains and instability.

[Tamas]

I think NK turned into a Chinese client state by Chinese military action is by far the best scenario.

It would spare a US military action and possible escalation with China, it would spare South Korea from having to wreck its own economy trying to lift NK into, IDK, 1960s levels of standard of living, and the Chinese and US oligarchs could surely use a new influx of wage slaves toiling away for pennies.

[grumbler]

I think if China really wanted Kim out he would be gone already.  Trying to bluff China into doing something isn't going to get anywhere.  Why should they act when they could call our bluff and we either look like fools or blunder into an unnecessary and dumb war that is likely to devastate one of their local rivals (SK).

NK is a trap that China has set for anybody who is stupid enough to do something about them.

If China thinks Kim costs them to much, he will be gone tomorrow.  The argument that, because they've never toppled him in the past, they will never topple him in the future isn't logically tenable.

NK is a trap China wants badly to get out of.  They were stupid enough to get into the trap, but might be smart enough to get out of it.

[Razgovory]

I think the assumption that Kim lives at the discretion of China is misplaced.  Barring a military invasion there is no sure way for China to effect a regime change.  Simply embargoing NK is unlikely to bring the country to its knees.  There was no uprising or coup during the famine in the 1990's, why should we expect one now?

[Ed Anger]

Tim better have a bug out bag ready.

Dumbass has it filled with anime DVDs and stupid cosplay kitten ears.

Still better than Meri's.

[CountDeMoney]

NK is a trap that China has set for anybody who is stupid enough to do something about them.

Exactly. The Chinese have supported, and continue to support, the Nork regime with purpose:  they have either winked or outright cockblocked international efforts; they have invested in Nork infrastructure to maintain its government, and they have their fingerprints all over its economy.

China is not going to tolerate any other form of government on the Yalu, and a change of regime short of a family ascension would result in a shit ton of Nork refugees flooding into a province the Chinese do not want them to flood.  The Chinese can handle a slowly disintegrating North over the course of years, it cannot handle one that collapses in a matter of weeks or months.

And there's no way in holy hell they're going to allow the US, either unilaterally or in conjunction with the ROK, to engage in regime change by force in a nation on their immediate border.  They sent 3 million screaming chinamen over the Yalu once, they would do it again.  If Taiwan is #1 on the Chinese strategic interests list, North Korea is #1a. This is more than sphere of influence bullshit, this is about direct Chinese territorial integrity. 

[jimmy olsen]

I doubt that is actually what would happen. China would almost certainly (begrudgingly) take North Korea over as a client state if war broke out and the Kim regime topples, I don't think they'd allow the U.S. to have a military presence in NK like they do in South Korea, and to be honest I'm not sure we'd want one.

Plus, that little sliver of far east Russia probably doesn't weigh heavily on Putin's mind versus the thought of trillions of U.S. dollars blown away in a Korean War II, with huge troop involvements and consequent lack of ability for us to do as much in the Middle East or Eastern Europe (maybe a good time for Putin to push the boundaries more in Ukraine.) Plus we've had troops on Russia's borders for 60 some years if you view the Warsaw Pact as an extension of Russia during the Cold War (which I do), and in a true literal sense with the Baltic states that have joined NATO. And that's in Western Russia which has always been the part its leaders most cared about.

If the Kim regime actually topples, I'm pretty sure China would prefer for ROK to take over and pay the trillions of dollars to rebuild than for China to do so itself.  Presumably a quid pro quo could be negotiated where China acquiesces in exchange for a US withdrawal of troops.

I think they'd move south to the neck of the penninsula and prop up a rump state.

They don't want the ROK bordering China proper, US troops or no US troops.