2008-11-20, 04:47 | Link #41 | |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-11-20, 05:18 | Link #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-11-20, 05:22 | Link #43 |
Senior Member
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. |
2008-11-20, 05:23 | Link #44 |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
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.
|
2008-11-20, 05:31 | Link #46 |
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. |
2008-11-20, 05:40 | Link #47 |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Whoops, that was in the past. Anyways, here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan's_non-nuclear_policy |
2008-11-20, 06:00 | Link #48 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is why Japan Self Defence Force is named so, it's sole purpose is for DEFENCE. |
||
2008-11-20, 06:04 | Link #49 |
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. |
2008-11-20, 06:10 | Link #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2008-11-20, 06:56 | Link #51 |
Senior Member
|
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.
__________________
|
2008-11-20, 08:29 | Link #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2008-11-20, 10:31 | Link #53 | ||
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2008-11-20, 12:27 | Link #54 | |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2008-11-20, 13:58 | Link #55 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2008-11-20, 14:11 | Link #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
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.
|
2008-11-20, 14:57 | Link #57 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.
__________________
|
2008-11-21, 16:37 | Link #58 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|||||
2008-11-22, 22:31 | Link #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2008-11-23, 01:11 | Link #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|