Tavius,

You're on something. China would choose the path of least resistance, which is to appease the US by pressuring North Korea. It is simply more costly for them not to pressure North Korea in exchange for removing the nukes. Second, China had better reason to economically devastate the US under Bush's administration than with a simple demand of pressuring North Korea.

Anyway, back on topic...

What's wrong with some good ol' tactical nukes launched into the DMZ?  Oops, there goes your artillery barrage! 

1: They're shells.  Doesn't take long to prepare or launch shells, and if coordinated properly, could be a complete surprise.  Preemptively take out the artillery placements before they have a chance to fire a shot.
2: BIG EXPLOSION.  Boom!  That makes things blow up. 
3: Radiation means no reinforcements can get into the area either to restart the artillery system or, depending on the terrain of the region, could even prevent the North Korean assault forces from coming across the border.  Not that Kim Jong Il wouldn't order them to cross a pool of radiation, but they would be left weakened and physically drained from the effects of radiation.

> 1: They're shells.  Doesn't take long to prepare or launch shells, and if
> coordinated properly, could be a complete surprise.  Preemptively take
> out the artillery placements before they have a chance to fire a shot.

From the article Flint was quoting from the bunkers all face north, and the majority of
heavy weapons exist in those bunkers -- on rail.

> BIG EXPLOSION.  Boom!  That makes things blow up.

Just like a signal flare.

> Radiation means no reinforcements can get into the area either to restart
> the artillery system or, depending on the terrain of the region, could even
> prevent the North Korean assault forces from coming across the border.  Not
> that Kim Jong Il wouldn't order them to cross a pool of radiation, but they would
> be left weakened and physically drained from the effects of radiation.

1. They wouldn't care. Radiation or not, they'd still weather it.
2. Some North Koreans (probably officials) would have radiation/bio suits.
3. I don't see how radiation will prevent 70s era technology from firing...

> north korea is just seeing what they can get away with, until we say, no,
> if you do this, its an act of war and we will respond with force, they're
> gonna keep testing the limit.

Its beyond that. They obviously don't care about what the rest of the world
thinks. Its probably an internal display of strength, more then an external
one.

> tavius wrote:

> Seriously? Sticking nukes in Taiwan would take things to a whole different level. If the government weren't to respond strongly enough, believe me there'd be political instability which would threaten its authority. The hawks would immediately come to the fore wielding the most influence.

Bush didn't screw around with nukes and in fact he made a public apology for the plane crash incident rather than allow it to escalate. Obama has been making the right pleasing noises so far as well and even dispatched Hillary to Beiing the minute the Chinese publically mused about whether they should slow down their debt purchases. Neither of them are as noob as to start playing that kind of hardball.>

Whatever. You know nothing of diplomacy. The fact is that China would see that not intervening in North Korea would be too costly for them, as they could not afford the economic cost or the nuclear weapons stationed in Taiwan. Between option A and option B, A is the most profitable. What you do to persuade people is limit their options and make the most profitable option favorable to your objectives.

And Obama is a diplomatic imbecile btw. Charisma has its limits, which he does not understand. Second, the most meritorious individuals are quitting his administration. Third, he gives too many public appearances, when a major law of power is to make yourself scarce.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Then why aren't you leader of your country Justinian?

He can't be too stupid, hes already done what you never will...>

Well the simple answer is... I'm < 35 years old!

Anyway, he isn't stupid, as in intellectually inferior. But he is stupid in the sense of lacking forethought/strategy. When meritorious individuals quit your administration and your value-based persuasion methods fail, something tells me you aren't seeing the world very realistically. Something tells me that you may understand charisma and organizing an election, but you know nothing of how to maintain power and outmaneuver your opponents.

I am far from a good strategist. I'm a slothful upper middle class youth who is wasting his potential every day. But at least I understand power at the most basic level and can manage fairly well, and I can tell you that Obama is breaking several words of advice written by great strategists such as Sun Tzu and Machiavelli left and right. For example, he apparently doesn't understand that you must persuade by appealing to self interest, that you don't make yourself as publicly available as often as he does, you ignore ridicule, and you make your enemies fear you. That last point is especially important.

Lastly, I see him as a very weak president who has given in to the demands of the left-wing coalition (coalition of special interests and business aligned with the left). ROFL at him doing the noob mistake of hiring Hillary as his secretary of state, when his books clearly antagonize them. That suggests he's such a tool, which makes sense considerng his sudden rise to power.

^

No duh. It's costly for great powers to go to war. And if you're referring to my points, I am not saying the US should go to war with China. I am saying the US should alarm China to compel it to capitulate in pressuring North Korea to disarm. China has two options. It can escalate the conflict further, which would be costly to them, or it can pressure North Korea. People always have a preference for the least costly option.

If some great powers want to arm countries with nuclear weapons to serve as surrogates to shift the balance of power in their favor, then the US must show its commitment to react. By being afraid to commit to an escalation, we only encourage further encroachment on our power. It's like JFK. Had he sat back and done nothing, the balance of power would have shifted in the favor of the USSR. The USSR also felt JFK would be afraid to commit, but instead he displayed firmness. The result was that the USSR realized that the option of arming Cuba further was more costly than backing off and receiving concessions from the US to withdraw nuclear warheads from Turkey.

Mao said we were a paper tiger and than was back when we used napalm and had a draft.

If we put nukes on taiwan we'd be giving nukes to Beijing, taiwan can join the prc with a phone call and a stack of nukes is a fat poker chip for autonomy.

China is not the one making guarantees of defensive war to Japan and south korea. China has not made "solving" the Korean crisis a test of national leadership. There is damn little more advantageous to China than undermining the US military presence in East Asia, and what better way than another unpopular American war in Korea?  All the Chinese have to do is nothing.

> [P]MelvinThaNoob wrote:

> idiot war cost too much.only fool go to war like US.see how much debt they have now.ppl trying to win diplomaticly.

I dont agree with US will win a war with China or China will win US.
It all back to square one,who strike first .just like Imperialconflict,if you clear all share.you are safe.the enemy will have reduced fleet destroyed iron and cash plus reduce res production.he can hardly counter bad as he need to regroup or rejump a guy.Remember Pearl Harbour,US is strong but the japanese kick them on the ball.They were so badly effected.It took them some time to recover and bounce back.Luckly the japanese is idiot at that time coz they nvr *kill* the US at that time.Giving your enemy a rest is suicide.

China have become or already world top exporter and yes US is china main partner but dont you forget,who got the most reverse money in the world.Is CHina not US.If really china dump the debt,yes china will be affected but the effect on US is far greater.

War is unrealistic. If one fails, the other fails as well, 1929 style. Also military action has its uses, not everyone who uses it are idiots. Soft power has its limits.

"If really china dump the debt,yes china will be affected but the effect on US is far greater."
The US provides their food and without food the Chinese will revolt.

China's not going to defer to the U.S just because they put a few nukes in Taiwan. You'd be forcing their hand alright but not in the direction you seem to be expecting. They'd have to give a forceful response in fact you'd give them little alternative but to. Anyway Taiwan wouldn't accept, nowadays they're acutely aware of their vulnerability to being exploited as a pawn or proxy against China.

"China is not the one making guarantees of defensive war to Japan and south korea. China has not made "solving" the Korean crisis a test of national leadership. There is damn little more advantageous to China than undermining the US military presence in East Asia, and what better way than another unpopular American war in Korea?  All the Chinese have to do is nothing."

There is incentive for China to fix the N.K problem in the form of political goodwill from her neighbours not least S.Korea and to give fewer valid reasons for U.S forces to be concentrated in the strategic North-east Asian region.

"The US provides their food and without food the Chinese will revolt."

Lol China's a net exporter of food now. You're thinking of the late 1950s. Honestly, propping up the U.S consumer and their govt is becoming a huge liability for the Chinese now and it's going to be incredibly taxing continuing into the foreseeable future. If you're interested you can read this layman article on why China should cut the U.S loose:

http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=4859

Nemmy got it figured right.  We gotta get Jong Il.  As long as Jong Il is out there he's gonna go after the old man.  If he gets the old man, we gotta make a deal on the nukes. He knows that same as we do.  So he won't quit trying, he's just buying time.  As for the 900,000 North Korean soldiers, okay, it's an extreme measure, but sometimes extreme measures are justified.  Have them meet me someplace public, where they'll feel safe.  Then, I'll take all 900,001 of them.