Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaqokm321 | Hacker News Reader

> We need to stop, and punish China

Really ? This might sound like an anti-us rant, but the US has enough weapons to destroy the planet several times over and has a history of using them and invading foreign countries.

I would like to see the fall of NK, but seriously you cannot blame the Chinese for supporting NK in the past and mainly for one reason. That reason is that NK is the buffer zone between China and the 30,000 US troops stationed in SK. Heck what about the 40,000+ troops stationed in Japan.

NK was a pain in the rear end until G W Bush made them a target with the axis of evil thing. The US and international sanctions against NK, all this while trying and some cases disposing leaders in other countries like Libya and Syria.

But if you want to punish China, just send Trump to build a new golf course there.

View on HN

>"I would like to see the fall of NK, but seriously you cannot blame the Chinese for supporting NK in the past and mainly for one reason. That reason is that NK is the buffer zone between China and the 30,000 US troops stationed in SK. Heck what about the 40,000+ troops stationed in Japan."

A lot of people forget that the those troops are the very reason Japan, South Korea and many other countries in the region haven't developed nuclear arsenals themselves. The post WWII agreement has essentially been "the US promises to protect its allies and in exchange they limit their military investments and don't pursue nuclear weapons".

As much as China might not like US bases in neighboring countries, it's a lot better than if all of its neighbors had or were in the process of developing nukes. That scenario is a nightmare with too many ways of going horribly wrong.

Given the Japanese are some of the finest engineers on the planet and that they've had a peaceful nuclear program for decades it's not a leap to think that somewhere the Japanese have the blue prints for sophisticated nuclear weapons ready to go in the event they needed to build them quickly.

I would be shocked if someone in the Japanese government didn't have a classified report somewhere telling them precisely how long that would take, down to the minute.

One more incentive for China is that in the scenario where the US is severely weakened, it will be a regional power with nukes sitting among prosperous nations not having nukes.

It's an infinitely better situation then for China, rather than being surrounded by nuclear armed countries.

> power with nukes sitting among prosperous nations not having nukes.

Briefly, then the Japanese will finish their crash program and also be a nuclear power.

Well, yes. So will the others. But in the present scenario, China atleast has a head start, has the resources and clout to discourage or sanction countries going towards nukes.

Still a better situation than facing countries already armed with nukes.

If China wanted that buffer zone to remain intact, that interest would be best served by a well behaving North Korea, wouldn't it? I don't think the buffer zone accounts for China's behaviour.

I wouldn't put it simply down to just being a buffer zone, but I do think it is important for them.

China and North Korea has a shared history of politics and agendas for a long time. In the game of modern geo politics, having a well behaved NK may actually have the effect which they are looking for. A disruptive NK means that SK and the US are kept busy.

But also do not forget that China also has to protect China from NK. US plans may just destabilise the area, and I am quite sure some US Intelligence officials know this and are taking advantage of the situation.

If the North Korean government collapsed, I would assume that huge numbers of refugees would stream over into China, which is certainly not something they want to deal with.

This

China can complain as much as they want, but if NK gives someone reason for military action there, well, China didn't act soon enough

> the US has enough weapons to destroy the planet several times over

I think that's very difficult to prove, because it's not true (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ vs USSR Tsar Bomba 100Mt vs US B53 1.2Mt). You might want to constrain that hyperbole down to "destroy many nations (politically)" since the largest nukes in a few major areas will cripple the economy and populations to the point the countries will be destabilized. The physical countries and human populations, more or less, will continue to exist alongside life in general.

Destroying the planet is not yet within our grasp, unless someone has a man-made black hole handy.

"Destroying the planet" doesn't mean nuking every single square-inch of land. Models predict that it is possible to trigger a self-sustaining nuclear winter when soot blocks the sun.

Destroying the planet via nuclear winter is firmly within our grasp, and we have enough nukes to do it several times over.

Nuclear winter theories have been discredited. The science behind them was always fairly shaky--it requires several massive firestorms to trigger and generate stratospheric clouds for the global transport. Yet firestorms don't seem to cause stratospheric plumes, and there is good reason to doubt that modern cities are capable of producing the firestorms in the original model.

Looking at relevant experiences, there is even more reason to doubt the models. The Kuwaiti oil fires--where Iraq basically set an entire oil field on fire, and lasted for a month--failed to produce anything more than an intensely local problem. Even volcanic winters are probably overblown: there is only one well-documented case of severe effects of a volcanic winter (Year Without a Summer), and that required some exceptionally bad timing. While researchers do tend to make a game of linking famines listed in historical records to historical volcanic eruptions, it's not at all clear how correct this linkages are, especially since it shows clear signs of selection bias (no consideration of large volcanic eruptions that may not have produced volcanic winters).

There has been some modeling work that suggests an India-Pakistan exchange, let alone the US throwing down, would alter the climate enough to have far reaching impacts the world over.

"Destroy" doesn't necessarily have to mean "Glass"

Is 30,000 people a lot of troops? I think you seem to be forgetting how large China’s amy is. North Korea has a million man army too.

At any rate, what are your ideas for solving the problem? We could withdraw the troops from Korea and Japan, since you think that is part of the problem?

> Is 30,000 people a lot of troops? I think you seem to be forgetting how large China’s amy is. North Korea has a million man army too.

The US has 6800 nuclear weapons, and it seems that people are getting worried about a country who may not have one single functioning weapon. That's of course if we want to just play this about the numbers.

Of course 30,000 troops is a lot, it's enough to annoy others in the surrounding countries. Imagine the uproar if China put 30,000 troops in Mexico. It isn't just the military threat they pose but also the overall insult to the nations.

Now the size of NK army does not matter, especially when a lot of them do not even have enough food to feed themselves. As far as the size of the Chinese army, if you broke down the differences between the US and China you will see that this isn't just about the size of forces. The US has a huge asymmetric advantage via air.

> At any rate, what are your ideas for solving the problem? We could withdraw the troops from Korea and Japan, since you think that is part of the problem?

Look there is no simple solution, but poking the bear isn't going to work. Diplomatic options will always be better than declaring war on a country like NK. It would be better for China, but other than fuelling the war economy of the US, it is probably in their best favour.

Withdrawing troops, may not be the best idea either but if you leave them there in an aggressive manner you will truly witness more of this disagreement.

NK does not really care about bombing the US, they just want the US to stay out of NK.

> The US has 6800 nuclear weapons, and it seems that people are getting worried about a country who may not have one single functioning weapon. That's of course if we want to just play this about the numbers.

It's not about a single nuclear weapon, it's about the lasting impact it may have. 9/11 only cost 4000 lives, and look at its impact -- Iraq and Afghanistan wars, terrorism policies. Now think about what'd happen if a war breaks out in the Korea Peninsula. It'd have devastating effect to South Korea, and possibly Japan. It would definitely disrupt the global economy. It may trigger a war with China and Russia.

> NK does not really care about bombing the US, they just want the US to stay out of NK.

NK does care about SK. US cannot unilaterally withdraw the troop. It is obliged to provide military support to Japan and SK

Also, the very presence of the US played no small part in helping both countries to become world economy powers after the devastating WW2 and the Korea war.

If all parties are really interested about reunification, they would agree to something like a roadmap in which the US will gradually reduce its military presence, NK open their market, and an eventual election. The thing is, nobody at the table wants that, not to mention such agreements are historically futile. Think about Vietnam 1954 and 1973 agreements.

We’ve been using diplomacy for decades. Obama was very diplomatic. He handled it well,in your opinion, right?

This has never been a size problem. China can probably build a human bridge all the way to SF with that population (I am probably exaggerating), but that doesn't mean the Chinese will win. You can tell this from modern warfares (Vietnam, Iraq etc). Size and advancement in tech can get us to the winning zone for sure, but we cannot discount locals' discomfort, loyalty and nationalism.

Slightly off topic, but I just had to check: Shanghai to SF is around 9873.51 km. Some internet counter estimates China's population at 1,389,221,780. Assuming 50/50 split (can't find a better one now), average height in China is 161.45 cm. That gives us a possible human chain 2 242 898.56 km long. That's more then enough to reach from China to SF.

I am many happy that dear leader have capability to protect glorious motherland of North Korea from evil America.

On the subject of evil, I guess you'd not credit the following?

North Korea holds as many as 120,000 people in its system of concentration and detention camps, and that 400,000 people have died in these camps from torture, starvation, disease, and execution. These reports, in the context of estimates that North Korea has allowed between 600,000 and 2,500,000 of its people to starve to death while its government squandered the nation’s resources on weapons and luxuries for its ruling elite, suggest that North Korea’s oppression and politically targeted starvation of its people collectively constitute the world’s greatest ongoing atrocity, and almost certainly the most catastrophic anywhere on earth since the end of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979.

In DPRK, we say America is melting pot - All scum rise to top. In DPRK, we take out scum.

it's funny you say 'you cannot blame the Chinese for supporting NK in the past', yet you say 'US as a history of using them and invading foreign countries.' Judge both by the present. US is still the most powerful democratic country that supports innovation, freedom, etc. China is supporting a NK dicatorship which terrorizes its own people, closing off and becoming belligerent, electing a dicatatorship, and threatening other countries.

> US is still the most powerful democratic country that supports innovation, freedom, etc.

I would like to believe that, but personally I think that the US supports innovation and freedom when it is in their best interests.

> China is supporting a NK dicatorship which terrorizes its own people, closing off and becoming belligerent, electing a dicatatorship, and threatening other countries.

Saddam Hussien Shah of Iran Mohamed Morsi Islam Karimov Manuel Noriega

That is a short list of about 30 leaders in modern history which the US has supported which are dictators (or Authoritarian), all have human rights abuses and are belligerent.

As far as NK threatening other countries NK is still at war with SK. I do not know the last time NK invaded a country but I am pretty sure the US has been involved in several invasions and incursions of many countries over the past 50 odd years.

The USA is supporting and have supported (and put in power) dictatorships frequently.

Nobody like to talk about Arabia Saudi for instance, a regime style not so different from NK. People related by blood in charge of everything, all opposition repressed.

About the "threatening other countries" thing, in my opinion, this is the reason we are in this situation now.

Why would the NK regime would be so interested in nuclear weapons in the first place? I bet they get seriously interested when they realized they were part of the "axis of evil" and when they saw what happened in Iraq.

You're thinking too small if you think this is just about self protection.

> "No. The goal of [North Korean] nuclear armament is not mere security from U.S. attack, which conventional weaponry trained on Seoul has preserved since 1953—and through far greater crises than George W. Bush’s little “axis of evil” remark in 2002. As every North Korean knows, the whole point of the military-first policy is “final victory,” or the unification of the peninsula under North Korean rule. Many foreign observers refuse to believe this, on the grounds that Kim Jong-un could not possibly want a nuclear war. They’re missing the whole point.

North Korea needs the capability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons in order to pressure both adversaries into signing peace treaties. This is the only grand bargain it has ever wanted. It has already made clear that a treaty with the South would require ending its ban on pro-North political agitation. The treaty with Washington would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the peninsula. The next step, as Pyongyang has often explained, would be some form of the North–South confederation it has advocated since 1960. One would have to be very naïve not to know what would happen next. As Kim Il-Sung told his Bulgarian counterpart Todor Zhivkov in 1973, “If they listen to us, and a confederation is established, South Korea will be done with.”"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogatio...

I don't understand how that would happen.

First, North Korea can't force the U.S. to do anything, the only they can hope for is to make an invasion too expensive to consider.

Second, even if the U.S. accept (why would they?) to leave South Korea, then what? Do NK have the capability of invading SK? That would be their end.

North Korea doesn't have to force the US. North Korea just has to convince South Korea to sign a peace treaty. From there getting the US to leave is easy.

North Korea doesn't have the capability at present to invade SK. Having nuclear arms makes invasion unlikely and it gives them a seat at the table as a legitimate nuclear power. With that as a position of security, it's not hard to see how NKorea can leverage that into them getting stronger.

Why would the US accept? Can you imagine the political fallout for the President and party in power if they're forced to keep acquiescing to NKorea anyways? Or if they decide to invade NKorea and deal with the aftermath? NKorea doesn't have to launch a missile to present a legitimate threat and project power around the world.

It seems to me that we agree that all the issue it's basically about self-protection from external threads.

No we don't. Self protection is just a small part of the overall strategy.

> Judge both by the present

That's a bit short-sighted. The government changes pretty often. So does public opinion. One day it is a democratic country, another it could migrate towards dictatorship. There's a reason a lot of laws are created to protect you from gov abuse, even though we would assume the gov is not out to get you. Same idea should extend to international politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com