Dear Leader Kim visited China secretly

[Pekka]

Got it on AFP news service:

" Kim Jong-Il visited China, won nuclear crisis backing -- report (11/04/2003)

SEOUL (AFP) North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il paid a secret visit to China last month, shortly after the start of the war in Iraq, according to a US-based global intelligence consultancy citing Russian intelligence sources.
During his visit, the reclusive Kim met new Chinese President Hu Jintao, who said China would not "stand idle" if relations deteriorated further between Pyongyang and Washington, according to Strategic Forecasts.
The visit occurred during a 50-day period which ended last week and during which Kim, 61, disappeared from public view in Pyongyang, the report said.
North Korea is engaged in a standoff with the United States over its atomic weapons ambitions, with Washington demanding the Stalinist state scrap its nuclear programmes before it enters into dialogue.
South Korean officials said they were unable to confirm the visit, which Strategic Forecasts said succeeded in healing a rift between Pyongyang and Beijing over Beijing's detention in October of Yang Bin, a Chinese citizen chosen by North Korea to head a proposed new economic zone at Sinuiju on the border with China."


Lovely.

[Pekka]

Oh and link http://www.afp.com/english/newsml/st....msimeiua.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pekka
according to a US-based global intelligence consultancy citing Russian intelligence sources.

This is excellent.

[ravagon]

During his visit, the reclusive Kim met new Chinese President Hu Jintao, who said China would not "stand idle" if relations deteriorated further between Pyongyang and Washington, according to Strategic Forecasts.

Surely the NK's can't have been stupid enough to take such wording as a green light ...
Doesn't actually say which way China would jump.

[CerberusIV]

I can understand China tolerating NK playing games with the US and irritating the White House. I find it hard to believe that they really want a nuclear armed unstable dictatorship on their border, particularly since it will hardly encourage economic investment in southern China.

[Sava]

NK is a very close Ally of China. Whether China makes it official or not, NK is like a little brother to them. Bush might be able to bully smaller, less powerful countries. But NK and China won't put up with his "axis of evil" type bullsh1t. I just hope that dealing with this situation holds off until after Bush is voted out in 2004. He'd mess it up more than he already has.

[Urban Ranger]

Nah, GWB won't be able to do anything. The North Koreans supposedly have nuclear weapons, so they are pretty much immune to US aggression.

[Arrian]

China is NK's ally. They will back them - to a point - if for no other reason than to stick it to the US.

The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).

I just hope we don't bend over (again) and give them more free ****. Let them fire missles into the ocean. Responding to that by giving them things just reinforces their belief that the more weapons they can threaten to use, the more free **** they can get from us (US, Japan, SK).

-Arrian

[My Wife Hates CIV]

China can't even take an island 80 miles off its coast. when the US decides to do an 'iraq' to NK, China will do what china can... sit back and watch.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).'

same fluff i heard 4 weeks ago... hmmm...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
China can't even take an island 80 miles off its coast. when the US decides to do an 'iraq' to NK, China will do what china can... sit back and watch.

You are confused.

"Unable" and "unwilling" are distinctly different.

[Drake Tungsten]

This sounds like bullshit; China doesn't want a nuclear North Korea anymore than the other powers in the region. Why would they want to give the Japanese an excuse to get nukes?

BTW, China is unable to take Taiwan...

[Arrian]

'The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).'

same fluff i heard 4 weeks ago... hmmm...

I have no doubt that US conventional forces could defeat NKs, handily, but I doubt it could be done before NKs artillery pounded the everliving crapola out of Seoul. That isn't acceptable.

-Arrian

[yavoon]

its also likely that the US would employ MAD in the region and arm japan w/ nukes. which would scare the bajeezus out of china/n. korea.

so I dont see the upside for china.

[Arrian]

I would agree there. Which is why China will back NK only to a point. If push really does come to shove (Japan really gets serious about getting nukes... which is by no means a given), I think China would apply some pressure to NK. Nobody over there really wants a nuclear Japan.

-Arrian

[monkspider]

This news should effectively end the romantic notions of China backing America in any future agressions on the Korean peninsula.

[Q Classic]

'The US isn't gonna attack NK, not only because of the nukes they supposedly have, but because even sans-nukes, an invasion would be bloody as hell (civilian casualties would probably be godawful, particularly if the NKs opened up on Seoul).'
same fluff i heard 4 weeks ago... hmmm...

pardon me while i bitterly laugh.

fluff? easy for you to say when it's not your relatives under the gun, mwhc.

seoul is a scant 40 miles from the DMZ, which has probably on the order of three-quarters of a million north korean troops stationed near or on it. north korea also has many thousands of hardened artillery placements and missile artillery placements which can strike much of south korea, seoul included.

furthermore, any path to invading south korea would have to go through seoul; the mountains in the east are far too difficult to invade by; and all the major highways in south korea go to seoul.

how is any of this fluff?

in an armed conflict, seoul would be pulverized. thousands, if not tens of thousands, of koreans would be killed and injured. maybe more.

perhaps you don't care, mwhc, because they're only statistics? statistics in a nation that is half a world away, even?

[Q Classic]

its also likely that the US would employ MAD in the region and arm japan w/ nukes. which would scare the bajeezus out of china/n. korea.
so I dont see the upside for china.

i highly doubt that. a nuclear japan will only trigger more arms race in the region--skorea would no doubt go nuclear in a flash. scaring the bejeezus out of nkorea and china? you have that right. scaring them into buying more weapons and making more nukes. you can bet your ass a remilitarized japan will cause china to bring more forces in the region, push for modernization and expansion in their military, and for nkorea to apportion an even larger part of their rapidly shrinking budget to military spending and make them even more the crazy man.

besides, japan and skorea could do it any time it wanted to--the us doesn't need to give it to them. the only reason they haven't is that one of them has suffered through two nuclear blasts, and both of them are protected under the us nuclear umbrella.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by yavoon
its also likely that the US would employ MAD in the region and arm japan w/ nukes. which would scare the bajeezus out of china/n. korea.

so I dont see the upside for china.

It would also scare the bajeezus out of South Korea, Russia, Viet Nam, Singapore, Indonesia, The Philipines, and possibly Australia.

Have I left anyone out?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


It would also scare the bajeezus out of South Korea, Russia, Viet Nam, Singapore, Indonesia, The Philipines, and possibly Australia.

Have I left anyone out?

France...?

[yavoon]

yes japan has suffered two nuclear blasts and now north korea threatans a third.

it is less likely now that we seem to be moving under the idea of the US controls everything. but it would be much more hands off to hand nukes to japan. and I dont think it would start the arms race u think.

its not like the US/USSR cold war. japan would only posess limited MAD ability. how would china building more things counter that MAD ability? it wouldn't. there is no logistical counter. so ne buildup that china/ north korea would do would be independant in goal from whether or not japan has nukes.

and frankly I'm not worried about large stable democracies posessing nukes. its the ppl who aren't, they worry me.

[Q Classic]

it is less likely now that we seem to be moving under the idea of the US controls everything. but it would be much more hands off to hand nukes to japan. and I dont think it would start the arms race u think.

why not? i doubt you have much knowledge of the political climate of the region, nor do you seem to be well versed in the history of east asia.
a militarized japan will only create an extremely nervous south korea and an worried china--which would cause an arms race in the interest of both nations never again losing to japan.
it appears you also haven't taken the lessons of south asia to heart. a nuclear india did nothing but cause pakistan to reveal its nuclear capability. now, less than a decade later, both nations have aggressively been developing their nuclear weapons programs and missile programs, as well as investing heavily in their militaries. how is that not an arms race?

its not like the US/USSR cold war. japan would only posess limited MAD ability.

you don't seem to understand the concept of mad. mad is mutually assured destruction, and it only worked between the us and ussr. why? because only those two nations had enough capability to wipe out each other ENTIRELY did it work. japan having a few nukes means that it could conceivably only strike a few locations in nkorea OR china, not both; china would naturally build more than enough nuclear weapons to take care of all japan, and then invest some more to be able to fend off the us. nkorea does not have enough to assure destruction of japan.
the idea of mad is that a few nukes are bad. an overabundance of ready nukes is good.

how would china building more things counter that MAD ability? it wouldn't. there is no logistical counter.

there was a reason why the us and the ussr kept building nuclear weapons until together the could have vaporized every single city on earth four times over. overproduction of nuclear weapons IS the logistical counter in mad. why? second-strike. that's another big part of mad.
naturally, your opponent will try to take out your nuclear facilities in his first strike and wipe you out as well. the only way to counter that and mutually assure his destruction is have so many nuclear weapons he cannot hope to destroy them all.

so ne buildup that china/ north korea would do would be independant in goal from whether or not japan has nukes.

false. japan is a major economic power in the region as well as a nation with a history of aggression towards its neighbors. people do not forget.

please, in the future, use less abbreviations. i could care less about capitalization, but i don't like having to read the shortened words.

[yavoon]

china already has all the nuclear capability it needs in respect to japan and north korea is stretching its limit militarily right now. they're gna have as much military as they can afford whether or not japan has this or that. sure they might use it as justification for being more open, but that wont prevent them either way.

as for south korea, maybe it will. they certainly have a history of intensely hating each other. I just dont see tensions rising between japan/south korea over military matters nemore. they're both democracies both are becoming increasingly pacifist(especially japan).

japan was militaristic but so was germany, now both are paranoidal pacifists.

[yavoon]

oh yah and I could care less what u think of my poor grammar or internet abbreviations

[Q Classic]

china already has all the nuclear capability it needs in respect to japan and north korea is stretching its limit militarily right now. they're gna have as much military as they can afford whether or not japan has this or that.

yes, yes they are. but a remilitarized japan will only make them spend more in the way of the military. it won't make them more open about it. it will only make them spend more on it.

as for south korea, maybe it will. they certainly have a history of intensely hating each other. I just dont see tensions rising between japan/south korea over military matters nemore. they're both democracies both are becoming increasingly pacifist(especially japan).

of course not. they're currently allies of convenience, against two communist nations, only one of them a terrifying threat.
however, they are also strong economic competitors with each other, and both nations still have much trouble getting along, at least politically. the tensions are there, they're just less of an issue now compared to the more pressing problem of the north.
a reunified korea would unfortunately create much concern for japan, since it is in their best interest that skorea is not stronger as a competitor.

[yavoon]

thats probably true but then ur talking economically. I mean tensions rise n fall between america and europe, we don't threatan lobbing nukes at each other.

[Q Classic]

no, but that's because europe and america have never held as much antipathy for each other as korea and japan.

besides, both nations probably wouldn't strike each other first, nor would they consider military conflict as a viable option.

that would not prevent them, however, from spending ludicrous amounts in the military.

[yavoon]

hrrrm I think increased spending could occur. I dont buy ur ludicrous amts. both are capitalist whores and are fully apprised of how well their std of living is doing because of it.

they are hardly gna simply shift gears because a nation they dont even think military conflict is a viable option w/ has nukes when countries that scare ne sane person more ALREADY HAVE THEM.

[Q Classic]

hrrrm I think increased spending could occur. I dont buy ur ludicrous amts. both are capitalist whores and are fully apprised of how well their std of living is doing because of it.

america is a "capitalist whore" as well... and i think it's spending ludicrous amounts on the military.
at least, in the wrong places in the military--for instance, i honestly doubt we need as many nuclear weapons as we do. it's expensive to maintain them. but we do.
why? because that's precisely how mad works. we have more than enough nuclear weapons to take on any nation that strikes us with a nuclear blast. not only do we have more than enough for a second strike capability, we have enough to postively annihialate them. that's how our nuclear deterrent works.
in the case of japan and south korea, where they both won't have enough resources to construct enough nuclear weapons to mutually annihialate each other, or even mount a credible second strike capability against china, the situation would become a lot less stable--you'd have to be willing to trust the sanity, stability, and have faith that they won't engage in gung-ho adventurism. that's much less effective, seeing how both india and pakistan treat each other.

neither of them, in spending ludicrous amounts, would be "shifting gears", as you say. both nations have such productivity that they both spend less than 5% of their GDP on defense; even a small increase, say, to 6 or 7%, would not hurt their economies all that much (perhaps even give them a boost, as they might purchase from native corporations).

furthermore, with the low quantities of nuclear weapons that we are assuming both japan and south korea can field, one would consider that conventional forces would be used in any and all engagements unless one nation were in danger of being completely overrun.
how best to avoid such an event? invest in a few nuclear weapons to raise that spectre, and then invest far more in a larger, stronger conventional force to ensure that any such notions are dropped before confrontations occur.

even so, this matters not because the true issue at hand is whether japan should go nuclear to deter nkorea. i'm saying no--because the risks of touching off an arms race is too great, and you have shown nothing to prove that an arms race would NOT occur.

[yavoon]

US spends 4% of its gdp on military and last I checked 15% of its budget.

ummm I certainly have given points to the contrary, just cuz u dont like em doesn't negate their existance.

also its pretty clear ur biasing a lot of ur points w/ adjectives like ludicrous. and the seemingly random US bashing is a lil disturbing too. basically ur saying "omg japan has nukes" we're s. korea lets build a shitload! and Im saying tha twont happen. I not saying s. korea wont get any, just that this ever escalating japan/s. korea arms race wont happen.

u've conceeded neither consider military action as a viable resolution of conflict between the two. and that there are more dangerous nations in the region THAT ALREADY HAVE NUKES. but u still u insist an ardent pacifist like japan posessing nukes will ignite a firestorm th elikes of which the world has not witnessed before.

I'm sure if n. korea was a sleeping giant and japan started gettin nukes n. korea would go crazy. but thats not the case. n. korea is a spent starving nation w/ an undetermined future. it spends all it really can on its military.

china might play games but they have all the nukes they need wrt japan. like I've already said and u haven't disagreed w/.

so I really dont know where that leaves u? I guess to flame me again. I really thot this was winding down then all of a sudden u flared it back up.