Rayvin

Ok well I agree with all of that - I interviewed a number of Chinese people for one of my dissertations who would outright state that they felt China's position in the world should be as the global dominating force. Whether they get there or not isn't necessarily inevitable though.

I think China will eventually surpass the US, but the half life for empires seems to shrink as each one goes by. I wondered to myself if the US of Eurasia might be the one that knocks China down, if Europe becomes more pro-Russian over time. Equally, you could make a case that with China investing in Africa, it could be that we see the African continent take the reigns. Or South America (although they're rising at a similar time to China, so I think it's more likely they'll be enemies to the Chinese regime in the end).

I'm really not sure this is the case you know, and I'm not fan of US Imperialism. The Chinese in particular have to be extremely careful about what they do; if they say something they can't then do, the CCP will be overthrown in a heartbeat. They almost had a national crisis on their hands after the Belgrade embassy bombing and that was two decades ago. The CCP won't want to square up against the US. If they lose, they lose China.

Not sure. It would depend on how much the 'Kims are a gift from god' rhetoric is actually important for maintaining control. If (as I suspect) no North Koreans buy such nonsense, then it's likely the military will just seize control and run the place based on the same practical actions that have been used to ensure control up until now - in which case yes, a new supreme leader. However, that leader would be one who would likely have to take a different approach to Kim vis-a-vis the US.

Do you mean regional hegemony or global? I read your earlier comment as an assertion that the Chinese were on the cusp of world domination in place of the Americans, which I cannot support as a conclusion. They're miles away from the US ability to govern the world order, in particular because they lack the soft power initiatives that the US does that Parky mentioned earlier (but also because their military is vastly inferior). The biggest threat China poses to the US is actually cyber, IMO. Regionally yes, they're trying to assert control over the regional area in place of the US - but if push came to shove they'd end up in a confrontation with every other state in the region due to their aggressive expansionist policies. I'm not sure China are quite ready for that conflict, even if their aspirations may seem to align with it. I'm not uninformed on this myself by the way - while I agree with what you consider to be China's stated aims in a strategic sense, I disagree that they're currently in a position to realise any of that. They're about slow power creep, not direct confrontation.

Hey!

Fair enough, but where does that leave us now. We're not going to break down the NK regime in Kim's lifetime and possibly beyond, so we're looking at another 40-50 years of this. And they're going to become more and more able to project a nuclear threat as time goes on. Eventually, someone is going to have to do something.

I agree, that's been the American Imperialist weapon for the second half of the last century, but NK appear to be absolutely impervious to it so far.

But it's different now that they have the potential to cause significant destructive damage. It's not just the US who will be concerned about that, it's literally everyone in the surrounding region except China. If we do nothing, in 5-10 years Japan will have nuked up too. They've been talking about it for some time, and it's because of NK. Regional tensions will escalate and I'm not sure that the arena is big enough for that many power players. Having said that - if we did go carrot rather than stick, maybe we could encourage them into a greater state of global openness through trade... but I'm just not convinced it'll ever happen.

I think you're overconcerned about Chinese threat potential tbh but I can't say for certain that you're wrong - I think a lot depends on how informed the US is keeping China in all of this - despite the bluster, there are significant backchannels in place between the two. China isn't nearly as hostile to the US as they claim to be for their domestic audience. But I could be wrong. I don't think they're a significant military threat mind you... they've only just launched their first aircraft carrier and its a refurb. Decades away from matching the US and Europe.

No chance they're seriously considering that. Although this may be enough for Trump...

I dunno, I did a lot of reading on Chinese academic literature on North Korea and while there's an element of opportunity there, the Chinese government is constantly annoyed that NK acts as a destabilising force on their border. I think they'd prefer the question settled (obviously as favourably to China as possible). I think a non-nuclear covert strike might do it. It's hard to imagine that they have the military infrastructure to survive if the head was cut off the snake - but you never know I suppose. Agree that 10-15 years ago would have been better. But we are where we are, and do you think there's a non-military solution in the offing if we wait longer?

Yeah I'd say that's more or less the position I thought we were in. Nothing to worry about in the short term but further than that we'll just have to see how it goes.

That's how I see it. Better now than later. If war is going to happen one way or another, it's better now. The longer we leave it, the worse that war becomes. If there was another way of solving this, then fine - but after 30 odd years of this nonsense, I'm not convinced this is ever going to get better. Soft power doesn't penetrate NK. They're really fucking good at holding power domestically, the cultural brainwashing strategy that we use elsewhere in the world isn't working. I remain convinced that China doesn't want that regime there, but simply can't see an option for dealing with them without a heavy political cost to themselves. If NK goes under, they and SK get to split millions of impoverished, underskilled North Koreans. It's telling that China has mobilised its forces along the border - they've done this to resist an influx of refugees if war breaks out. Plus, as a humanitarian thing, we've left the North koreans to live a life of abject poverty and misery. When the regime finally falls, the stories we'll hear about life under the Kims will be chilling. The question is, can we save more people than we'd lose, by having this war now rather than later.

Which makes a US led pre-emptive strike a logical course of action if war is considered to be becoming inevitable.

I don't think we'd be involved in this conflict. Can we even project power that far any more? This is the US' issue alone - NK are no threat to Europe whatsoever.

I think their best hope is that NK totally focuses on the US. Having said that, if this kicks off SK might go straight over the border themselves. The sooner they take the regime down, the fewer casualties there'll be.

Was just reading that they're undertaking an urgent review of their capabilities to intercept missiles. Seems certain that they'd be in trouble. In fact, there seems no outcome from the whole thing that would be beneficial to them, even if the US won with minimal casualties.

Yeah but see NK's response. They've stated they'll launch a pre-emptive strike against any US aggression. Interesting that they've made no threats beyond self defence. The thing is NK must know that there's no endgame where they win. They won't want war.

Ok, further reading tells me that NK have managed to attach nukes to ICBMs. There's no benefit in attacking them on that basis, the opportunity for Western involvement has been missed IMO. Doubt anything will come of this.

I still don't consider the taking down of NK to be a bad thing. They're a constant antagonist in the region and even China would want rid of them if it didn't mean a war on their doorstep. Unlike Syria, they've not got a Western instigated civil war going on. Having said that, Trump is going against his word in getting involved in all of this. He was supposed to be isolationist. While not being blind to the global apocalypse scenario, if he actually solves the NK problem then he'll have accomplished something undeniably positive.

Aye, I think we can all agree on that.

Yep, and so again, it's totally normal to want engagement. I thoroughly enjoyed the debates I had with people on here back before Corbyn was cool, so I can relate.