• US threatens China with military deployment over North Korea.
    82 replies, posted
[quote] [img]http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110121&t=2&i=312380461&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-01-21T033359Z_01_BTRE70K078J00_RTROPTP_0_KOREA[/img] [b]U.S. warns China on North Korea[/b] (Reuters) - The United States warned China that if it didn't rein in its ally North Korea it would redeploy forces in Asia, the New York Times reported on Friday, as Pyongyang bowed to pressure and agreed to crisis talks. The paper quoted a senior administration official as saying U.S. President Barack Obama's warning had persuaded China -- the North's main diplomatic and economic backer -- to take a harder line toward Pyongyang, and opened the door to a resumption of inter-Korean talks. South Korea agreed on Thursday to a North Korean offer of high-level military talks, a major breakthrough in the crisis on the peninsula. Such talks could clear the way for the resumption of long-stalled aid-for-disarmament negotiations with the North. The New York Times said [b][u]Obama warned his Chinese counterpart that if Beijing did not step up pressure on North Korea, Washington would redeploy its forces in Asia to protect itself from a potential North Korean strike on U.S. soil.[/u][/b] [b][u]Obama first made the warning in a phone call to Hu last month, and repeated it over a private dinner at the White House on Tuesday[/u][/b], the official said. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that Pyongyang was becoming a direct threat to the United States and could develop inter-continental ballistic missiles within five years. South Korea said that it had agreed to hold high-level military talks with the North, the first such contact since a deadly artillery attack on the South in November sharply raised tensions on the divided peninsula. Pyongyang bowed to Seoul's demands for talks specifically addressing that attack and the sinking South Korean warship last March, but made no mention of talks on denuclearization -- the key component of six-party talks. Obama and Hu have jointly expressed concern about North Korea's nuclear program. Washington and Beijing have argued that North-South dialogue is a prerequisite to a resumption of six-party talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. In 2009, Pyongyang walked out of the aid-for-disarmament talks, under which it previously agreed to abandon its nuclear programs, pronouncing them dead. On Friday, the North proposed preparatory inter-Korean talks in late January, saying it was in a firm position to resolve all military issues, its state media reported. In a letter sent to the South's defense ministry, Pyongyang also proposed that high-level military talks take place in early February, KCNA news agency reported. (Reporting by Miyoung Kim and Jumin Park; editing by Miral Fahmy) [b]Source:[/b] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70K0RD20110121?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews[/url] [/quote]
I thought all this shit had cooled down already. :sigh:
USA wouldn't dare goto war with China, Walmart would go bankrupt.
[QUOTE=Angus725;27558094]USA wouldn't dare goto war with China, [b]Walmart would go bankrupt.[/b][/QUOTE] This is bad why?
[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;27558124]This is bad why?[/QUOTE] I would lose my job :saddowns:
God damnit I thought this was over already. But nice article OP.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27558146]I would lose my job :saddowns:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;27558124]This is bad why?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27558195][/QUOTE] With China's cheap imports stopped, every dollar store, walmart style cheap quantity>quality store would be forced to buy from western countries or African countries that produce the same product for much higher prices, and the current high standard of living Americans enjoy would be significantly reduced. Africa's and India are both not developed enough to provide goods as cheap as China, and who knows what the middle-east/Pakistan/Iran/India might do with the USA and China at war.
China could easily decimate the USA with their superior technology and troops though
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;27558369]China could easily decimate the USA with their superior technology and troops though[/QUOTE] Swarm warm, not superior technology though, we have that advantage.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;27558369]China could easily decimate the USA with their superior technology and troops though[/QUOTE] Not likely. Their strength is in numbers, not technological prowess nor tactics. The Russians look at the Chinese and even they say "LOL" at their military. But war with China will never come. Because China is the United States' biggest supplier of... well, everything and the United States is China's biggest buyer of, frankly, everything. It's an economic peace agreement that ensures war will never happen. Now are there people interested in starting war between the two? Absolutely. Nobody outside of Washington and Beijing, however, is interested in any kind of conflict, though, and that's also what matters immensely in ensuring peace.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27558459]Not likely. Their strength is in numbers, not technological prowess nor tactics. The Russians look at the Chinese and even they say "LOL" at their military.[/quote] But even though the Russians are currently in the world's semi-periphery, they still have the Spetsnaz. And the Spetsnaz laugh at pretty much everyone.
Fuck yeah we Americans can't get enough war. We'll kick all ya'lls ass. :sigh:
The US and China would be going after North Korea, not US going after China.
[QUOTE=GhostG45;27558535]But even though the Russians are currently in the world's semi-periphery, they still have the Spetsnaz. And the Spetsnaz laugh at pretty much everyone.[/QUOTE] They even laugh at each other as they break boards over their backs and smash cinder blocks in two with their heads. :ussr:
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27558591]They even laugh at each other as they break boards over their backs and smash cinder blocks in two with their heads. :ussr:[/QUOTE] Finally someone who understands the glory that is the Russian Elite.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27558459]Not likely. Their strength is in numbers, not technological prowess nor tactics. The Russians look at the Chinese and even they say "LOL" at their military.[/QUOTE] This isn't the Korean War anymore. I wouldn't rely on stereotypes for use as analysis.
1. This is over North Korea, not a US-China War. 2. The US wouldn't dare go to war with China, since the US economy almost entirely depends on China for imports and greatly on exports. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27558459]Not likely. Their strength is in numbers, not technological prowess nor tactics. The Russians look at the Chinese and even they say "LOL" at their military.[/QUOTE] You're about 60-70 years behind in your logic. China today has one of the best-trained and most advanced armies in the world. Their cripplement isn't "lack of tactics", it's that their navy is pisspoor weak. They have almost no power projection, because they lack transports for their troops. But their sphere of power is titanic in Asia. They're a registered nuclear power and one of the very few superpowers in the world, with economic and military might well-rivalling the US: in fact, if China and the US had the same population, China's GDP wouldn't be so far behind, since it's drastically lowered by their massive population. They have the largest standing and largest potential army on Earth. I hate it when people assume that Large Army = Shit Quality. [quote]Now are there people interested in starting war between the two? Absolutely. Nobody outside of Washington and Beijing, however, is interested in any kind of conflict, though, and that's also what matters immensely in ensuring peace.[/quote] The diplomatic influence of the other world superpowers is what also helps prevent war. That, and if the US went to war with China, its economy would be massively hurt, whilst China's economy, due to its staggering amount of exports, would be only slightly effected. However, China has invested over a trillion dollars in the US, says the American debt. China would be losing a hell of a lot of potential money if they went to war. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [quote=pvtcupcakes;27558563]fuck yeah we americans can't get enough war. We'll kick all ya'lls ass. :sigh:[/quote] "honey, there's a russian on mah lawn. Git mah em-seex-teeen."
Home is where the war is.
Finally! Games where the soldiers and vehicles have woodland camo. :v:
[QUOTE=zeldar;27558876]Home is where the war is.[/QUOTE] Only for other people. We Americans could never have a war here.
[QUOTE=zeldar;27558876]Home is where the war is.[/QUOTE] War never changes.
Suddenly Nukes Nukes everywhere
[QUOTE=Blanketspace;27558932]Only for other people. We Americans could never have a war here.[/QUOTE] Ignorance is bliss
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27558746]You're about 60-70 years behind in your logic.[/quote] Not quite, assuming we follow up from the Korean War/Vietnam era when things finally began to stabilize with the country and the military finally began to get its act together. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]China today has one of the best-trained and most advanced armies in the world. Their cripplement isn't "lack of tactics", it's that their navy is pisspoor weak. They have almost no power projection, because they lack transports for their troops. But their sphere of power is titanic in Asia.[/quote] You might want to take that up with Dr. Thomas Barnett then, who has worked for the United States Naval War College for six years, graduated from Harvard with a doctorate in Political Science (following up his BA from UW-Madison in International Relations with great respect to United States Foreign Policy), and acted as an adviser Pentagon routinely since 1990, because he made the same point I did about China's military's technological and tactical prowess lacking severely compared to the United States and most (although not all) European nations (which would likely become entangled in such a war, aiding the United States). [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg7pZi6peD4[/media] [quote=Gmod_Fan77]They're a registered nuclear power[/quote] Along with 72 other nations (in terms of reactors), including the United States, France, Germany, Russia, India, and the United Kingdom. China's nuclear power (in both nuclear weapons and actual megawatts which they can generate) lacks, as well. They are FAR behind the French and utterly dwarfed by the United States. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors[/url] [url]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/[/url] [quote=Gmod_Fan77]and one of the very few superpowers in the world, with economic and military might well-rivalling the US[/quote] With its economic might, being the very same which supports its mighty military, being dependent on the United States. They go to war with the United States, they lose their #1 buyer- not counting the backlash they'd be facing from the European nations. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]in fact, if China and the US had the same population, China's GDP wouldn't be so far behind, since it's drastically lowered by their massive population.[/quote] But they don't. And that's what's important. In fact, within 25 years, 310 million people, the current population of the United States, will be senior citizens. Why is this relevant? Because they'll have to be focusing more economically on taking care of these elderly citizens. And given how their current system is functioning, it's going to be very difficult to care for that many- nevermind make the necessary adjustments within their care structure. Dr. Barnett comments on that as well. Demographically, they are aging faster than any other nation on the planet, ALREADY, and it is a very serious problem. [url]http://isi.cbs.nl/iamamember/CD2/pdf/816.PDF[/url] Do you really think it is possible with this in mind for them to successfully maintain a war, nevermind a minimally functional military, with that kind of financial situation? Now, and/or within the future? [quote=Gmod_Fan77]They have the largest standing and largest potential army on Earth.[/quote] Which is their only strength: numbers. Numbers were something that mattered 65 years ago, but the technological changes for militaries the world over have changed that. We're capable of killing more people more efficiently than ever in history, and it's precisely because of our advances in weaponry that we're able to do so, along with the tactics we use to utilize such weapons. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]I hate it when people assume that Large Army = Shit Quality.[/quote] Which is exactly what I wasn't assuming (see my comments on Russia). Not that assumptions are playing into this. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]That, and if the US went to war with China, its economy would be massively hurt, whilst China's economy, due to its staggering amount of exports, would be only slightly effected.[/quote] And who takes in their staggering amounts of exports? The United States (Europe takes in quite a few, as well). This is why it would be suicide on their part to go to war with the United States. They would lose their #1 buyer, and their other Western buyers which are allies of the United States (though the Europeans do retain a large part of self-sufficiency). Their economy would collapse. Would ours? Yes. We'd both be fucked. Precisely why I pointed out earlier that such an event would never happen. This system of trade and investments between the two nations is a veritable economic peace agreement. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]However, China has invested over a trillion dollars in the US, says the American debt. China would be losing a hell of a lot of potential money if they went to war.[/QUOTE] Not counting how their trading system would fuck itself right up the ass.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27558563]Fuck yeah we Americans can't get enough war. We'll kick all ya'lls ass. :sigh:[/QUOTE] Typical PvtCupcakes post.
[quote]You might want to take that up with Dr. Thomas Barnett then, who has worked for the United States Naval War College for six years, graduated from Harvard with a doctorate in Political Science (following up his BA from UW-Madison in International Relations with great respect to United States Foreign Policy), and acted as an adviser Pentagon routinely since 1990, because he made the same point I did about China's military's technological and tactical prowess lacking severely compared to the United States and most (although not all) European nations (which would likely become entangled in such a war, aiding the United States).[/quote] So, are you just going to rely on just one single guy to support your point? Besides, his expertise is in Political Science, not in military affairs. I'd trust the word of a US CGSC graduate in military matters more than any other guy with a PhD. [quote]Which is their only strength: numbers. Numbers were something that mattered 65 years ago, but the technological changes for militaries the world over have changed that. We're capable of killing more people more efficiently than ever in history, and it's precisely because of our advances in weaponry that we're able to do so, along with the tactics we use to utilize such weapons.[/QUOTE] Despite popular belief, the Revolution in Military Affairs is just all bullshit. Don't place too much faith in modern weaponry and military technology; it isn't the end-all factor unless you're fighting stupid adversaries like Saddam. So what if Raytheon or General Dynamics claims that their munitions can turn an entire tank battalion into scrap metal? When your adversary is aware of your capabilities, it may not take him long to figure out countermeasures, and more importantly, to figure out how to turn your reliance on technology into a vulnerability. And it takes brainpower, not technical capability to do all that. You can bet your ass that the PLA has a lot of smart minds behind it. The Soviets right before the end of the Cold War had the wisdom to develop doctrine specifically to counter US and NATO technological advantages, and when the OPFOR at the US Army National Training Center adopted it against the same guys who rolled over Iraq in the Gulf War (and they also had their latest toys - their Longbows, UAVs, RSTA systems and what-not), it was shown to be effective. Advanced technology all have their vulnerabilities.
Nothing will ever happen.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;27559424]So, are you just going to rely on just one single guy to support your point? Besides, his expertise is in Political Science, not in military affairs. I'd trust the word of a US CGSC graduate in military matters more than any other guy with a PhD.[/quote] Perhaps you missed the part where he worked as a professor for the United States Naval War College? Specifically, and I probably should have elaborated on this earlier but whatever, he specialized in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department as the Senior Strategic Researcher. He's done lots of work for lots of different areas of both the government and military, but those were his main credentials. You should probably watch his presentation before you are so quick to dismiss him as well lol. [quote=Tac Error]Despite popular belief, the Revolution in Military Affairs is just all bullshit.[/quote] As Wikipedia says, [CITATION NEEDED]. [quote=Tac Error]Don't place too much faith in modern weaponry and military technology; it isn't the end-all factor.[/quote] Indeed. Tactics also play a large role. Makes sense, given that they define how your weapons and technology will be utilized and with what efficiency they shall be functioning at. [quote=Tac Error]So what if Raytheon or General Dynamics claims that its munitions can turn an entire tank battalion into scrap metal?[/quote] How exactly does this meandering on speculative matters have anything to do with the issue of military technological and tactical capabilities the United States and China currently possess? [quote=Tac Error]When your adversary is aware of your capabilities, it may not take him long to figure out countermeasures, and more importantly, to figure out how to turn your reliance on technology into a vulnerability.[/quote] Funny how that works both ways. [quote=Tac Error]And it takes brainpower, not technical capability to do all that.[/quote] Though technical capabilities certainly are going to give you a definitive edge. Thank God the United States has both behind it. [quote=Tac Error]You can bet your ass that the PLA has a lot of smart minds behind it.[/quote] Just like us. Again, funny how it works both ways, isn't it? [quote=Tac Error]The Soviets right before the end of the Cold War had the wisdom to develop doctrine specifically to counter US and NATO technological advantages, and when the OPFOR at the US Army National Training Center adopted it against the same guys who rolled over Iraq in the Gulf War (and they also had their latest toys - their Longbows, UAVs, RSTA systems and what-not), it was shown to be effective. Advanced technology all have their vulnerabilities.[/QUOTE] Mind if I get some links so I can do some research on this unnamed doctrine you speak of? It sounds interesting, albeit this is something that, for the third time, works both ways. Thankfully, though, our technology is more advanced and complex than theirs, which, funnily enough, is largely based off what the Soviet Union possessed towards the end of its life (particularly with their tanks; the Type-99 uses the chassis frame of the T-80 FFS- something which the military destroyed numerous quantities of, along with the T-72, during the First Gulf War). [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;27559562]Nothing will ever happen.[/QUOTE] Yep.
Other than looking cool North Korea can't do shit. (And when I say "cool" I mean display a soviet-era army/weapons array, which isn't very impressive compared to even what china has.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.