China claims Kim Jong Un has agreed to denuclearize Korean Peninsula
cnbc.com/2018/03/27/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-...Posted Mar 28, 2018, 9:25 AM UTC
8455
cnbc.com
A lot of people point to Russia but I wonder if it was actually China all along that helped NK make such significant missile progress over the last two years. It would make sense...
- Get NK to a point where they can actually hit the US with a nuclear strike.
- Act as facilitator in "dunuclearization of the Peninsula" talks.
- Demand a heavy price - ie total US withdrawal from SK.
- If the US doesn't agree, they're portrayed as irrational world police not acting in good faith and nothing really changes.
- If the US agrees, China significantly increases influence in SE Asia/South China Sea.
16
Creative theory but complete withdrawal from SK is more irrational than the US not agreeing. Why would SK agree to that? Why would Japan? Those allies mean more to peace in east asia than this NK attempt. Most of east asia doesnt want to see china get any more powerful...
15
I totally see your point, but a physical removal of US military personnel from South Korea doesn't mean the North wont have nuclear missiles pointed at them from land and sea. The North would still never initiate an attack on the South, as the US and other regional allies would immediately come to the South's defense and completely bukake the North.
2
Right, but the point i was trying to make is that the region will see any removal of US forces as increasing Chinas power. A lot of people rip the US and its foreign policy, but its policy and actions in east asia have been hugely successful in keeping peace there for over 60 years now. Pretty much every non-china entity in asia is afraid of china and its expansion, especially given violent histories and animosity toward each other
2
Absolutely, but my point is that nothing will really change and this move won't increase China's power. But I could be wrong.
1
That seems like a pretty risky gamble given that it increases the likelihood of the USA doing a "first strike" on NK and China having a nuclear war at its doorstep when the chances of the US withdrawing from SK are probably zero.
I sure as heck would sooner bet on the US bombing NK than leaving SK.
2
Plus, if this came out it would probably be viewed as a direct act of open war/hostility by China on SK, Japan, and any other nation in the area.
1
Honestly, it was probably both. China wants a buyer of steel and Russia doesn't want to be reliant on America.
2
[removed]
2
This seems to be good strategy. I like this theory for being outside my though box.
[edit] ChefBoyarP makes a good point.. i
-6
And the Zen Master said, "we'll see."
10
[removed]
1
Credit to President Trump for pushing forward a process further than it has been in the last few decades. I want to see the proof at the end, but I will give credit where credit is due.
8†
I'm interested in what you are giving him credit for. Outside of a few tw3ts and creating the name Rocket Man, he hasn't done anything different.
My concern is that we look very weak right now and NK and China are taking advantage.
5†
Outside of a few tw3ts and creating the name Rocket Man, he hasn't done anything different.
Yep, I've read detailed transcripts of every conversation he had with China by phone and in person and he... oh right, no I haven't and neither have you.
8
He’s worked with and pressured the Chinese to make this happen. It was announced China was helping days after trade sanctions were announced against China by the trump administration. China is the key to North Korea and always has been.
3
China has been ignoring sanctions imposed by the U.N. and adding NK. China has a vested interest in U.S. troops leaving SK and opening NK as a base for manufacturing. China doesn't care about trade tarrifs as much as you think. They can absorb it an intern Target specific regions of the U.S. with their own tarrifs, such as businesses in districts who voted for Trump or congressman who are anti free trade. Foreign powers are not scared of trump, they see an opportunity for manipulation.
0
These are not UN sanctions. They are trade tariffs which have an immediate financial impact. I’m not even aware of any UN sanctions against China so I’m not even sure what you’re talking about.
1
I'm interested in what you are giving him credit for. Outside of a few tw3ts and creating the name Rocket Man, he hasn't done anything different.
What? What makes the news about what the president tweets and other attempts to make him look bad =/= a daily list of his activities.
1
Been there done that. They have broken every single promise they made. But if it keeps the peace till Trump is gone I am for it, Perhaps the next Prez won’t be a lunatic. The world just has to get used to them being nuclear, nothing we can do about it without a full blown war. Then we rely on MAD, like we did with Russia. He won’t use one and expect to survive.
3†
"The briefing included a personal message from President Xi to President Trump, which has been conveyed to President Trump."
I wonder what the message was.
2
"China #1."
5
[removed]
1
Next he should open borders and trade too. Then let's talk about humanity and getting your country up to speed..
1
(they see the US being in SK as them being "nuclearized")
1
In exchange for what? And why is NK again going to break its promise as soon as they got it? Like they always do?
1
[removed]
1
So really they'll just give China what they want, and then demand concessions from the West for things they've already agreed to in their dealings with China.
1
[removed]
1
From their lips to God's ears.
1
Nukes are NKs only "defence" against the US and others who would try to invade them. So I kind of doubt this is true.
-3†
Being a completely backward country is they’re best defense. No one wants responsibility for the millions of poor uneducated people there. Main reason why China is so helpful, think they want that many refugees? Same for Russia and US has no reason to invade.
7
Given the situation is Syria I doubt the US and Russia care much about refugees.
1
Didn’t say they have a problem with making refugees, said they don’t want to have to take care of them.
1
How many times has North Korea been invaded since 1953?
2
How many times has the USA been invaded? Yet it has 6.800 warheads. Or Russia (granted at least they actually got invaded several times, though 1940s was the last time I know of)? Yet they have 7.000. It's more about what IF someone does it and having nukes to throw back at your invaders amd their country it a bit of a detergent for invasion.
And I'm 100% sure Iran would've been "liberated" by now just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and others were.
1
Iran does not have nukes. The fact everyone came together to make that deal is a sign of progress. Now we have to worry about Trump screwing it up and starting shit.
0
You'd be 100% wrong on that last point.
0†
Yeah, any leverage you can get from giving away your nukes you can also get by having your nukes.
I'm wondering if China just strong-armed NK into submission.
2
History would seem to agree. Another reading is that 'peninsula' means American withdrawal ...
[edit] History would seem to agree that nukes are not given up/news not true .. not necessarily about the invasion bit, although the propaganda of an American invasion is pervasive in NK
1
Agree. It's very likely that IF he let go of his nukes, he would point at the US bases as a nuclear presence and a destabilizing factor on the peninsula.
Keeping in mind that he could have underground facilities to hide an arsenal of them without anyone knowing. All in all, this should be treated with caution.
1
Sounds like a win-win. Frankly, we should have withdrawn from there....before we ever went. There was no good reason to be in Korea from day 1.
-3
Absolutely no reason to be there. North Korea only invaded South Korea which was and still is our ally.
5
NK is kind of a special case here, however. No one really wants to invade them...the primary fear of their nuke is mainly two things: 1) unstable regime having powerful weapons and using them, which is unlikely given it woulf result in their destruction most likely, and 2) nuclear proliferation om blakck market but, most importantly, a regime collapse and then the nukes "going missing".
I think a good deal for NK here is: give up your nukes, commit to demilitarization, and in return open up to development and modernization that would most likely be managed by china, SK, and the US. The Kims and the inner circle get rich, and the standoff slowly dissipates.
1
I have no idea why you are being down voted. You are spot on. They have invested a great deal of capital and time into their program. Why on Earth would they walk away from it.
0
Possibly because it's something people don't want to hear. Because you know, it takes a bit of logic and thinking.
2
I wouldn't trust either of those 2 countries.
I wouldn't trust any country; including my own.
I'm with you on that.
...and /thread.
You are now a moderator of r/libertarian