The fear of North Korea

[SteveB]

First feed "Norway Hyperwar" to Google. Some goodies in there.

Bookmarked.

[Jason]

In the coming decades I'll be very surprised if the US has any carriers, never mind in the western pacific.

Trying to start a silliness contest, or were you being serious?

No, just overstating an looming economic reality.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First feed "Norway Hyperwar" to Google. Some goodies in there.

Bookmarked.

Next, use Google Earth. Nothing matches the buzz kill of a book with bad geography. With GE you can add bits of "local color", like that old church or the narrow, one lane bridge over the River Cheese.

[pErvinalia]

Ahhh, the River Cheese. I remember it fondly! Smelled a bid strange, though...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ahhh, the River Cheese. I remember it fondly! Smelled a bid strange, though...

I stayed at an inn in Bacon-on-Cheese once.

[Warren Dew]

Warren Dew wrote:

I would also note that China's plan if North Korea goes to war with the south is a preemptive invasion of North Korea. North Korean nuclear facilities would have to be destroyed before the Chinese got there. I think we could let the Chinese take care of things on the ground, though.

They may well end up fighting with NK troops, and destroying the current regime, but only to install a puppet government subservient to China, with zero possibility of re-unification to form a democratic Korea. Also, it would be irrelevant whether the NK nuclear facilities were destroyed or not - they won't contain anything of technological value to the Chinese......

Militarily it would be irrelevant whether the North Koren nuclear sites were destroyed before they were occupied by China. Politically, it's important to demonstrate to those that depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella that the umbrella does exist. We should at least make the effort, especially if South Korea wants us to.

And frankly, I'd much prefer a nonnuclear puppet government subservient to China than what North Korea has now. Reunification isn't going to occur without China's buy in, anyway.

In the coming decades I'll be very surprised if the US has any carriers, never mind in the western pacific.

Whatever shrinkage may occur in the US military in the coming decades, reducing the carrier fleet will not be one of them. Post-Afghanistan reductions in army and airforce units overseas, particularly in Europe, sure...

But naval forces give the US its best chance of remaining a global player...

I certainly agree that would be true if the U.S. government were run logically. However, the carrier fleet has already been reduced fom 13 to 10 with more after the fact rationalization than before the fact justification; I could easily see that trend continuing as administrations delude themselves into thinking we can do more and more with less and less.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

And frankly, I'd much prefer a nonnuclear puppet government subservient to China than what North Korea has now.

I agree that it would be preferable in comparison, from a world perspective, but not from a South Korean perspective, I think. With a more stable, less crazy NK regime in place, firmly under the thumb of China, re-unification in the style of the 2 Germanys would be virtually impossible...

[FBM]

...
I would also note that China's plan if North Korea goes to war with the south is a preemptive invasion of North Korea...

I'm curious about this statement, Warren. Is this your estimation, or have others predict it, also? Not saying I agree or disagree, just curious. It hadn't occurred to me before.

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't know what China's response to a NK invasion of SK would be but I don't think they would be too pleased with so much disruption next door, nor with a potentially radioactive neighbour. Can't see them coming in on NKs side, as that would mean war with the US, which isn't scheduled for another 15 years...

[klr]

I don't know what China's response to a NK invasion of SK would be but I don't think they would be too pleased with so much disruption next door, nor with a potentially radioactive neighbour. Can't see them coming in on NKs side, as that would mean war with the US, which isn't scheduled for another 15 years until the USA clears its debts...

Agreed though that the Chinese do not want any disturbance on their doorstep. In the long run, China would be much better off with a united and stable Korea. I thought the Chinese were supposed to think in the long term?

[FBM]

I just find it hard to imagine China jumping in uninvited and trying to take over NK. They'd lose both the US and SK as trading partners, not to mention those on the UNSC who would probably follow suit. Doesn't make economic sense, and everything bows down before the idol of economics.

[Clinton Huxley]

I just find it hard to imagine China jumping in uninvited and trying to take over NK. They'd lose both the US and SK as trading partners, not to mention those on the UNSC who would probably follow suit. Doesn't make economic sense, and everything bows down before the idol of economics.

I don't know, the US might prefer a Chinese occupation of NK to it being run by the current crew, if it meant the nuke programme, for example, being shut down.

[klr]

I just find it hard to imagine China jumping in uninvited and trying to take over NK. They'd lose both the US and SK as trading partners, not to mention those on the UNSC who would probably follow suit. Doesn't make economic sense, and everything bows down before the idol of economics.

Exactly. And since a unified Korea* would be a healthier trading partner for China than just SK alone, why prop up NK? A side-benefit for China might be that US military presence on the Korean peninsula would be reduced over time.

*Unified along the lines of South Korea of course, not the "Workers Paradise".

I just find it hard to imagine China jumping in uninvited and trying to take over NK. They'd lose both the US and SK as trading partners, not to mention those on the UNSC who would probably follow suit. Doesn't make economic sense, and everything bows down before the idol of economics.

I don't know, the US might prefer a Chinese occupation of NK to it being run by the current crew, if it meant the nuke programme, for example, being shut down.

Viewed in isolation ... maybe. But given Chinese designs on Taiwan, eastern Pacific islands/waters/resources, etc., such a move would definitely not go down well with the rest of the world.

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't think the rest of the world would see a Chinese occupation of NK as a land grab necessarily. Unless they found an excuse to stay there indefinitely. Anyways, the only country that really has any leverage on NK is China.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"When is China going to stop thinking it's the world's policeman!"