- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chinese state newspaper urges neutrality in US-NK conflict if NK strikes first.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:59 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:59 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
It wouldn't matter who is in office. Bush, Obama, etc. We could probably bring the WWII Emperor of Japan back to life, and put him in office, and China would still see that it's illogical to support NK.
Then explain to me the sudden reversal of nearly 70's years of China policy regarding NK? I certainly don't recall Chinese state run media saying to NK they are on their own if they attack the US during any previous administration. If it's been so blindingly obvious to China that supporting NK was illogical, then why have they supported them since the 1950's? Did the Chinese leadership just happen to wake up last week and realize they have been completely illogical is supporting NK this whole time or did the threat of an active shooting war and it's impact on those hundreds of billions of trade dollars become a factor? You are being willfully ignorant if you don't think the Trump admin reminded China of what they stand to lose in terms of trade dollars if they decided they were not going to get serious about the threat of NK.
the economics of trade is our biggest point of leverage with China. Trump has been leveraging our trading partnership with them since the campaign. Things like the sanctions and the statement in the newspaper have never happened in the past because we've never had an administration willing to use that leverage. Give the man his due
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 1:09 am
2
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:43 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:Why would they say "you are on your own if you attack," when up until last month the potential was minimal. And up to until less than two weeks ago, the capability was still a long shot. And then with that that capability, they didn't just make a vague threat mole usual, they made a very specific threat.
Then explain to me the sudden reversal of nearly 70's years of China policy regarding NK? I certainly don't recall Chinese state run media saying to NK they are on their own if they attack the US during any previous administration.
It's essentially the same protocol used in various risk assessments and threats of harm, and the duty to warn. If there is a specific threat, AND opportunity, then actions are taken to prevent that even or threat. Neither of those conditions were really met until a month ago, and a few days ago both conditions were met.
So I don't know how you don't see why the current situation would cause China to take a stronger approach, even though it wasn't near as strong as they could have taken it.
quote:Sanctions have never happened?
Things like the sanctions and the statement in the newspaper have never happened in the past
That's completely false. China has supported sanctions in the past. There have been a lot of UK resolutions against NK. Just a quick sewrch to the last one during Obama's term indicates they supported it outright.
But the thing is that every Security Counsel decision, can only be passed with China's vote or they could abstain. So they have either explicitly supported all that have passed, or if they abstained, then they either implicitly support it and/or did not support NK, when they could have.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 7:22 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What about South Korea or Japan?
Would think that China is aware of the US having long standing mutual defense treaties with SK and Japan. So an NK attack on either of those countries would obligate the US to come to their defense
Posted on 8/11/17 at 7:28 am to cjared036
Jared, either china shuts off trade or kim wins. Russia has to agree with china. China goes to UN before military is used. China asks un to embargo kim. 0 trade. He will be removed from office.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 7:34 am to Amazing Moves
quote:
Six hundred million screaming Chinamen.
GOAT WW3 movie.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 8:13 am to OMLandshark
quote:
This has nothing to do with Trump. We're each other's #1 trading partner. No matter what we do with North Korea, I truly find it impossible they turn on us. They're too locked in as are we. I can't possibly think of a scenario where they will turn on us and vice versa. Russia sure, but China, no.
This is pretty ignorant of history and the forces that drive war. Countries have been willing to put themselves in economic ruin over war time and time again. According to your theory, countries would almost never go to war because it's almost always safer and less costly to settle disputes and grievances in other ways. But yet war occurs anyhow. Your theory is fundamentally invalidated by very rudimentary international relations theories and observations.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 8:21 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:LINK
I certainly don't recall Chinese state run media saying to NK they are on their own if they attack the US during any previous administration.
quote:
We should make Pyongyang understand that it must completely cease nuclear tests and missile launches and accept international supervision so as to return to the Six-Party Talks in an active posture.
For medium- and small-sized countries, any attempt to develop nuclear weapons and strategic bombs to safeguard national security will bring nothing but calamity.
Once a war is waged, China will no longer get to rescue an unadvisable regime at the expense of its own national interests.
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 8:22 am
Posted on 8/11/17 at 8:25 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral,
Well that's mighty white of them. Thanks for permitting us to defend ourselves if attacked, China.
quote:
but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them
This is the truly concerning part. This essentially gives North Korea every incentive to simply defy our measures to block their nuclear pursuits. If the threat of American military action to destroy their program is removed, they can simply wait out sanctions free of fear of consequences.
Now the question is would the Chinese ONLY intervene in the case that the U.S. introduces ground forces and seeks total defeat of Kim's regime or would they also intervene in the case that the U.S. carries out strikes to destroy the nuclear capabilities? Obviously such strikes would likely result in North Korean attacks into the South and this a general war, which would then necessitate the United States toppling the regime.
Highly irresponsible language coming from the Chinese IMO and only serves to bolster Kim's defiance.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News