Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:03 PM   #26
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
China needs to face the music and support one of two long-term scenarios.

Scenario 1. Do nothing and North Korea will eventually succeed in building its own ICBM nuclear capabilities. South Korea and Japan will counter with their own ICBM.

Scenario 2. Join UN in sanction and dramatically cut aids. North Korea will destabilize, prompting even more North Korean civilians to flee to China, and eventually collapsing to become part of South Korea, losing a buffer between itself and US military presence (in South Korea).

I frankly think scenario 2 is ultimately better outcome of the two, as US military presence is bound to decrease in the absence of North Korea. But as an American, I am naturally biased and Chinese nationals probably distrust US military strongly enough to pick an alternate unrealistic scenario 3.

Scenario 3. Slap North Korea in attempt to send slightly stronger message than in the past, such as very mild sanction or mild cut in aid. And hope that North Korea would at least delay further nuclear testing. In the mean time, further influence North Korea to embrace Chinese-style capitalism and distract its nuclear ambitions.

Scenario 3 seems highly naive to me, an extremely short-term stop gap measure that does not solve anything.
nutmac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:11 PM   #27
Teh Don Ditty
macrumors G4
 
Teh Don Ditty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmac View Post
Scenario 2. Join UN in sanction and dramatically cut aids. North Korea will destabilize, prompting even more North Korean civilians to flee to China, and eventually collapsing to become part of South Korea, losing a buffer between itself and US military presence (in South Korea).
Sanctions just punish they already poor "free" North Koreans. All the NK gov't will do is punish their people more.
__________________
I heard that Steve Job's Kool-Aid fueled Unicorn craps rainbows which emits the RDF.
Disgusting
Teh Don Ditty is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:24 PM   #28
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teh Don Ditty View Post
Sanctions just punish they already poor "free" North Koreans. All the NK gov't will do is punish their people more.
Which they will do regardless. Increase aid and aid will only go toward feeding military and speed up nuclear build up (as it has during Sunshine policy period).

Sanction is obviously very weak and not effective in itself. But North Korea is on the path toward rapid destabilization (much more so than in the past anyway). While short-term outcome would be very ugly for nearby nations, joint military actions (between China, US, South Korea, and Japan) is probably even more ugly (although they would go long way toward putting the dying horse out of its misery).
nutmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:05 PM   #29
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
We'll have to disagree on that one..

If they don't do anything the loose the ability to do anything in the future. If you don't use the stick the stick isn't scary.
NK with a nuke is more like having someone crazy standing around in your front yard with a molotov cocktail. They might not throw it, but they're always there. An ever-looming spectre.

See, it's more in China's best interest to support...well...everyone else when it comes to North Korea. Because, think about it, what does NK offer China that the US, South Korea, Japan, Europe doesn't? To use your family analogy, they're comparatively less like your sister or parents, more like you're constantly drunk uncle you're always loaning money to and bailing out of jail. Sure, you support him a bit because hey, he's family. But one day he takes it too far. Ends up killing a few people in a botched liquor store robbery. What are you gonna do then? Hide him in the basement and potentially put yourself at risk for aiding and abetting? No. You'll probably kick his ass out the door.

This is practically a literal example of North Korea's relationship with China. They're constantly screwing up. Making themselves look like complete asses on the worldwide political scene. China feeds their people and supports their nation with their own wealth while getting absolutely nothing in return. The only thing NK does is demand more, then takes credit for their generosity.

On the other hand, the US, Europe, Japan, ect. are all major contributors to China's economy. They have far more to lose by pissing us off than they do North Korea.

So if we ever face the worst case scenario, and NK drops the bomb on Tokyo, killing millions upon millions of people, do you really think China is going to take arms against the combined military might and economic strength of the entire First World just to defend their inconvenient, load bearing neighbor? I think it's more likely they'll distance themselves from the situation. Or, at worst, invade themselves, remove the Kim Dynasty, and annex the whole country for their own use.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:19 PM   #30
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
NK with a nuke is more like having someone crazy standing around in your front yard with a molotov cocktail. They might not throw it, but they're always there. An ever-looming spectre.

See, it's more in China's best interest to support...well...everyone else when it comes to North Korea. Because, think about it, what does NK offer China that the US, South Korea, Japan, Europe doesn't? To use your family analogy, they're comparatively less like your sister or parents, more like you're constantly drunk uncle you're always loaning money to and bailing out of jail. Sure, you support him a bit because hey, he's family. But one day he takes it too far. Ends up killing a few people in a botched liquor store robbery. What are you gonna do then? Hide him in the basement and potentially put yourself at risk for aiding and abetting? No. You'll probably kick his ass out the door.

This is practically a literal example of North Korea's relationship with China. They're constantly screwing up. Making themselves look like complete asses on the worldwide political scene. China feeds their people and supports their nation with their own wealth while getting absolutely nothing in return. The only thing NK does is demand more, then takes credit for their generosity.

On the other hand, the US, Europe, Japan, ect. are all major contributors to China's economy. They have far more to lose by pissing us off than they do North Korea.

So if we ever face the worst case scenario, and NK drops the bomb on Tokyo, killing millions upon millions of people, do you really think China is going to take arms against the combined military might and economic strength of the entire First World just to defend their inconvenient, load bearing neighbor? I think it's more likely they'll distance themselves from the situation. Or, at worst, invade themselves, remove the Kim Dynasty, and annex the whole country for their own use.
Yes I do, because they will have the backing or Russia. Oil and natural gas leave Europe and heads to China . The Japanese will go down quick, fast and in a hurry South Korea falls quickly there after. That leave their nothern border protected their east and southern border is water and friendly and their western border while not friendly is more hostile to the their enemy us. What do we do amphibious invasion on the worlds most populace country. N Korea does something stupid china owns all of the Asian continent in 5 weeks minus India and Pakistan.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:22 PM   #31
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
To use your family analogy, they're comparatively less like your sister or parents, more like you're constantly drunk uncle you're always loaning money to and bailing out of jail. Sure, you support him a bit because hey, he's family. But one day he takes it too far. Ends up killing a few people in a botched liquor store robbery. What are you gonna do then? Hide him in the basement and potentially put yourself at risk for aiding and abetting? No. You'll probably kick his ass out the door.
One key missing piece of your otherwise well thought out solution to the puzzles is that North Korea serves as a buffer to China's economic allies, US, South Korea, and Japan.

While China has friendly (mutually beneficial) relationship with its economic allies, it prefers to keep distance between them. North Korea, for better or worse, provides that distance. At some point, China may decide that buffer is not worth all the troubles it brings. But I am not sure if that time frame is now.
nutmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:50 PM   #32
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Yes I do, because they will have the backing or Russia. Oil and natural gas leave Europe and heads to China . The Japanese will go down quick, fast and in a hurry South Korea falls quickly there after. That leave their nothern border protected their east and southern border is water and friendly and their western border while not friendly is more hostile to the their enemy us. What do we do amphibious invasion on the worlds most populace country. N Korea does something stupid china owns all of the Asian continent in 5 weeks minus India and Pakistan.
Ehhhh. It's kinda hard to say what Russia would do in a new World War. Before '89, this would've been the case. But now? They're kinda off doing their own thing. They'll probably side with whoever gives them a better benefits package.

Though I think you're overestimating China's strength. They have a huge army, easily the biggest in the world, but they're relatively weak in military technology. Their navy? Paltry. The US by itself would steamroll through them like a hot knife through butter. They could never come close to matching us on the water. Wouldn't even come close to approaching our shores. We wouldn't even have to invade. We could just blockade them, and bomb their military installations from thousands of miles away.

On land, they're much more formidable, but they still wouldn't be a match for European and Indian forces charging at them on multiple fronts. Human wave tactics can only take you so far.

Then you'd have the ANZACs hammering them from below, on water and land.

And who knows what the Islamic Extremists would do in a world war situation. They'd probably be more busy using the chaos to wage their own war against Israel rather than joining in on the bigger war going on around them.

One thing's for sure. They wouldn't own the entire Asian continent within 5 weeks. If they were to win, it'd be after nearly a decade of constant warfare, and their victory would be a shallow one.

That's really the biggest issue here. What would China gain out of starting a new world war? Probably the same thing as everyone else. Absolutely nothing. Millions of lives will be lost. The entire world economy would be in ruins. Oil would be a precious commodity. China would likely be broken beyond recovery. The US, at best, severely depleted and limping along right beside an equally weakened Europe. The Middle East will likely degenerate into nearly medieval fiefdoms.

It'd set the entire world back almost 80 years. Even if China were to somehow win, they'd be ruling over a useless world that hates them with an unbridled passion. Their new empire would collapse in on itself within 15 years.

...all because they wanted to defend North Korea.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:56 PM   #33
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
I don't think China wants a war with the US, and I don't think Americans are particularly hungry for another war, especially with the country who is providing them with all of their stuff. An iPad shortage would be enough to stop any potential war in its tracks.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 06:00 PM   #34
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmac View Post
One key missing piece of your otherwise well thought out solution to the puzzles is that North Korea serves as a buffer to China's economic allies, US, South Korea, and Japan.

While China has friendly (mutually beneficial) relationship with its economic allies, it prefers to keep distance between them. North Korea, for better or worse, provides that distance. At some point, China may decide that buffer is not worth all the troubles it brings. But I am not sure if that time frame is now.
This is why I thought China would annex NK themselves. It provides that buffer, without the extra overhead of keeping them around as an armed and crazy sovereign state ally.

Ultimately, I don't think anything is gonna happen here. North Korea likes rattling their sabre as a means to get more bargaining leverage. They've been doing it for decades now. If they want more food and goods, they threaten to do something stupid, and we all end up dumping it on them to keep them appeased. I think they see having a nuke as being another chip to throw in the pile. They want something, they'll threaten to launch an attack against Japan, and end up getting more goods thrown at them by both the US and China.

The question is, how long can they get away with it before everyone gets sick of their antics?
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 06:19 PM   #35
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
This is why I thought China would annex NK themselves. It provides that buffer, without the extra overhead of keeping them around as an armed and crazy sovereign state ally.
Well, but the whole point of supporting NK is to have that distance between China and South Korea. Annexation would merely eliminates the buffer by extending Chinese border to South Korea. And I am not sure if the cost would overweigh the benefits (mineral deposits, more land).

Furthermore, your theory is based on the assumption that NK would even go along with annexation, let alone South Korea and US. The better outcome for all is to allow South Korea to absorb North Korea (at great cost to South Korean economy), while overthrowing existing Kim Jong Un regime.

The tricky part is, NK should have collapsed long ago. But it hasn't, largely because of China's support of the regime.
nutmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 06:28 PM   #36
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by andalusia View Post
But are they thinking sanely? Or are they just arrogantly trying to warn others that they aren't to be messed with, regardless of whether they ever plan to use a nuke or not?
They're doing what North Korea always does. When sanctions and a a crap economy causes enough N. Koreans to starve that discontent can no longer be contained the regime tests a nuke, then demands food aid for its people in exchange for a few more years of putting its weapons program on hold.

This has happened 4 times in my lifetime alone. Not each time is a nuke test though, it used to be missile tests in Clinton's day.
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 07:06 PM   #37
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmac View Post
Well, but the whole point of supporting NK is to have that distance between China and South Korea. Annexation would merely eliminates the buffer by extending Chinese border to South Korea. And I am not sure if the cost would overweigh the benefits (mineral deposits, more land).

Furthermore, your theory is based on the assumption that NK would even go along with annexation, let alone South Korea and US. The better outcome for all is to allow South Korea to absorb North Korea (at great cost to South Korean economy), while overthrowing existing Kim Jong Un regime.

The tricky part is, NK should have collapsed long ago. But it hasn't, largely because of China's support of the regime.
My theory was more based upon the assumption that China would go to war with NK, and they'd fall within a couple of weeks. It'd be an easy victory on China's part, though it would certainly make them look bad on the world stage.

How bad, I have no idea. I doubt anyone would shed a tear if Chine forcibly dismantled the Kim dynasty, took over the country wholesale, and brought NK up to semi modern living standards. Though such a move could easy be construed as a staging point against South Korea, and scare the hell out of everyone in the region regardless of if that's China's ultimate intention or not.

Really, there are no easy answers to fall back on here. It's such a delicate situation, that any move beyond letting the status quo linger on would have some consequence later on.

If I had to be pragmatic about it, I think the best move would be to quietly dispose of the Kims, and have the Chinese set up an autonomous government with friendly ties to both China and South Korea over time. Even something as relatively subtle and seemingly altruistic as that would draw a huge amount of suspicion, but that could be offset by this new government relaxing the guard on the 38th parallel, and opening the country up for a little more trade and tourism. They'd still have their buffer zone, wouldn't be directly involved, would remove the one worst problem with North Korea, and could possibly build a moderate amount of trust over time.

Though I'm sure even that would have some unintended consequence in and of itself. Nothing is ever simple in politics.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 03:54 AM   #38
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Ehhhh. It's kinda hard to say what Russia would do in a new World War. Before '89, this would've been the case. But now? They're kinda off doing their own thing. They'll probably side with whoever gives them a better benefits package.

Though I think you're overestimating China's strength. They have a huge army, easily the biggest in the world, but they're relatively weak in military technology. Their navy? Paltry. The US by itself would steamroll through them like a hot knife through butter. They could never come close to matching us on the water. Wouldn't even come close to approaching our shores. We wouldn't even have to invade. We could just blockade them, and bomb their military installations from thousands of miles away.

On land, they're much more formidable, but they still wouldn't be a match for European and Indian forces charging at them on multiple fronts. Human wave tactics can only take you so far.

Then you'd have the ANZACs hammering them from below, on water and land.

And who knows what the Islamic Extremists would do in a world war situation. They'd probably be more busy using the chaos to wage their own war against Israel rather than joining in on the bigger war going on around them.

One thing's for sure. They wouldn't own the entire Asian continent within 5 weeks. If they were to win, it'd be after nearly a decade of constant warfare, and their victory would be a shallow one.

That's really the biggest issue here. What would China gain out of starting a new world war? Probably the same thing as everyone else. Absolutely nothing. Millions of lives will be lost. The entire world economy would be in ruins. Oil would be a precious commodity. China would likely be broken beyond recovery. The US, at best, severely depleted and limping along right beside an equally weakened Europe. The Middle East will likely degenerate into nearly medieval fiefdoms.

It'd set the entire world back almost 80 years. Even if China were to somehow win, they'd be ruling over a useless world that hates them with an unbridled passion. Their new empire would collapse in on itself within 15 years.

...all because they wanted to defend North Korea.
The problem is we don't have the soldiers to fight the Army as it stands right now is a QRF to take care of hot spot's around the world. We are not the army of our grandfathers.

But the issue is still cheap labor, no one loves China now yet we run to them when we need things built. A consolidated Asia IMHO won't change that one iota.

All because they want to gain status as dominant power in the world again, NK would just be an excuse.

=============================

Your right I don't know how Russia would react they'd be stuck between hostile Europe and hostile China. My assumption is the they'll fall on thhe side of China for two reasons 1: They share more border without buffer states and 2: The economic potential of feeding China resources.

The radical and non-radical will involve themselves solely because Muslim Asia will be drug into the fight. Westerners are they're favorite people we've been meddling in their affairs 600 years defeating us even with help of the Chinese would likely bring the muslim world back together. They could unite again under a caliphate safely ensconced in Turkey.

All of this would force us to reach out to either hostile party.

As much as I like to Australians and respect their military there simply isn't enough of them to make any difference at all. If China can remove Diego Garcia from the picture which I don't think would be that hard that leaves the USN sucking wind.

The picture shows the US military presence around the world it shows starkly where we are lacking.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen shot 2013-02-13 at 12.22.30 AM.png
Views:	14
Size:	570.4 KB
ID:	396585  
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 11:23 AM   #39
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post

The picture shows the US military presence around the world it shows starkly where we are lacking.
Can you show a more relevant picture? How about US power projection capabilities. That map would be a lot more red....
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 11:31 AM   #40
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Can you show a more relevant picture? How about US power projection capabilities. That map would be a lot more red....
The problem is it won't..and even less so if you take Japan, Okinawa, and Diego Garcia out.

Parking an Air Craft carrier or two in the South China Sea will do little to nothing to stop China.

We really only have a token force left in SK, east european forces are doing a job and not that great in number anyway.

It takes soldiers to take and hold ground and thats what we can't do in China.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 12:04 PM   #41
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
The problem is it won't..and even less so if you take Japan, Okinawa, and Diego Garcia out.

Parking an Air Craft carrier or two in the South China Sea will do little to nothing to stop China.

We really only have a token force left in SK, east european forces are doing a job and not that great in number anyway.

It takes soldiers to take and hold ground and thats what we can't do in China.
Kinetic warfare via ship is extremely outdated (its more of a transport for more relevant weaponry). Factor in our subs and missiles and there isn't a square foot of this earth outside the USA's reach.

You're thinking of the "hold the ground" warfare of WWII. If the USA ever went into a war with China (aka WWIII) don't think for a second that upon provocation we wouldn't be launching missiles.
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 12:08 PM   #42
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Kinetic warfare via ship is extremely outdated (its more of a transport for more relevant weaponry). Factor in our subs and missiles and there isn't a square foot of this earth outside the USA's reach.

You're thinking of the "hold the ground" warfare of WWII. If the USA ever went into a war with China (aka WWIII) don't think for a second that upon provocation we wouldn't be launching missiles.
If that ever happened there would be nobody left to argue the point on MR.
Peace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 12:20 PM   #43
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
If that ever happened there would be nobody left to argue the point on MR.
That's what I mean though. We've gotten to the point where MAD is pretty much ensured for all the "1st world" if we fought each other.


In other words, unless each government become completely taken over my madmen, and not rational actors (which no one can reasonably claim there are any world leaders who aren't rational (even Un is playing his role as expected)) there will never be a war on that level again, because weaponry is so advanced that even our regular bombs can be bigger than the nukes of the past.
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 12:21 PM   #44
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Kinetic warfare via ship is extremely outdated (its more of a transport for more relevant weaponry). Factor in our subs and missiles and there isn't a square foot of this earth outside the USA's reach.

You're thinking of the "hold the ground" warfare of WWII. If the USA ever went into a war with China (aka WWIII) don't think for a second that upon provocation we wouldn't be launching missiles.
Actually kinetic warfare via ship is still very much used unless you consider planes non kinetic. If you want to hold ground you need to occupy it it's the most basic tenant of warfare. we can put missiles into China you are correct but thats the extent of it.

China has there own anti missile defense in v2 now I believe.

China has their own anti satellite missiles that are in v1, no satellites no guidance for cool missiles and airplanes.

China's Navy while not huge is more than enough to keep any initial reaction by the USN busy long enough to start playing satellite and missile tag.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 01:12 PM   #45
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
The problem is we don't have the soldiers to fight the Army as it stands right now is a QRF to take care of hot spot's around the world. We are not the army of our grandfathers.
You're right. We're don't have the army of our grandfathers. As has been mentioned since, the modern US military is a much more mobile, flexible entity than it was in WWII.

China's biggest strength is it's massive amounts of manpower. They can send millions of people out and overrun a country any single quite easily. Problem is, relying on massive amounts of manpower alone makes for a slow army. They can only divert so much resources to moving all those people.

The US has a smaller, but far quicker, better equipped army. We can concentrate massive amounts of power to practically any point on the globe in a matter of days. Mix that in with the fact that China has a rather weak and outdated navy, and you'll see that they only have so many advantages against us.

And this is just against the US alone. In a WWIII scenario, they'd be facing the combined power of the entire western world and its allies. They'd also be facing Canada, England, France, Germany, Australia, India, (possibly) Israel, Japan...all at once. They couldn't stand against that.

Quote:
But the issue is still cheap labor, no one loves China now yet we run to them when we need things built. A consolidated Asia IMHO won't change that one iota.
Chances are good that if China were to initiate a third world war, the last thing we'd do is continue business as usual. We'd push them back into their borders (cuz you are correct there, a land invasion of China would be economic and military suicide), then blockade them and set up sanctions for an indefinite amount of time.

They'd lose everything they've gained over the last twenty years. The country would likely starve, they'd break their economy keeping up their military, and would likely face another cultural revolution sometime shortly thereafter.

Quote:
All because they want to gain status as dominant power in the world again, NK would just be an excuse.
Thing is, they're already doing a great job of it as is. China isn't a superpower yet, but they're well on their way towards becoming one. They're doing fine just by playing the economics game with incredible savvy. Why would they put everything on the line for the potential of possibly expanding their borders?

This is the core issue here. China maybe be able to expand their territory, but it'd come at tremendous cost on their part. It wouldn't be worth it.

Quote:
Your right I don't know how Russia would react they'd be stuck between hostile Europe and hostile China. My assumption is the they'll fall on thhe side of China for two reasons 1: They share more border without buffer states and 2: The economic potential of feeding China resources.
Good points, though you should consider this...

China represents potential that hasn't been actualized fully yet. They're strong, but not as all encompassing and overbearingly powerful as you'd think. Their economy is actually rather small. Japan to the east, suffering through, what, their 15th year of recession, actually has twice as large an economy as China. Europe and the US? Not even close.

They could one day, specially if things continue they way they are, but they're not quite able to stand toe to toe with the mature, developed nations just yet.

Militarily, they're rather weak. As I stated above, they have massive amounts of manpower, but they're not as technologically advanced or mobile.

So Russia would have two choices. Side with the potential that China represents, or go with the wealth and solid foundation of the western nations. It's could go either way, until you realize one thing...

China going to war would destroy any potential they have in one fell swoop. Russia would either side with us, or stay neutral in the matter. Alternately, they could possibly follow the mideast's example, and decide to do their own thing. Use the chaos as an excuse to reabsorb all the satellite states they lost after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Like I said in the other thread, Russia's a complete wildcard. They strike me as longing for the good ole days when they were a world superpower, so they're capable of doing anything.

Anyway, I'd address the rest, but I gotta head out. I'll summarize right fast.

A war with China would be costly, bloody, and horrible. No one would truly win were it to happen, least of all China. The good news is they know this, so I doubt they'd ever commit to launching WWIII. Not while they're doing so well now.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 01:37 PM   #46
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
You're right. We're don't have the army of our grandfathers. As has been mentioned since, the modern US military is a much more mobile, flexible entity than it was in WWII.

China's biggest strength is it's massive amounts of manpower. They can send millions of people out and overrun a country any single quite easily. Problem is, relying on massive amounts of manpower alone makes for a slow army. They can only divert so much resources to moving all those people.

The US has a smaller, but far quicker, better equipped army. We can concentrate massive amounts of power to practically any point on the globe in a matter of days. Mix that in with the fact that China has a rather weak and outdated navy, and you'll see that they only have so many advantages against us.

This is fine when your fighting guerilla's like we have been for 40 years a war with China if we can get troops on the ground will be division against division combat like in WWII.

And this is just against the US alone. In a WWIII scenario, they'd be facing the combined power of the entire western world and its allies. They'd also be facing Canada, England, France, Germany, Australia, India, (possibly) Israel, Japan...all at once. They couldn't stand against that.

Japan can and would be taken out of the picture rather quickly, remember they have a couple scores to settle.

Chances are good that if China were to initiate a third world war, the last thing we'd do is continue business as usual. We'd push them back into their borders (cuz you are correct there, a land invasion of China would be economic and military suicide), then blockade them and set up sanctions for an indefinite amount of time.

We kept up business as usual in Germany throughout WWII.

They'd lose everything they've gained over the last twenty years. The country would likely starve, they'd break their economy keeping up their military, and would likely face another cultural revolution sometime shortly thereafter.

No likely people said the same thing about Vietnam and Korea.

Thing is, they're already doing a great job of it as is. China isn't a superpower yet, but they're well on their way towards becoming one. They're doing fine just by playing the economics game with incredible savvy. Why would they put everything on the line for the potential of possibly expanding their borders?

They're not they are an economic power and thats it..and that power will go away if labor rates rise.

This is the core issue here. China maybe be able to expand their territory, but it'd come at tremendous cost on their part. It wouldn't be worth it.

China has been at war with her neighbors and amongst herself for thousands of years.

Good points, though you should consider this...

China represents potential that hasn't been actualized fully yet. They're strong, but not as all encompassing and overbearingly powerful as you'd think. Their economy is actually rather small. Japan to the east, suffering through, what, their 15th year of recession, actually has twice as large an economy as China. Europe and the US? Not even close.

They could one day, specially if things continue they way they are, but they're not quite able to stand toe to toe with the mature, developed nations just yet.

Militarily, they're rather weak. As I stated above, they have massive amounts of manpower, but they're not as technologically advanced or mobile.

Weak is relative numbers overcome technology especially on home ground we can look to Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan to prove that.

So Russia would have two choices. Side with the potential that China represents, or go with the wealth and solid foundation of the western nations. It's could go either way, until you realize one thing...

Western nations are mature, not much room for growth and the largest economy in Europe (Germany) is going green in a big and expensive way. and France loves their rectors

China going to war would destroy any potential they have in one fell swoop. Russia would either side with us, or stay neutral in the matter. Alternately, they could possibly follow the mideast's example, and decide to do their own thing. Use the chaos as an excuse to reabsorb all the satellite states they lost after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Like I said in the other thread, Russia's a complete wildcard. They strike me as longing for the good ole days when they were a world superpower, so they're capable of doing anything.

Anyway, I'd address the rest, but I gotta head out. I'll summarize right fast.

A war with China would be costly, bloody, and horrible. No one would truly win were it to happen, least of all China. The good news is they know this, so I doubt they'd ever commit to launching WWIII. Not while they're doing so well now.
inside
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 08:37 AM   #47
Beeplance
macrumors 65816
 
Beeplance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Singapore
I heard the nuclear thingy they detonated had THRICE the explosiveness of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WWII. Can someone confirm this?
Beeplance is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 11:51 AM   #48
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Just wait till the NOK's get ICBM's and reliable guidance systems from China or Russia...
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 12:31 PM   #49
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeplance View Post
I heard the nuclear thingy they detonated had THRICE the explosiveness of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WWII. Can someone confirm this?
That wouldn't be surprising, actually. Fan Man and Little Boy only barely classify as nuclear weapons in these post hydrogen bomb days.

And yes, you should consider that scary.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuke That Fell Off B52 in 1961 Almost Exploded in North Carolina. Huntn Current Events 11 Sep 29, 2013 01:07 PM
Apple in North Korea kylera Picture Gallery 74 Apr 17, 2013 03:27 AM
Samsung and Tension in South/North Korea Wicked1 Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 3 Apr 8, 2013 02:41 PM
North Korea's only iMac needfx Politics, Religion, Social Issues 2 Apr 5, 2013 07:43 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC