NK Sinks SK Ship; Says Retaliation = War

[stof]

Branko2166 said:

stof said:

But the U.S. troops in South Korea are there as a direct result of North Korea. Were the threat of North Korea to evaporate with unification, the role of the U.S. Military in the region would be re-examined by both the U.S. and Korea. 

Also, the notion that China would ally themselves with North Korea in a military conflict for the purpose of avoiding the United States is a bit counterproductive, considering that it would put them into direct confrontation with the U.S. army, as well as South Korea's, Japans, and numerous other U.N. nations.

There's also the fact that total trade between China and North Korea is worth about 2.7 billion, while trade between China South Korea is worth about 156.2 Billion.

It's been suggested before that one of the key reasons China supports North Korea is because it fears that the country's collapse would swell the already large numbers of refugees crossing the border in to China. It may be a good reason for support, but it would hardly at all be a reason to be drawn in to world war 3.

There is no way China would want to involve itself militarily in such a dispute.

I agree that China has an important economic relationship with the South Koreans and an even bigger one with America however I believe that when it comes to China that issues of security trump economics.

If we look at the situation in 1950, China was in economic ruin and had hardly any military industry to speak of. They had just come out of the devastation of world war 2 as well as a civil war. They were in an infinitely worse position than they are in now and yet they chose to intervene against a far better eqipped West.

And while they may take an economic hit by getting involved, the economic fallout would swing in both directions. If you want to look at a more recent event to demonstrate China's policy of no compromise on security, it would be the Tibet riots. They occurred just prior to the olympic games when all eyes were on China. China's response was to quell the riots without giving in to any demands.

All I'm saying is, is that when it comes to matters of security it would be far wiser for South Korea and America to negotiate rather than repeating history albeit against a far more formidable opponent in today's well equipped and loaded with cash reserves China.

edit- Hopefully it doesn't come to such a situation but I sincerely hope that the people in power in Washington and Seoul negotiate rather than act unilateraly. I'm also hopeful that China will get more involved behind the scenes to rein in the North Koreans.

 

 

But protecting North Korea would be bad for both Economics AND security. It's bad for security to have a despotic nuclear equipped nation bordering your country threatening war with your big trading partners. We're certainly getting an example right now, as China is probably wishing they didn't have to worry about the possibility of war on their doorstep.

I'd say the Tibet riots were quite different. (or do you mean the uighurs? same thing though). Putting down an open revolt within your own country despite getting some negative publicity is a lot different than preparing to go to war with some of the largest and most advanced nations in the world to protect a country that is already a pretty big headache.

China's too busy becoming an economic superpower to risk their nation on old communist sympathies. And quite frankly I think it would be in their best interests from a national security stand point to not have the North around anymore. There'd be drastically less reason for the U.S. to be there in such large numbers, Korea and Japan would have far less reason to accommodate U.S. troops, the border would be more secure and countless other benefits.