AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-20, 04:47   Link #41
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
In fact, there is a possibilty that North Korea might test their nukes on China, considering how their relations are at the six-party talks. North Korea intends on having an one-on-one dialogue with the United States, rather than the usual six-party talks which is deeming problematic for the rest of the six-party talk nations.
This my point. NKorea isn't as friendly to China anymore, and neither is China that cold to US anymore. Therefore, China might end up being the swing state.
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:18   Link #42
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
In fact, there is a possibilty that North Korea might test their nukes on China, considering how their relations are at the six-party talks. North Korea intends on having an one-on-one dialogue with the United States, rather than the usual six-party talks which is deeming problematic for the rest of the six-party talk nations.
You have got to be kidding me. If North Korea "tests" its nuke(s) on China it will be annihilated. Even the North Korean leaders aren't that stupid. The South isn't going to be backing them up on this one, and neither will the US.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:22   Link #43
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
If People Republic of China wants to play it smart then they will play the role of good cop in good cop/bad cop with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for their own sake.
If DPRK becomes truly isolated then there is no telling what they will do.
The main reason DPRK doesn't starve is becuase of trade with PRC but if that stops then suddenly alot of refugees will start crossing the border which will become ugly.
Imagine on the 6 O'clock news we see Chinese border patrols shooting at hundreds of DPRK refugees trying to cross the yalu river.
As the old saying goes never corner your enemy.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:23   Link #44
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
You have got to be kidding me. If North Korea "tests" its nuke(s) on China it will be annihilated. Even the North Korean leaders aren't that stupid. The South isn't going to be backing them up on this one (because if it did, it too will likely be annihilated).
No,this time around, NKorea is surrounded. China doesn't care so much about NKorea anymore (it's like the disgrace to all communist/former-communist states). Japan and SKorea actually seem to have hidden US missles. US can use 'em anytime. And of course 1.3 billion PRC citizens will wallop 23 million DPRK citizens. Add that 1.3 bil to another 0.1 bil Japanese, and 48 million SKoreans. Talk about people power.
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:28   Link #45
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShimatheKat View Post
Japan and SKorea actually seem to have hidden US missles. US can use 'em anytime.
I really want to see where you got this piece.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:31   Link #46
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My point is that North Korea would be utterly mad to attack China. In fact, it would be utterly mad to attack anyone. Neither China nor Japan would spare an inch of NK soil if they were nuked.

NK postures quite a bit, but my view is that it's all for show - they want a lifeline from the US, and in all likelihood, the US will give it to them.

What China does, if NK accepts US aid, is key to how this whole affair will develop. I hope that the US won't try to pull a fast one on China - the consequences could be dire.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 05:40   Link #47
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I really want to see where you got this piece.
Whoops, that was in the past. Anyways, here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan's_non-nuclear_policy
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 06:00   Link #48
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
My point is that North Korea would be utterly mad to attack China. In fact, it would be utterly mad to attack anyone. Neither China nor Japan would spare an inch of NK soil if they were nuked.
Here again we see a lost soul not understanding what article 9 means.

Quote:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
This means Japan can not retaliate against an agressor on their soil.
That is why Japan Self Defence Force is named so, it's sole purpose is for DEFENCE.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 06:04   Link #49
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
I know what your Constitution says, Tri-ring. I'm saying it won't matter if Japan is nuked.

Though, to be fair, I think the retaliation would come from the US (at the behest of Japan), which is quite capable of wiping out NK from across the Pacific.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 06:10   Link #50
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
Though, to be fair, I think the retaliation would come from the US (at the behest of Japan), which is quite capable of wiping out NK from across the Pacific.
That is what Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan is for.

Quote:
Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 06:56   Link #51
ashesatdusk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: La La Land
Send a message via AIM to ashesatdusk
I have some formal background in this. (4th year student of Economics and International Relations, focusing on east asia, at UBC, one of the top universities for east Asian research). I'm jumping in only having skimmed, on Japan's militarization


Article 9 is essentially inserted in the policy, by the U.S.

Japanese Democracy is oligarchical in nature. Much more so than western Democracies. Essentially a One party democracy with a huge idealogical spread, minority parties are just splinter parties from original party with no idealogical stance. Party designed to win decentralized elections, nothing more. Result broader public opinion ignored. In Japan its quite rare for parliament and the Prime minister to have more than 50% national support. Strong Authoritarian nature, particularly because of strong beauracracy with life time appointments (This is typical of east asia, democracy is far weaker). Point parliament has some wiggle room to ignore public opinion. Many Ultra Conservatives are very influential members of Government (Koizumi, Ozawa ect).

Public Opinion at moment is strongly in favor of Article 9, at the moment does not support remilitirization. Conservative nationalist wing largely wants to remilitarize but keep U.S protection. So at the moment or in near future any drastic militirization is highly unlikely. Part of the focal reasons for wanting to keep U.S protection is strong public opposition against nuclear weapons, but presence of tension with China (certain 1990s incidents) would more or less force Japan to adopt nuclear weapons as a deterrent without proper defense.

This is important to realize Japan in international relations will rarely go against U.S.A on focal issues. More minor issues i.e. Kyoto Protocol.


Nationalist wing is the problem for East Asian relations, particularly. Japanese education Curriculum does not emphasize teaching consequences of World War II. (unlike civil rights) Only recently has japan's war crimes. One of the focal issues is the fact that the Japanese imperial blood line, was never held accountable. That blood line is still preserved and never been held accountable.

Japan-China relations Taiwan is a focal issue. Until recently U.S.A and Japan together had implicitly supported Taiwan's legitimacy as a seperate country. This is weaking, decline of U.S. Soft Power is part of it. Increasing economic interdependence between the two country.

It is important to realize that international relations tensions are seperate sphere from economic relations. East Asia has strong independent national identities, but high level of economic interdependence, especially recently have become highly integrated economies. The U.S as their most significant trade partner. Highly integrated nature along with large East asian funding of U.S economic activity (Savings is required for economic growth, America does not save, but East Asia saves on America's behalf) has created a high level of interdependence. If U.S continues on a slow protracted design. Global Politics could be dominated by an Alliance (maybe not long term) between U.S and East Asia. (Currently its dominated by the U.S, though in the recent financial crisis, European Union has taken a more dominant role).

Please, forgive the poor grammar, and sentance fragments. I wanted to post this quickly not take one hour for a post.
__________________
Sig never posted, because the mods would remove it for exceeding the size limit.
ashesatdusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 08:29   Link #52
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
My point is that North Korea would be utterly mad to attack China. In fact, it would be utterly mad to attack anyone. Neither China nor Japan would spare an inch of NK soil if they were nuked.
Not really. Why would North Korea build so many nukes in the first place? Not mentioning that their citizens are actually living in famine, which is also true in their capital Pyongyang. I don't think North Korea built so many nukes just to use as bargaining chips with the world over financial aid, when they are at the same time selling nuclear technology to Syria.

At the same time, the world is also providing financial aid to third-world countries, such as Africa as an entire continent that is not utilizing nuclear warheads as leverage for aid. Why would North Korea not follow Africa's peaceful lead of not building nukes? On the other hand, I don't see any valid reasons as to why North Korea would go so far as to using their nukes.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 10:31   Link #53
Cluelessly
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShimatheKat View Post
Well, remember that although neither Russia nor China can print money endlessly, the US can. It might well do so soon. Soon the USD and the SGD will be on par. Right now, it's at USD1 - SGD1.4. It was, 5-10 years ago, USD1 - SGD1.8.
No actually. It would work that way only if the USD had not become the reserve currency of the world, hence rest of the world = over-leveraged dollar ETF. Fed deciding to use it's powers to perform an inflationary shock at this stage would be the final game over stroke for Russia as an economy. The US exports inflation. There is a reason for this. The balancing act comes in forcing another country to inflate faster through collapse. That is where we are at now. For a long time (the past decade or so) other countries have received very favorable terms in exchange for using the USD as a medium. Deflation is killing everybody who thought the good times would last forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShimatheKat View Post
It's not so much of financing a war that is the question. It's HOW MUCH GAIN can you get out of it. For Japan and SKorea, it's huge. They are at odds (even greater than US at times) with NKorea. For SKorea, it's they would have FINALLY won a war stretching on for 50 years - the Korean War is still technically on, since SKorea didn't sign the treaty.

Printing money isn't a huge problem. When one party captures another land, they have more to sell, to get money. In a war, it's not about money - it's about your weapons. US and Russia have lots of them. To them, war isn't difficult to finance. It's when they rope in their allies (Japan and SKorea for US, NKorea and others for Russia) where the money problem comes in.
Then it becomes a Money No Enough issue. That's why all the nations at the six-party talks are more or less Just Following Law.

In fact, it is when there is not enough money, when a war starts. No, really. Germany after WWI and Treaty of Versailles was a poor nation. That's how Hitler came to power in the first place - by promising a Germany for Germans.
Unless we're talking nuclear war, in which case I don't see why alliances would even matter, money does matter. How much is spent in Iraq? Weapons take a lot to maintain. Money has to come from somewhere. Borrowing excessively externally leads to bond market dislocations and other nasty side effects. Printing is highly inflationary internally. Globalization hurts for anybody who thinks they can pull it off unless they are a self sufficient nation. We are talking about the current regime. They will be busy controlling their civilians. Hitler coming to power was a result of the economic collapse which resulted in a regime change. Now if we do see a regime change and East Asia somehow manages to extricate itself from being a de-facto part of the US economy what I say would be null and void if the people could be rallied against an external force. But we certainly aren't there yet.
Cluelessly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 12:27   Link #54
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Printing is highly inflationary internally. Globalization hurts for anybody who thinks they can pull it off unless they are a self sufficient nation. We are talking about the current regime. They will be busy controlling their civilians. Hitler coming to power was a result of the economic collapse which resulted in a regime change. Now if we do see a regime change and East Asia somehow manages to extricate itself from being a de-facto part of the US economy what I say would be null and void if the people could be rallied against an external force. But we certainly aren't there yet.
Regime change has already started.
Ah Bian of Taiwan => Ma ying-jeou - more peaceful, willing to talk to PRC
Bush Jr => Obama - change (to where??)
Blair => Brown - less fiery, may be better...
Fukuda => Aso - better at foreign relations

Something is taking shape, but till '09 we won't be able to tell.

PS. Japan cannot attack on its own, but the US is at its beck and call. Free defence - but at cost to Okinawa residents, like my grandparents.
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 13:58   Link #55
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
In other words, you are implying that the Japanese public should be more concerned about the beliefs of nationalists rather than the military buildup of neighboring nations, the nukes they are producing, and also the issue of ignoring the abductees' will of returning? This is rather interesting.
Its also a misrepresentation of what I said - which is the only reason it becomes "interesting". That is a poor debate tactic.

In the US, I consider our most dangerous enemies to be the ones within our borders -- those people who would take my country into fascism and theocracy. It does not mean I don't recognize exterior issues to keep informed on or to take mitigating measures against.

Japan *should* keep their right wing nationalists in a spotlight to keep them from instigating events which might sway or change public opinion.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 14:11   Link #56
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
In the US, I consider our most dangerous enemies to be the ones within our borders -- those people who would take my country into fascism and theocracy. It does not mean I don't recognize exterior issues to keep informed on or to take mitigating measures against.
Totally true in the American perspective. The slumping economy is caused by the greedy CEOs as pointed out by both Senator Obama and Senator McCain prior to election day. As for the image of American possessing an aggressive foreign policy is contributed to a minority within America itself. Hopefully, the "change" president-elect Barack Obama had promised before his landslide victory will affect the future of America in a positive light.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-20, 14:57   Link #57
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Dunno how much change Obama might effect... the "foreign policy" shadow-group inside the US has long and deep roots that even Eisenhower, Roosevelt (both of them) had to contend against. Much of the US 20th Century foreign policy only seems to make sense if you look at it from the perspective of a small faction of people making a LOT of money off of the antics.

On the side of the Japanese, if I were being asked for input -- I'd suggest being wary of the US actually following through on its enforcement commitments to Japan in the event of a forceful move from an aggressor nation. However, I think its much more likely that most "wars" between nation-states from now on will be economic battles rather than military ones. Violence will tend to originate from the rogue groups - the disaffected, the pirates, the local warlords, the religious expansionists, etc.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-21, 16:37   Link #58
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShimatheKat View Post
This my point. NKorea isn't as friendly to China anymore, and neither is China that cold to US anymore. Therefore, China might end up being the swing state.
China is North Korea's only ally right now, and I can't see that changing any time soon. Why would North Korea want to harm the hand that feeds them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
At the same time, the world is also providing financial aid to third-world countries, such as Africa as an entire continent that is not utilizing nuclear warheads as leverage for aid. Why would North Korea not follow Africa's peaceful lead of not building nukes?
Do note that nobody has characterized the African countries as part of "the Axis of Evil". North Korea's limited nuclear capability also has the added advantage of staving off an invasion from the U.S. (nevermind that such an invasion is extremely unlikely in the first place).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Dunno how much change Obama might effect... the "foreign policy" shadow-group inside the US has long and deep roots that even Eisenhower, Roosevelt (both of them) had to contend against. Much of the US 20th Century foreign policy only seems to make sense if you look at it from the perspective of a small faction of people making a LOT of money off of the antics.
Precisely. That's a big reason why, in many respects of external policy, it didn't matter all that much whether McCain or Obama got elected as president. I wonder if the pick of Clinton as Secretary of State will make any difference, but I'm pretty sure that Obama will be calling the shots for the topics that are dear to him. Time will tell what kind of policies will form. In context, Bill Clinton's initial foreign policy moves were relatively poor, and his actions have been coloring diplomatic relations to a degree ever since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
On the side of the Japanese, if I were being asked for input -- I'd suggest being wary of the US actually following through on its enforcement commitments to Japan in the event of a forceful move from an aggressor nation. However, I think its much more likely that most "wars" between nation-states from now on will be economic battles rather than military ones. Violence will tend to originate from the rogue groups - the disaffected, the pirates, the local warlords, the religious expansionists, etc.
Yup. I can't see the U.S. acting outside of what it considers it's interests. Since these interests are usually confined by the rhetoric of the moment, it can be awfully hard to tell what those actions will entail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I think that you're completely incorrect to assume that countries will act precisely as their treaties dictate when an unprecedented crisis hits them. An attack on Japanese soil (especially a nuclear one) easily qualifies as such a crisis.


In any case, these are academic considerations since there's no real likelihood of military conflict between any of the major players in East Asia unless there's some sort of major change in the geopolitics of the region. This is especially true since the only likely belligerent is China, and China will not have the capability for offensive naval operations for at least a couple of decades. The PLAN currently trails the U.S. Navy, the JMSDF and the Russian Navy by a lot. Heck, it won't even be able to take on an invasion of Taiwan any time soon.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-22, 22:31   Link #59
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I think that you're completely incorrect to assume that countries will act precisely as their treaties dictate when an unprecedented crisis hits them. An attack on Japanese soil (especially a nuclear one) easily qualifies as such a crisis.


In any case, these are academic considerations since there's no real likelihood of military conflict between any of the major players in East Asia unless there's some sort of major change in the geopolitics of the region. This is especially true since the only likely belligerent is China, and China will not have the capability for offensive naval operations for at least a couple of decades. The PLAN currently trails the U.S. Navy, the JMSDF and the Russian Navy by a lot. Heck, it won't even be able to take on an invasion of Taiwan any time soon.
This is so oxymoron.
Even if it is a bluff do you really think a hostile nation will call that bluff?
Part of these type of treaty's function, especially in the atomic age, is to restrict hostile nation of making false moves by stating if you shoot the other will take revenge.
It's the same with NATO or any other mutual security packs and it doesn't work if one does not work closely with the other but the US Military and JSDF have shown so far that the treaty is functioning properly.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 01:11   Link #60
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
In any case, these are academic considerations since there's no real likelihood of military conflict between any of the major players in East Asia unless there's some sort of major change in the geopolitics of the region. This is especially true since the only likely belligerent is China, and China will not have the capability for offensive naval operations for at least a couple of decades. The PLAN currently trails the U.S. Navy, the JMSDF and the Russian Navy by a lot. Heck, it won't even be able to take on an invasion of Taiwan any time soon.
Academic considerations? I am sure that treaties between nations are not considered a mere piece of paper with words on it. More over, if the US has no intentions to protect Japan from possible hostile threats, then there would be no need to station so many soldiers there. At the same time, there would also be no reason for the Japanese government to fund so much money into the American military bases.

The possibility of military conflict in East Asia is possible, but unlikely for the time being due to a variety of reasons. China's military developments are not a mere research or self-defense usage, considering that no nation aside from North Korea's leadership ambitions at this point in time would actually attack them. Although China doesn't have a strong naval capability, but that depends on which navy capability you are comparing to. Obviously, both the US and Russia are the strongest at the time being. Not sure about Europe..

China does not need to invade Taiwan anytime soon, because it is already theirs to begin with. Then, it leaves to question as to why they need such a huge army and continue to invest tons of money into their military budget. It's not self-defense, they have multiple targets. However, I doubt China will be making any military move anytime soon, since they intend to build a stronger economy first. It is impossible for any nation to have a war while improving their economy.

And thus, China will not be having a war anytime soon. South Korea intends to improve ties with North Korea which renders a military conflict involving South Korea as not possible. Japan is a country under the pacifist constitution, so the idea of war is totally impossible. And this leaves to the last East Asian nation, North Korea. Although the six-party talks were rather successful, North Korea still haven't completely disable their nuclear facilities and is also doing nuclear-related business with Syria, an unfriendly nation of the US.

On top of all this, North Korea cannot be trusted considering that the issue of starting a re-investigation to the Japanese abductees was part of the six-party talk condition, yet North Korea had backed out on their words. I don't see why North Korea would want to keep the abductees at all. What reason would they have, considering that the six-party talks on denuclearization is going well? To conclude, North Korea is currently an obstacle to the temporary peace of East Asia.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.