View Single Post
Old 2008-11-21, 16:37   Link #58
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
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?

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).

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.

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.

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