Bahamut
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
South Korea is not prepared for war with North, they are presently have no political head, plus majority of population lives to close to DMZ.
Donald Trump says US prepared to go it alone on North Korea nuclear threat
- Thread starter lcafanboy
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
Pure rhetoric.
Does he think PLA will sit quietly and watch it happen? DPRK gives political leverage to Chinese the same way Pakistan gives them in the subcontinent or the same gives US as well when negotiating with India.
This will be Korean War 2 and PLA will send forces in to North Korea to maintain a low intensity but forceful conflict.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
You must understand; this era is not the era of Cold War.
USA is a mature power, weakened due to its years of external focus and turning from a democracy into a large corporate.
It failed to consolidate its internal matters and resolve them, which only seem to be increasing.
USA has the might to take on smaller countries in Middle East and Central-West Asia. But China is a very very different ballgame.
Challenging Chinese military would leave the US nowhere in a war, whether directly or indirectly.
Both would end up destroying each other completely.
The era of multi-polar power is emerging and that means US has to adjust to new realities.
While I found Obama more charismatic as a leader, he still had it easy. Trump runs US like his personal empire, much to the dismay of Americans.
As more poles of power emerge, India, Brazil, Turkey, independent Japan, and even a stronger more assertive South Korea, US will not remain the same.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
Most impulsive and impatient if you ask me.
He's not phattu. He is foolishly unpredictable. Running a country isn't the same as running a company and that is something he doesn't understand.
He want to run country as a corporate , for which he has experience .
He want to twist each and every alies to maximum benefit of USA . But how you can say to stand someone in your war without a stable mutually trusted partnership . Corporate relation are very different from strategic relationship .
Today India said that we respect one China policy but same respect come from China .
This is the way you are going to win various issues in Southeast Asia ?
Time taken to build mutually trusted strategic partnership is very long but to ditch a allied is work of fraction of time .
I think when trump administration come to realise this there will be lot of losses for USA .
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
The rate at which Toupee is going, he will end up losing allies than gaining them.
Rest assured, Germany is going to get a conservative leader in the election this year. The germans are fed up with Merkel and most likely choose someone who is a bit more serious about the German state and identity rather than the radical-loving Merkel.
Which also means that the friction between US and Germany will increase. Expect Marine La Pen to win in France as well which will further tighten French relations with US but as equals and not as lackeys. Also expect FREXIT if she comes to power.
Chinese don't respect India's territorial integrity back at all.
They have over 30,000 sq Km of Indian land in J&K and have already started making roads in POK which iis legally our territory, but thanks to secular Nehru, is under Pakistan now. This is why the One-China Policy has to be re-thought.
Rest assured, Toupee will take US down as you say.
Flame Thrower
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,675
- Likes
- 2,731
I was expecting this, it was only a matter of time. When Trump said he is going to take NK means that he is not going to take NK today or tomorrow but getting the forces ready. America will take on NK the day it successfully tests 10000km long range missile. Even China wants NK to fail every 10000 missile test. If America fights NK, China can't support NK atleast openly so NK looses( Pak scared for siding China)
. If China did support then America would freeze Chinese assets, China looses 500 billion dollars trade(which China can't afford to). Moreover if Someone fights China, almost every South Asian country including India would want a pie( Pak issues, Aksai & Tawang and may be Tibet issues to be solved and only possible, if China is defeated very badly)...
You know Trump is not bad as he seems atleast in foreign policy.
A quick question, do you know why China helped NK, because America never openly said that it is going to attack NK. I am happy if someone points out faults and come up with better explanation (with the big picture in mind)
. If China did support then America would freeze Chinese assets, China looses 500 billion dollars trade(which China can't afford to). Moreover if Someone fights China, almost every South Asian country including India would want a pie( Pak issues, Aksai & Tawang and may be Tibet issues to be solved and only possible, if China is defeated very badly)...
You know Trump is not bad as he seems atleast in foreign policy.
A quick question, do you know why China helped NK, because America never openly said that it is going to attack NK. I am happy if someone points out faults and come up with better explanation (with the big picture in mind)
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,701
- Likes
- 9,099
This doesn't seem to be a question.
But a small history lesson is that: America attacked NoKo (korean war) and china went to war with america.
At that time china did not have nukes or anything.
They didnot have a multi-trillion economy either, so they stand to lose more now than half a century back.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
China doesn't seem to be worried about getting into fights. They know you will lose as much as they would. The advantage that China has is as an authoritarian regime, they can rebuilt very fast compared to us democracies. Also with all the manufacturing power there, it is unlikely that fighting them would be easy.This doesn't seem to be a question.
But a small history lesson is that: America attacked NoKo (korean war) and china went to war with america.
At that time china did not have nukes or anything.
They didnot have a multi-trillion economy either, so they stand to lose more now than half a century back.
Using nukes is as much out of question today as much as it was at that time.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,263
No other South Asian country has issues other than India and Bhutan because both of our territories are annexed by the Chinese. However don't expect India to take sides as this will directly impact our economy. The battlefield will be in the Korean peninsula.
An attempted invasion of China would be stupid even if we have the full power to do it as investments will dry and trade will weaken overnight.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,403
- Likes
- 4,199
This article sounds like India-Pak war,
Risks to US from War on North Korea
------------------------------------------
Exclusive: The murders of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi – after they surrendered their WMD – taught North Korea’s Kim Jong-un not to give up his, setting the stage for a dangerous crisis, explains Jonathan Marshall.
By Jonathan Marshall
When a hostile government, armed with atomic and chemical weapons and the world’s fourth largest army, declares “the situation is already on the brink of nuclear war,” Americans should sit up and take notice. Compared to North Korea, ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists are insignificant threats to U.S. security.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Experts agree that within a few years, at most, North Korea will have mastered the ballistic missile technology needed to destroy U.S. cities with nuclear warheads. It recently demonstrated the use of solid-fuel technology in intermediate-range missiles, and earlier this month the regime tested a sophisticated new rocket engine that even South Korea called a technical breakthrough.
The Trump administration did take notice. Although North Korea has never threatened to use nuclear weapons except in self-defense, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned this month that the regime must “abandon its development of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction,” or face the threat of the United States and its allies using military force to stop it.
More than a few elite pundits have endorsed preemptive war as an option. A recent Washington Post editorial conceded that striking North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities could trigger “a potentially catastrophic war,” but declared nonetheless that “further steps by North Korea toward deploying nuclear-armed ICBMs might compel such action.”
Last fall, the influential Council on Foreign Relations issued a major white paper calling North Korea’s weapons program “a grave and expanding threat” and asserting that Washington may have no choice but to “consider more assertive military and political actions, including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime and its nuclear and missile capabilities.”
Such threats are foolhardy and counterproductive. As many analysts point out, a pre-emptive attack by the United States cannot guarantee to destroy all of North Korea’s hidden nuclear weapons or mobile missile launchers. Missing even a handful would guarantee the incineration of Seoul, Tokyo, and other nearby cities in radioactive fireballs. Even in the best case, North Korea could respond by flattening Seoul with artillery barrages, and killing tens of thousands of Koreans and Japanese with chemical weapons.
How North Korea Could Hit U.S.
An America-First madman in the White House might view such casualties as an acceptable price to pay for eliminating a latent threat against the U.S. homeland. But hardly anyone has pointed out that North Korea can and almost certainly would retaliate against U.S. cities as well.
President Donald Trump announces the selection of Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new National Security Adviser on Feb. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
Even without long-range missiles, they can simply float atomic bombs into U.S. harbors aboard innocuous-looking commercial freighters. No anti-missile shield can stop them from wiping out big parts of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or Houston in response to a U.S. attack.
Back in 2000, reporter Sydney Freedberg, Jr., called attention to the near impossibility of detecting a shielded bomb packed into one of the 45,000 shipping containers that enter the United States every day. “Hiding a bomb there would be a lethal needle in a huge haystack,” he remarked.
Although major U.S. ports have since installed radiation detectors to prevent bombs from being smuggled into their waters, “if there is highly enriched uranium metal that’s shielded and below the water line, it’s going to be really tough to detect at long range,” said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear terrorism at Harvard University.
Even a small bomb detonation would do immense damage. A 2003 study by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Transportation concluded that “The economic impact of even a single nuclear terrorist attack on a major U.S. seaport would be very great . . . A successful attack would create disruption of U.S. trade valued at $100-$200 billion, property damage of $50-$500 billion, and 50,000 to 1,000,000 lives could be lost. Global and long-term effects, including the economic impacts of the pervasive national and international responses to the nuclear attack . . . are believed to be substantially greater.”
Three years later, experts at the RAND Corporation conducted an even deeper analysis of a simulated terrorist attack on the Port of Long Beach with a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, which is well within the yield of North Korea’s current weapons. Among the plausible outcomes it described:
–“Sixty thousand people might die instantly from the blast itself or quickly thereafter from radiation poisoning.
–“One-hundred-fifty thousand more might be exposed to hazardous levels of radioactive water and sediment from the port, requiring emergency medical treatment.
— “The blast and subsequent fires might completely destroy the entire infrastructure and all ships in the Port of Long Beach and the adjoining Port of Los Angeles.
— “Six million people might try to evacuate the Los Angeles region.
— “Two to three million people might need relocation because fallout will have contaminated a 500-km2 area.
— “Gasoline supplies might run critically short across the entire region because of the loss of Long Beach’s refineries — responsible for one-third of the gas west of the Rockies.
— “The early costs of the Long Beach scenario could exceed $1 trillion, driven by outlay(s) for medical care, insurance claims, workers’ compensation, evacuation, and construction.”
Cascading Dangers
And that’s only the beginning. Insurers might stop writing commercial policies. Workers at other ports might flee to avoid a similar attack.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at his swearing-in ceremony on Feb. 1, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
“Given these conditions, all U.S. ports would likely close indefinitely or operate at a substantially reduced level following the attack,” the report noted. “This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum throughout the country.”
Bottom line: a preemptive attack on North Korea’s real WMD would make the Bush administration’s disastrous attack on Iraq’s non-existent WMD look like a cake walk. Millions of people would almost certainly die in South Korea and Japan. Millions more Americans might die from nuclear retaliation against U.S. port cities and infrastructure. Every American would suffer the staggering economic and moral consequences.
That’s why we should all be concerned with Secretary Tillerson’s recent — and entirely unwarranted — rejection of efforts to find a peaceful political and diplomatic solution with North Korea.
The Trump administration appears to hope that stepping up economic sanctions, and bullying China, will miraculously convince North Korea to disarm. But strong-arm measures, which reinforce Pyongyang’s conviction that Washington wants nothing less than regime change, will ensure that war becomes not just one of many options on the table, but the only option.
Someday soon, the only question left may be whether it is North Korea or the United States that initiates all-out war in an insanely reckless attempt at self-preservation.
Risks to US from War on North Korea
------------------------------------------
Exclusive: The murders of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi – after they surrendered their WMD – taught North Korea’s Kim Jong-un not to give up his, setting the stage for a dangerous crisis, explains Jonathan Marshall.
By Jonathan Marshall
When a hostile government, armed with atomic and chemical weapons and the world’s fourth largest army, declares “the situation is already on the brink of nuclear war,” Americans should sit up and take notice. Compared to North Korea, ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists are insignificant threats to U.S. security.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Experts agree that within a few years, at most, North Korea will have mastered the ballistic missile technology needed to destroy U.S. cities with nuclear warheads. It recently demonstrated the use of solid-fuel technology in intermediate-range missiles, and earlier this month the regime tested a sophisticated new rocket engine that even South Korea called a technical breakthrough.
The Trump administration did take notice. Although North Korea has never threatened to use nuclear weapons except in self-defense, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned this month that the regime must “abandon its development of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction,” or face the threat of the United States and its allies using military force to stop it.
More than a few elite pundits have endorsed preemptive war as an option. A recent Washington Post editorial conceded that striking North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities could trigger “a potentially catastrophic war,” but declared nonetheless that “further steps by North Korea toward deploying nuclear-armed ICBMs might compel such action.”
Last fall, the influential Council on Foreign Relations issued a major white paper calling North Korea’s weapons program “a grave and expanding threat” and asserting that Washington may have no choice but to “consider more assertive military and political actions, including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime and its nuclear and missile capabilities.”
Such threats are foolhardy and counterproductive. As many analysts point out, a pre-emptive attack by the United States cannot guarantee to destroy all of North Korea’s hidden nuclear weapons or mobile missile launchers. Missing even a handful would guarantee the incineration of Seoul, Tokyo, and other nearby cities in radioactive fireballs. Even in the best case, North Korea could respond by flattening Seoul with artillery barrages, and killing tens of thousands of Koreans and Japanese with chemical weapons.
How North Korea Could Hit U.S.
An America-First madman in the White House might view such casualties as an acceptable price to pay for eliminating a latent threat against the U.S. homeland. But hardly anyone has pointed out that North Korea can and almost certainly would retaliate against U.S. cities as well.
President Donald Trump announces the selection of Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new National Security Adviser on Feb. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
Even without long-range missiles, they can simply float atomic bombs into U.S. harbors aboard innocuous-looking commercial freighters. No anti-missile shield can stop them from wiping out big parts of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or Houston in response to a U.S. attack.
Back in 2000, reporter Sydney Freedberg, Jr., called attention to the near impossibility of detecting a shielded bomb packed into one of the 45,000 shipping containers that enter the United States every day. “Hiding a bomb there would be a lethal needle in a huge haystack,” he remarked.
Although major U.S. ports have since installed radiation detectors to prevent bombs from being smuggled into their waters, “if there is highly enriched uranium metal that’s shielded and below the water line, it’s going to be really tough to detect at long range,” said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear terrorism at Harvard University.
Even a small bomb detonation would do immense damage. A 2003 study by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Transportation concluded that “The economic impact of even a single nuclear terrorist attack on a major U.S. seaport would be very great . . . A successful attack would create disruption of U.S. trade valued at $100-$200 billion, property damage of $50-$500 billion, and 50,000 to 1,000,000 lives could be lost. Global and long-term effects, including the economic impacts of the pervasive national and international responses to the nuclear attack . . . are believed to be substantially greater.”
Three years later, experts at the RAND Corporation conducted an even deeper analysis of a simulated terrorist attack on the Port of Long Beach with a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, which is well within the yield of North Korea’s current weapons. Among the plausible outcomes it described:
–“Sixty thousand people might die instantly from the blast itself or quickly thereafter from radiation poisoning.
–“One-hundred-fifty thousand more might be exposed to hazardous levels of radioactive water and sediment from the port, requiring emergency medical treatment.
— “The blast and subsequent fires might completely destroy the entire infrastructure and all ships in the Port of Long Beach and the adjoining Port of Los Angeles.
— “Six million people might try to evacuate the Los Angeles region.
— “Two to three million people might need relocation because fallout will have contaminated a 500-km2 area.
— “Gasoline supplies might run critically short across the entire region because of the loss of Long Beach’s refineries — responsible for one-third of the gas west of the Rockies.
— “The early costs of the Long Beach scenario could exceed $1 trillion, driven by outlay(s) for medical care, insurance claims, workers’ compensation, evacuation, and construction.”
Cascading Dangers
And that’s only the beginning. Insurers might stop writing commercial policies. Workers at other ports might flee to avoid a similar attack.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at his swearing-in ceremony on Feb. 1, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
“Given these conditions, all U.S. ports would likely close indefinitely or operate at a substantially reduced level following the attack,” the report noted. “This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum throughout the country.”
Bottom line: a preemptive attack on North Korea’s real WMD would make the Bush administration’s disastrous attack on Iraq’s non-existent WMD look like a cake walk. Millions of people would almost certainly die in South Korea and Japan. Millions more Americans might die from nuclear retaliation against U.S. port cities and infrastructure. Every American would suffer the staggering economic and moral consequences.
That’s why we should all be concerned with Secretary Tillerson’s recent — and entirely unwarranted — rejection of efforts to find a peaceful political and diplomatic solution with North Korea.
The Trump administration appears to hope that stepping up economic sanctions, and bullying China, will miraculously convince North Korea to disarm. But strong-arm measures, which reinforce Pyongyang’s conviction that Washington wants nothing less than regime change, will ensure that war becomes not just one of many options on the table, but the only option.
Someday soon, the only question left may be whether it is North Korea or the United States that initiates all-out war in an insanely reckless attempt at self-preservation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,701
- Likes
- 9,099
Bro, it is just a vpn, I live in Chennai.
NOT american.
no smoking
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,016
- Likes
- 2,314
Well, the <<Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty>> doesn’t agree with you. In this treaty, Chinese guaranteed to support North Korea with any necessary method except nuke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-North_Korean_Mutual_Aid_and_Cooperation_Friendship_Treaty
As a response, Chinese can freeze American assets, surely enough to compensate Chinese losses.
The question is how badly?
Really? Didn’t China fight the Korea war? Why do you think America doesn’t openly say that it is going to attack NK? Because she is such a peaceful country or she knew that China is behind North Korea?
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,813
- Likes
- 37,292
Trump tells Japan 'all options on the table' in face of North Korea provocation
In phone call to prime minister Shinzo Abe, president promises boost to US military capabilities after Pyongyang fired ballistic missile
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe told reporters US president Donald Trump had ‘made a strong remark’ in discussing the North Korea threat. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Thursday 6 April 2017 05.04 BSTLast modified on Thursday 6 April 2017 05.11 BST
Donald Trump has vowed to boost the US’s military capabilities to counter the threat from North Korean missiles, hours before he is due to meet the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, for talks that are expected to be dominated by Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
In a telephone call on Thursday morning, Trump told the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, that “all options are on the table” – including military action – to address provocations by North Korea.
Trump “made clear that the United States will continue to strengthen its ability to deter and defend itself and its allies with the full range of its military capabilities”, the White House said in a statement about the 35-minute call. “The president emphasised that the United States stands with its allies Japan and South Korea in the face of the serious threat that North Korea continues to pose.”
In a further sign of rising tensions on the Korean peninsula, South Korea on Thursday test-launched a ballistic missile that is capable of striking any part of North Korea.
Yonhap news agency cited a senior South Korean official as saying the missile, with a range of 800km (500 miles), would act as a “strong deterrent” against provocations from the North.
Seoul plans to deploy the new missile this year after further tests, Yonhap said. South Korea has been developing missiles with longer ranges to counter its neighbour’s missile programme under a 2012 agreement with the US.
The South’s test comes a day after North Korea fired a ballistic missile from its eastern port of Sinpo, a move experts believe was intended to remind Trump and Xi of Pyongyang’s determination to develop a long-range missile capable of carrying a miniaturised nuclear warhead.
North Korea is expected to feature prominently during talks at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Thursday and Friday, days after the president warned that the US was prepared to act alone against North Korea if China refused to exert more pressure on Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will,” Trump said in a newspaper interview at the weekend.
His administration is reportedly considering sanctions against Chinese banks and firms that provide North Korea access to the international financial system, while retaining the option of conducting a pre-emptive military strike.
Trump and Abe agreed that North Korea’s latest ballistic missile test posed a threat to security in the region, the Japanese prime minister told reporters after the phone call.
“[We] agreed that yesterday’s missile launch by North Korea was a dangerous provocative act and a grave threat to security. I told him that Japan is watching closely how China will cope with this North Korean issue.
“President Trump then made a strong remark, saying all options are on the table.”
Susan Thornton, the top US diplomat for East Asia, called North Korea “an urgent and global threat”.
She told reporters: “We are looking for an action-focused, results-oriented approach, and we are going to be trying to cooperate with other partners and allies in a global coalition really to try to solve this problem in an urgent way that we haven’t really taken up before.”
Thornton said Washington’s commitment to the defence of South Korea and Japan was “ironclad”, adding: “We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that we’re going to maintain security in that region and that we’re going to be very serious about pursuing a solution to the illegal North Korean weapons programmes.”
But Kurt Campbell, who served as the US’s senior diplomat dealing with Asia during Barack Obama’s first term as president, warned that Trump’s rhetoriclacked credibility.
“He’s making it seem like we are prepared to go to war or use military action … and I don’t think that is going to be viable,” Campbell told Associated Press. “The key about using leverage in negotiation is that you have to be credible.”
On Trump’s ultimatum to China over its reluctance to place more pressure on North Korea, he said: “I think the Chinese are likely to see through this.”
Japan’s government is facing calls to strengthen its own defences against North Korean missiles, including the option of striking the regime’s missile bases immediately after an attack.
A proposal by the ruling Liberal Democratic party’s security panel urges Abe to consider giving Japan the option of launching counterattacks against North Korean military targets.
The panel claims possessing that capability would not violate Japan’s postwar constitution, which confines its military to a strictly defensive role.
“To properly defend Japan we have to be able to attack the bases from where North Korean missiles are launched,” said Itsunori Onodera, a former defence minister who leads the panel. “This is to prevent a second or third attack. These are not pre-emptive strikes, but counterattacks that fall within the scope of self-defence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/trump-japan-all-options-north-korea-provocation
In phone call to prime minister Shinzo Abe, president promises boost to US military capabilities after Pyongyang fired ballistic missile
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe told reporters US president Donald Trump had ‘made a strong remark’ in discussing the North Korea threat. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Thursday 6 April 2017 05.04 BSTLast modified on Thursday 6 April 2017 05.11 BST
Donald Trump has vowed to boost the US’s military capabilities to counter the threat from North Korean missiles, hours before he is due to meet the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, for talks that are expected to be dominated by Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
In a telephone call on Thursday morning, Trump told the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, that “all options are on the table” – including military action – to address provocations by North Korea.
Trump “made clear that the United States will continue to strengthen its ability to deter and defend itself and its allies with the full range of its military capabilities”, the White House said in a statement about the 35-minute call. “The president emphasised that the United States stands with its allies Japan and South Korea in the face of the serious threat that North Korea continues to pose.”
In a further sign of rising tensions on the Korean peninsula, South Korea on Thursday test-launched a ballistic missile that is capable of striking any part of North Korea.
Yonhap news agency cited a senior South Korean official as saying the missile, with a range of 800km (500 miles), would act as a “strong deterrent” against provocations from the North.
Seoul plans to deploy the new missile this year after further tests, Yonhap said. South Korea has been developing missiles with longer ranges to counter its neighbour’s missile programme under a 2012 agreement with the US.
The South’s test comes a day after North Korea fired a ballistic missile from its eastern port of Sinpo, a move experts believe was intended to remind Trump and Xi of Pyongyang’s determination to develop a long-range missile capable of carrying a miniaturised nuclear warhead.
North Korea is expected to feature prominently during talks at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Thursday and Friday, days after the president warned that the US was prepared to act alone against North Korea if China refused to exert more pressure on Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will,” Trump said in a newspaper interview at the weekend.
His administration is reportedly considering sanctions against Chinese banks and firms that provide North Korea access to the international financial system, while retaining the option of conducting a pre-emptive military strike.
Trump and Abe agreed that North Korea’s latest ballistic missile test posed a threat to security in the region, the Japanese prime minister told reporters after the phone call.
“[We] agreed that yesterday’s missile launch by North Korea was a dangerous provocative act and a grave threat to security. I told him that Japan is watching closely how China will cope with this North Korean issue.
“President Trump then made a strong remark, saying all options are on the table.”
Susan Thornton, the top US diplomat for East Asia, called North Korea “an urgent and global threat”.
She told reporters: “We are looking for an action-focused, results-oriented approach, and we are going to be trying to cooperate with other partners and allies in a global coalition really to try to solve this problem in an urgent way that we haven’t really taken up before.”
Thornton said Washington’s commitment to the defence of South Korea and Japan was “ironclad”, adding: “We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that we’re going to maintain security in that region and that we’re going to be very serious about pursuing a solution to the illegal North Korean weapons programmes.”
But Kurt Campbell, who served as the US’s senior diplomat dealing with Asia during Barack Obama’s first term as president, warned that Trump’s rhetoriclacked credibility.
“He’s making it seem like we are prepared to go to war or use military action … and I don’t think that is going to be viable,” Campbell told Associated Press. “The key about using leverage in negotiation is that you have to be credible.”
On Trump’s ultimatum to China over its reluctance to place more pressure on North Korea, he said: “I think the Chinese are likely to see through this.”
Japan’s government is facing calls to strengthen its own defences against North Korean missiles, including the option of striking the regime’s missile bases immediately after an attack.
A proposal by the ruling Liberal Democratic party’s security panel urges Abe to consider giving Japan the option of launching counterattacks against North Korean military targets.
The panel claims possessing that capability would not violate Japan’s postwar constitution, which confines its military to a strictly defensive role.
“To properly defend Japan we have to be able to attack the bases from where North Korean missiles are launched,” said Itsunori Onodera, a former defence minister who leads the panel. “This is to prevent a second or third attack. These are not pre-emptive strikes, but counterattacks that fall within the scope of self-defence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/trump-japan-all-options-north-korea-provocation
Flame Thrower
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,675
- Likes
- 2,731
I'd rather see it as trap, every American president saw it the same way, they believed that attacking Korea is equal to attacking China, but everything has breaking point. If NK develops missiles and Nukes, US is not going to just watch. 7th fleet is around to take care of any consequences in the SCS. Like I said, it would take every B2 bomber from America and every Fighter Bomber from 7th fleet to Bomb every NK Military installation into dust. Add SK fighters to the mix, then boom before Chinese could provide any help more than half of the NK army and it's infrastructure would be burned to dust and if US could get lucky and kill Kim in that surprise attack(not even 1% chance) NK will fall, nevertheless if USA attacks NK and Chinese will be confined only to help(war supplies) NK, rather involve in the action directly (i.e., attack USN and SK using PLAAF and PLAN). NK will fall like a pack of Cards. Last thing PRC would like to do is engage a war which it is not willing take.
US also understands about the consequences if PRC decides to join war. Let me remind you of how USA engages a strong force(at the time of war, Irak has 4th largest air force) " Remember Iraqi war1 - 28 counties (NATO countries) attacked Iraq" incase of China the number is only going to be higher and why, here is my explanation...
Thanks to Chinese attitude as a bully most of the south Asian countries are pissed of with China and they could do nothing about it. But in the time of war, America will use their anger and the best part is PRC knows this.
If war is fought before 2020 I believe PRC will confine only to provide war supplies to NK but doesn't involve directly.
Wars are fought when when the oppressor has advantage.
Well you participate in economic discussion and I hope you know what would happen. I think, explanation is not needed, nevertheless I shall....
America is a consumer based economy where as China is a export based economy. In case of war, America freezes Chinese assets and stops any Chinese imports and China can do the same, but will it do!!??Most probably yes(self respect, ego...You name it and if it doesn't, then why participate the war in first place!!??)
1. China has over 500 billion surplus trade with America if stops abruptly both countries would suffer. But America being consumer based economy every other country will try to fill in the gap might take couple of years to fill it. On the other hand if China looses 500 billion dollars trade, imagine the job and economic loss for what..."to defend NK!!??".
2. No the story is not over yet, if PRC ceases American assets, American companies would move out to other SA countries and production will start after a year or two. Yes due to recession no. of items manufactured will be less but will not go bankrupt for sure(further more, other countries including India would provide offers and incentives to the companies moved out of China). On Chinese side, sure they have the assets (finished and semi finished products before war started)but what could they do, at best sell them to Chinese only(I am neither sure it can be done nor WTO will allow it). Huge employment loss and most of the local industries tied up either directly (manufacturing/assembling finished product) or indirectly (supplying raw material or parts) would go down.
3. And there is more, China will be isolated as exporter to each and every South Asian country otherwise it will not get the spoils of war(i.e., companies moved out from China).
4. Here is the Cherry on top, everyone knows how strong chinese economy (or Chinese economic bubble) is... If Chinese involve themselves in the US NK war, the economic strain alone is more than enough to crush China and put the decades back.
5. Now, everyone might ask the questions on what about US economy, let me remind you guys US economy is one thing which can't fail in other words to say the whole world will not let it fail atleast till many decades to come. Though there are many international currencies all over the world most of the trade is done over US dollars, as long as USD holds lion share in the international trade US economy will recovered after not one, but multiple recessions. But this would not be the same incase of China, if it goes against US.
Answer is as bad as it gets....well I was lost in my ofc work, like I mentioned earlier economy of China is going to be a disaster. When China concentrates on Korean Peninsula, India would storm Aksai Chin and force China to split its forces, not only that if Malacca Straight is chocked, supplies to China is at halt(I doubt no one would like to anger America by supplying fuel to China) if you need, ask I shall provide more info on this.
The below is all about What India can get out of China US war, it is not relevant to @no smoking qn.
One thing you don't want to do is bully India under the leadership of Mr. Modi(GoI responce under Modi administration was lot better than any other PM, Our relationship with Taiwan has improved and so is with most of S. Asian countries. Chinese rants are my proof that PRC is feeling the heat of GoI), trust me and that is the last thing you wanted to do. And China is doing it a lot. Modi is a tough nut to crack, every time China did it, things only got worse... Our relationship is better with S. Asia than any other time (as far as I could remember).
Now let's come to the real story. When US is good to go on NK, India will also be on same page. US attacks NK.....to prevent any Chinese support, India would be asked to do drills and active patrol on Chinese border to give a hint to that if situation seems going wrong in any way India would be asked to attack China.
Now what's in it for India to attack China, I say there is more than one can predict.
1. Comes Aksai Chin.
2. Every Chinese assisted port in IOR (String of Pearls ports) would be bombed and burned to ashes.
2. CPEC goes to drain.
3. If China falls, it won't be hard to threaten Pakistan (assuming Pak won't attack India and gets destroyed completely) and get PoK back.
4. During Peace discussions, Tawang issue will be sorted and worse may be Tibet to get sorted.
5. Now the war is over and companies start to move out of China, most probably they (atleast US) would come to India(I think this will be the deal with India, if US want any support from India). Though Indian economy might have taken hit, it won't be long to recover if not grow with higher pace.
Oh yeah, absolutely. Ask anyone (not an analyst) majority who knew Korean war would say that Korea became play ground for power struggle between S.U. and U.S.
I don't mean to say that China is not there, China is there, it played it's part.
Now coming to the story, America just did i.e " Trump openly said that US would go to war with NK(and definitely not for the sake of SK).
Now the question is why did other US Presidents did not said that. US new(atleast I believe) that NK is developing Nukes and Pak ( that was CIA leaks or there is a thread about it in this very own forum) was assisting them. Why did American presidents did not attack.
Well I have my own explanation for that too.
1. 2003/04 America just destroyed Iraq, lots of soldiers are still needed in Iraq and Afghanistan war has just kicked in.
2. They came to know about NK's nuclear efforts, you would know this if you read more about A Q khan and NK's nuclear efforts.
3. They just got the opportunity to strike back on NK, but why they did not!!?? US planners want NK to test bomb and missile.
4. Oh there is one more thing, every leader has their own pet projects i.e., no matter what the cost is they want few things to happen. In Trump's case it could be to give jobs to Americans, Trade deficit between China and America is higher than any other country, yes I understand that India could be next but let's hold our horse till Trump find a way to get back to India(Niki's recent statements on Kashmir is an issue, but I'd wait for some more time). Now here is the question why did Trump abandoned Taiwan in the middle of nowhere and started to sing "One China" policy. I don't know or I haven't figured it yet.
5. Now coming back to the story, US planners feel that NK situation is ripe and this could be good opportunity to settle the Cold war score.
Now last but not least Russia is there in the equation, If China or India participate in a war and they loose, then Russia is going to get benefited, thanks to 10's of billions of weapons purchase from both the countries.
If India and China fight on Tawang, both will be consumed and US and rest of S Asian countries will get away with what they want with little damage. If US and China fights, India will join to settle it's score with China and get away with little damage. In another words, it is only a matter of time who will blink first.
If China doesn't involve in the NK US fight, Pak will be shit scared as till date their plans revolved around India and 2 front war strategy. Our pressure on Pak increases and we may even get PoK(if we get lucky, and with Modi in power I'd expect we take back PoK in less than 2 yrs after defeat of NK in US NK war)
Thus I rest my case, feel free to point out my errors and miss interpretation of the Big picture.
Last edited:
China not going to side noko directly . They just try to creat a condition where ground force needed to complete anhilate noko and then China would play its power to make another Vietnam for USA . So USA would involve in noko as was in Vietnam and will forget scs . This is very big game of power balance .usa alone is enough to destroy all of visible assets of noko . But will it be sufficient to bring noko on knees . A big no . There will be need of a professional force for ground movement and this is the weakness of all western powers . Left are Japan and soko . Will these two will be sufficient to warmongering noko having very good assistant from powerful China and ground troops from Pakistan . A very professional army needed to bring down noko . This is main key of future power balance of world . A professional army capable of ground action against noko ,China and Pakistan .
Flame Thrower
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,675
- Likes
- 2,731
I beg to differ and the reason is nukes, when you are in a country that tested nukes, you wouldn't want to wander. Once Air assault happens and ports are captured. American troups would march straight towards destroyed nuclear sights with brute force. Kim will be captured/killed. Then nuke, missile test facilities will be destroyed. A puppet will take place of Kim.
Imagine if someone is not even allowed to talk suddenly gets freedom, started to picture Iraq, Don't.
1. Iraq is a country which is religions and a standard hatred towards Cristians, has certain rules. Saddam was mass murderer, people feared Saddam. Situation is similar in NK, but not tge same. People fear Kim but no religions hate towards Cristians. They hate Americans, but they fear Kim even more.
Note: I have made below statements assuming that I'd be in place of Trump :biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2:
I believe that American administration is more wiser and will take every action that will result in unification of Korea
In NK you have only 18 hairstyles. Imagine the people responce to this announcement i.e., "Kim is dead, you are free to make your own decissions including your wish to grow hair."
Ask about food shortage, does anyone remember the famines during late 1990s. Kim's father had to negotiate with America for food, i.e., Bush was criticized for using food aid as a weapon to stop NK from getting nuclear weapons.After war America & SK will start providing 3 square meal for everyone in NK.
When someone is being ruled ruthlessly for half a century gets experience to vote (sure, they did vote but the voter ballot contained only one vote and that is Kim)whom ever they like.
Even today NK is a country where power is given only some parts of NK and that too only for couple of hrs.
SK could supply power to NK for more than 12 hrs till powerplants are setup in NK.
Imagine how would you feel when your friends/ family returns from torture camps(korean torture camps have a speciality i.e 3 generations would be punished for a bad mouthing the party).
Today's NK is not the NK of 1950s. All this wouldn't be half of it.
5 to 10yrs down the line a plebiscite should be conducted in joining of NK & SK on condition that if NK choose to have its own country then no assistance would come from of US NK war....
Unless US uses its stupidity to unite NK & SK on the day 1 after the war.
Remember if you have nothing to loose(NK after day 1 of NK defeat in war) you'll not fear of anything(great recruitment options for China to attack American forces for dirt cheap(even for chinese price standards), But if you have something to loose(benefits, jobs, food and specially freedom) you'd even make peace with the devil to protect what you have (but in NK's case Americans will look like Angles).
Last edited:
no smoking
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,016
- Likes
- 2,314
This is all your personal opinion which you failed to provide any hard evidence to support.
What I get here is a military protection treaty which was just renewed on 2001 and won’t be expired until 2021. And another news is that Chinese just moved 430,000 soldiers to the korea border, including 2 of their best armies 39 and 40.
Unless you can provide any evidence or news suggesting that Chinese is backing off from their military promise, your personal opinion will still be a personal guess.
The imbalance was $347 billions in 2016 not $500b.
Why won’t she? North korea is a critical part of Chinese national security, without North Korea as the buffer zone, they will have to confront American tanks themselves. From their point of view, that is a loss larger than any $500 billions.
Putting this way, the imbalance between US and China will continue to shrink in the future when Chinese is adjusting her economic structure. So, in the next 10-20 years, the figure might become 200, 150, 100 and eventually close to zero. In the meantime, the strategic value of North korea will becomes bigger and bigger because the Sino-US confrontation will intensify in the near future.
Well, every decision comes with cost. So far, Chinese is still willing to pay this cost because they still think the value of keeping North Korea is still bigger than economic loss.
On the other hand, does American want to pay the price for invading a country thousands miles away? Yes, they can re-start their production in somewhere else, but first they have to write off all their assets in China, and then spend another 5 years to re-organize their supply chain, yes, a mission to replace 2,700 million Chinese workers is not a job can be done in 1-2 years. At the same time, they will find another difficulty: the same products produced from their former Chinese factories start to flood the whole world market with Chinese brand at lower price.
So, basically, Chinese loss will be less than you think while American loss will be bigger than you think.
Well, that is what you think. The Chinese thinks it is not that easy to isolate the world second largest economy.
Well, no one says that American economy will fall. But it doesn’t mean it will get away without being hit. The question is how much pain it is willing to take. Just as many Indians here keep talking how China is going to fall if American put a sanction on her economy, which never happened, this tells us that American doesn’t agree with you.
I really doesn’t want to waste my time to argue against these wishful thinking. The current border is where can be accepted by both sides, any action to change that will get both sides trapped in an endless conflict. That is the last thing that both sides want.
I beg to differ and the reason is nukes, when you are in a country that tested nukes, you wouldn't want to wander. Once Air assault happens and ports are captured. American troups would march straight towards destroyed nuclear sights with brute force. Kim will be captured/killed. Then nuke, missile test facilities will be destroyed. A puppet will take place of Kim.
Imagine if someone is not even allowed to talk suddenly gets freedom, started to picture Iraq, Don't.
1. Iraq is a country which is religions and a standard hatred towards Cristians, has certain rules. Saddam was mass murderer, people feared Saddam. Situation is similar in NK, but not tge same. People fear Kim but no religions hate towards Cristians. They hate Americans, but they fear Kim even more.
Note: I have made below statements assuming that I'd be in place of Trump :biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2:
I believe that American administration is more wiser and will take every action that will result in unification of Korea
In NK you have only 18 hairstyles. Imagine the people responce to this announcement i.e., "Kim is dead, you are free to make your own decissions including your wish to grow hair."
Ask about food shortage, does anyone remember the famines during late 1990s. Kim's father had to negotiate with America for food, i.e., Bush was criticized for using food aid as a weapon to stop NK from getting nuclear weapons.After war America & SK will start providing 3 square meal for everyone in NK.
When someone is being ruled ruthlessly for half a century gets experience to vote (sure, they did vote but the voter ballot contained only one vote and that is Kim)whom ever they like.
Even today NK is a country where power is given only some parts of NK and that too only for couple of hrs.
SK could supply power to NK for more than 12 hrs till powerplants are setup in NK.
Imagine how would you feel when your friends/ family returns from torture camps(korean torture camps have a speciality i.e 3 generations would be punished for a bad mouthing the party).
Today's NK is not the NK of 1950s. All this wouldn't be half of it.
5 to 10yrs down the line a plebiscite should be conducted in joining of NK & SK on condition that if NK choose to have its own country then no assistance would come from of US NK war....
Unless US uses its stupidity to unite NK & SK on the day 1 after the war.
Remember if you have nothing to loose(NK after day 1 of NK defeat in war) you'll not fear of anything(great recruitment options for China to attack American forces for dirt cheap(even for chinese price standards), But if you have something to loose(benefits, jobs, food and specially freedom) you'd even make peace with the devil to protect what you have (but in NK's case Americans will look like Angles).
You may be right but think once air strikes happened port etc captured then would be easy for USA to go straight to Kim . No A big no . As it is tradition for communists countries to make underground structures to survive air strikes . And would China not make sure that USA to get stuck in ground warfare and now Pakistan which has pseudo ego of being champion of ground warfare not assist to noko to play hard in ground against USA . If noko war occurs it is great chance for slave Pakistan to fortified it slavry as ego against USA .
Actually Vietnam is a great example where USA fail in ground movement and China supplied arms and tactics to Vietnamese . And this memory alive in all of world even today . So there is high chance to force warfare to Vietnamese pattern . It is my thinking . You view are warmly welcomed .
