What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?

[Q Classic]

In your United States example, you define a hegonmy as a nation capable of defeating of other nations.
In your China example, you define a hegemony as a nation capable of withstanding an attack by another nation.

... wrong.
you do realize that no nation is able to defeat the united states, right?
china becoming hegemon would be a nation capable of defeating both korea and japan should it so choose. that situation does not, however, turn korea and japan into client states.

Your China example is flawed by the assumption that South Korea and Japan are not capable of defending themselves. You assume that if the US pulls out of East Asia, then Sk and Japan do nothing. It is more likely that in the face of a potential Chinese threat, these countries, and others would form a defensive alliance capable of stopping China. The danger is that this alliance would pose a threat to China so China would build alliances and step up its military. Sk and Japan would respond, probably by building nukes, and the result is a massive arms race that would threaten global security.

don't assume that your beliefs and your arguments are necessarily mine.
i assume that both korea and japan would seek to defend themselves. however, should china's economy continue its growth and approaches wealth approximating korea's, one will eventually have a situation where china's gdp would dwarf both korea's and japan's combined. if china chose to convert that into military strength, no amount of military spending that korea and japan spent would be sufficient to prevent china from becoming a regional hegemon.

tingkai, no offense, but were you intentionally being obtuse here?

===

to try and explain this to u w/o incurring 18 pages of random response. Asia is an extraordinarily unstable region being held in place by a superpower 3000 miles away.

u have china, the juggernaut of the region w/ aggressive designs on the future. has the largest conventional army, growing in sohpistication every minute. Also posesses at present the only nuclear arsenal. this is counterbalanced by america, 3000 miles away, who while shares economic and idealogical concerns has no visceral stake in the matter.

now lets look at one overlooked aspect of america. Isolationism. We entered neither WWI or WWII on time. we recoiled at the very thought of our people dying, saying that "we had our own problems." now for the last 50 years we've been the unmatched economic juggernaut. But our future is uncertain, our baby boomers are set to retire, social security, a booming debt. If we develop sufficient problems of our own, isolationism lies only beneath the surface. it is as much an american ideal as individualism.

How do we grant stability back to a region hopelessly instable and held in place artificially? We can't ask south korea/taiwan/japan to keep up in a conventional arms race w/ china. they will lose. and losing will cost them more than pride. We let them develop a nuclear arsenal. Then they can deal w/ china and north korea. and even more importantly then THEY HAVE A REASON to deal w/ china and north korea. Now everything is deferred to the US. Sitting at a table to a nuclear treaty w/o nuclear weapons is like going to a poker game w/ no chips. they know it, they just sit by the sidelines.

but if taiwan/china/south korea/japan all sat at a table to discuss nuclear proliferation in the region w/ nuclear arsenals. then they'd all be sitting across w/ both a gun and a target(at present china has the only gun, everyone else just has targets). This will lend immeasurable amounts of stability to the region that does not have to be artificially enforced on the hope that america will never revert, never fail or never diminish.

and finally if I was taiwanese, japanese, or south korean. I would all but demand nukes. and they would have a point. large stable democracies have a right to defend themselves.

exaggeration does not become you, yavoon.
and i counter back with the same response that i've posted before.
arming skorea, japan, and taiwan with nukes would invite an arms race that is even more dangerous and debilitating to the region than before.
china has nukes, but most likely will not use them against any asian nation; they're for defensive purposes, as china was the first nation to endorse the no-first-use policy.
to suggest that the three democratic nations arm themselves with nukes rather than relying on the current us nuclear umbrella, as the current political situation stands, would be throwing gasoline on an already unstable hotspot.
japan getting nukes would terrify all the other east asian nations; skorea, already wary of the nkorean and chinese nuclear weaponry, would quickly develop its own, and both nkorea and china would increase their stocks. an increase in chinese stocks would lead taiwan to develop its deterrent, prompting china to develop more weaponry.
nuclear weapons would only further imbalance an already unbalanced situation: neither japan, skorea, or taiwan can build enough nuclear weaponry to guarantee first strike or retaliatory strike capability against china; therefore, it would fail as a deterrent to it.
of course, my position spelled out like that will still be ignored by you, seeing as i obviously have no clue as to what i'm talking about.

===

Rather than talking and grand terms about China's long-term strategic plans and inherent Asian hegemony, what you guys think China would do if there was

1) a pro-democracy coup in North Korea; or

immediately funnel as much funds as possible to the leaders of that coup and pledge any assistance, up to and including military aid, to help ensure and insure their success.
after their success, quickly push them into a commonwealth situation with south korea, as outlined by the current skorean "ideal plan" for reunification. (it entails the formation of a commonwealth: two systems, two countries, but one currency and porous borders, followed by economic reunification, and concluding with economic reunification).

2) there was a coup in North Korea and the new government announced its intentions to immediately re-unite with South Korea?

depends on the nature of the government. if it's the same one as above, following the plan above.
if it's conciliatory and non-belligerent but still stalinist/communist, only endorse the second half of the above plan.
if it's like the current regime, rebuff its advances and increase defense spending.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

to try and explain this to u w/o incurring 18 pages of random response. Asia is an extraordinarily unstable region being held in place by a superpower 3000 miles away.

u have china, the juggernaut of the region w/ aggressive designs on the future. has the largest conventional army, growing in sohpistication every minute. Also posesses at present the only nuclear arsenal. this is counterbalanced by america, 3000 miles away, who while shares economic and idealogical concerns has no visceral stake in the matter.

now lets look at one overlooked aspect of america. Isolationism. We entered neither WWI or WWII on time. we recoiled at the very thought of our people dying, saying that "we had our own problems." now for the last 50 years we've been the unmatched economic juggernaut. But our future is uncertain, our baby boomers are set to retire, social security, a booming debt. If we develop sufficient problems of our own, isolationism lies only beneath the surface. it is as much an american ideal as individualism.

How do we grant stability back to a region hopelessly instable and held in place artificially? We can't ask south korea/taiwan/japan to keep up in a conventional arms race w/ china. they will lose. and losing will cost them more than pride. We let them develop a nuclear arsenal. Then they can deal w/ china and north korea. and even more importantly then THEY HAVE A REASON to deal w/ china and north korea. Now everything is deferred to the US. Sitting at a table to a nuclear treaty w/o nuclear weapons is like going to a poker game w/ no chips. they know it, they just sit by the sidelines.

but if taiwan/china/south korea/japan all sat at a table to discuss nuclear proliferation in the region w/ nuclear arsenals. then they'd all be sitting across w/ both a gun and a target(at present china has the only gun, everyone else just has targets). This will lend immeasurable amounts of stability to the region that does not have to be artificially enforced on the hope that america will never revert, never fail or never diminish.

and finally if I was taiwanese, japanese, or south korean. I would all but demand nukes. and they would have a point. large stable democracies have a right to defend themselves.

exaggeration does not become you, yavoon.
and i counter back with the same response that i've posted before.
arming skorea, japan, and taiwan with nukes would invite an arms race that is even more dangerous and debilitating to the region than before.
china has nukes, but most likely will not use them against any asian nation; they're for defensive purposes, as china was the first nation to endorse the no-first-use policy.
to suggest that the three democratic nations arm themselves with nukes rather than relying on the current us nuclear umbrella, as the current political situation stands, would be throwing gasoline on an already unstable hotspot.
japan getting nukes would terrify all the other east asian nations; skorea, already wary of the nkorean and chinese nuclear weaponry, would quickly develop its own, and both nkorea and china would increase their stocks. an increase in chinese stocks would lead taiwan to develop its deterrent, prompting china to develop more weaponry.
nuclear weapons would only further imbalance an already unbalanced situation: neither japan, skorea, or taiwan can build enough nuclear weaponry to guarantee first strike or retaliatory strike capability against china; therefore, it would fail as a deterrent to it.
of course, my position spelled out like that will still be ignored by you, seeing as i obviously have no clue as to what i'm talking about.

do u think in the time america drops its nuclear umbrella that taiwan will be able to develop nukes. or is it getting invaded just an acceptable consequence? do u think that south korea w/o nukes can hold back china/n. korea. the US is holding ur great peace together. and u continually fail to see the fragility in that. I propose a more robust system that could handle itself. u propose continuing to demand that americans put their very lives/cities and economies on the line in perpetuity.

to maintain as a longterm goal the wishful thinking that things will stay the same is utterly naive.

[Ned]

I do not believe that China would permit Taiwan to acquire nuclear weapons. Any serious move in that direction would result in war and the United States may not be there to help Taiwan.

It is clear, based upon some of the posts in this thread for example, that if Japan were to acquire nuclear weapons, virtually every other Asian nation would be concerned. Regardless of political systems, Japan is not viewed as an ally against China but as an enemy. In fact, one would almost believe that the Taiwanese and South Koreans would join an anti-Japanese alliance if Japan when nuclear. I don't see Japan forming an anti-China Chinese/North Korean alliance with South Korea and Taiwan.

All this means is that the Asian countries would have to continue to rely upon the United States nuclear umbrella even if North Korea where to go nuclear. I don't see how Japan and South Korea and Taiwan could all go nuclear and form a defensive alliance against China/North Korea.

Q. Qubed, I find your conclusion that China would strongly support a pro-Democratic coup in North Korea very interesting. This is counterintuitive.

[GePap]

Many says China want t return to being the Hegemon of East asia: China has not bee the Hegemon of East Asia since the 17th century, if not earlier. China had immense cultural influence on its neighbors, and from time to time, Chinese urlers would expand their empire out from the MIddle Kingdom and into areas like Tibet, or Vietnam. But these times were transiatory, and at least in the last 500 years they were rather content to cut themselves off form all the barbarians and enjoy the wonders of the Middle Kingdom and the only civ in the world... hell, in 1800 Napoelaon could call China a sleeping dragon..well, that menat that even way back then China was asleep.

The chinese leadership has to rule 1.2 billion people: they don;t need hegemony over asia, they already have to deal with more people than live in the entire Western hemisphere. China's rulers are insecure, and it is not jst about the recent change: they still feel insecure about all that happeend to them since 1842. China has, as far as I can see, followed 4 principle policies over the alst 30 years. One China (which, as defined, it not about Hegemony, but "bringing back the Chinese nation as a whole), Economic reforms (the most important, as they make everything else possible, why getting into WTO was key), Balancing India (their chummy relation with Pak) and keeping Japan demilitarized (which is why China is better of with US troops in the region).

They will see NK thorught that prism of weakness: confronting NK may deal a blow to Economic reform, if NK reacts by deciding to wage war anyway: a suicidal NK is bad news for China. And no, NK is politicalyy, if not economically, independent. There is an important difference there.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

In your United States example, you define a hegonmy as a nation capable of defeating of other nations.
In your China example, you define a hegemony as a nation capable of withstanding an attack by another nation.

... wrong.

Okay... So you're saying your definitions are wrong?

You do realise that you provided two different definitions of hegemony.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
you do realize that no nation is able to defeat the united states, right?

Thanks for stating the obvious. No one said otherwise.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
china becoming hegemon would be a nation capable of defeating both korea and japan should it so choose. that situation does not, however, turn korea and japan into client states.

If China has the ability to defeat Korea and Japan then both countries would be forced to follow the Beijing line or risk destruction. They might be granted a modicum of independence for appearance sake, but if, and this is a big if, they feared China then they would not risk offending it. As a result, they become client states.

However in a nuclear age, it is unlikely that China would gain the military strength to dominate SK and Japan.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i assume that both korea and japan would seek to defend themselves. however, should china's economy continue its growth and approaches wealth approximating korea's, one will eventually have a situation where china's gdp would dwarf both korea's and japan's combined. if china chose to convert that into military strength, no amount of military spending that korea and japan spent would be sufficient to prevent china from becoming a regional hegemon.

Wrong.. military power is not a simple, straight translation of economic power. Just because China's GDP might become bigger does not automatically mean China would have the resources to defeat SK or Japan.

For example, while SK and Japan would be able to put 100% of their military resources towards defending their nations, China would only be able to allocate a fraction of its military force to an attack. It would still have to commit resources to defending its other borders.

Or just look at the second world war. Britain and France were economically stronger than Germany in 1939. The French military had more tanks, IIRC more aircraft, and more men under arms than Germany, but Germany was still able to defeat France. This is a prime example that shows economic strength, and the size of an army, does not guarantee military victory.

No offense, but do you know anything about military history?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of political systems, Japan is not viewed as an ally against China but as an enemy. In fact, one would almost believe that the Taiwanese and South Koreans would join an anti-Japanese alliance if Japan when nuclear. I don't see Japan forming an anti-China Chinese/North Korean alliance with South Korea and Taiwan.

Why do you say that Asian nations view Japan as an enemy?

[The Mad Monk]

Because that's the message we've gotten over the years.

[Ned]

Tinkai, there is a saying in China that it takes three generations to forget. Nearly sixty years have passed since the end of the war. Perhaps it is possible that the Koreans and Chinese have forgotten. However, there continue be incidents that demonstrate the not all in Korea and China have forgotten. Even the current prime minister has been criticized for visiting a cemetery where Japanese WWII war dead are buried.

No, I think it would be very hard even today for South Korea and Taiwan to form an alliance with Japan.

(I have, though, spoken recently with a ROC native who speak kindly of the former Japanese administration. This, though, may be an aberation.)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Tinkai, there is a saying in China that it takes three generations to forget. Nearly sixty years have passed since the end of the war. Perhaps it is possible that the Koreans and Chinese have forgotten. However, there continue be incidents that demonstrate the not all in Korea and China have forgotten. Even the current prime minister has been criticized for visiting a cemetery where Japanese WWII war dead are buried.

No, I think it would be very hard even today for South Korea and Taiwan to form an alliance with Japan.

(I have, though, spoken recently with a ROC native who speak kindly of the former Japanese administration. This, though, may be an aberation.)

From what I can tell, people have not forgotten the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII, and they are angered by the Japanese refusal to admit their crimes, but that doesn't seem to translate into massive hostility towards the Japanese.

Japanese travellers and investors are welcomed throughout the region (although I'm not sure about South Korea). Japan is a popular tourist destination. Japanese culture is admired and emulated.

Would this translate into support for an alliance with Japan? Difficult to say.

One thing to remember is that the crimes committed by the Germans did not stop countries from forming an alliance with West Germany. Politicians are quite comfortable with putting past crimes in the closet when faced with a perceived present danger.

So I think alliances would be possible with the ironic exception of Taiwan. Even though many Taiwanese have strong ties to Japan, a Taiwan-Japan alliance would simply not be feasible. It would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The Chinese government would see it as an act of war.

Edit: Of course these are just my observations. Other Apolytoners in Asia may see things completely differently.

[Q Classic]

yavoon, this is dedicated to you

because you seem to have trouble isolating exactly what it is that i say.

do u think in the time america drops its nuclear umbrella that taiwan will be able to develop nukes.

depends on how much time the us gave in warning. if the democratic asian nations were given a year's notice, all of them would likely have the technological capabilities to have small nuclear arsenals and viable production lines by the end of that year.

or is it getting invaded just an acceptable consequence?

is creating enough weaponry to vaporize every single zipperhead twenty times over with their home-brew weapons an acceptable consequence?

do u think that south korea w/o nukes can hold back china/n.

au contraire. what i've been saying is that a south korea with nukes would no more be able to hold back china than a south korea without nukes. following the same logic as before, a nuclear south korea would only serve to increase china's nuclear stocks. south korea will never have the economy to outspend china to the extent that it alone can guarantee a second strike retaliatory capability, let alone a viable first strike capability that would eliminate china's nuclear stocks.
in any case, korea can hold back china, whether it has nukes or not; it had done so for a few thousand years. china having nuclear weapons does not currently imbalance the situation, while a nuclear south korea coupled with a nuclear allies in america, taiwan, and japan would.

korea. the US is holding ur great peace together.

right.
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
don't kid yourself. that's not a peace, and the us is not holding it together on its own.
live ammunition is regularly traded back and forth, as are detonating mines, the occasional naval skirmishes, belligerent windbag speeches, and the rare infilitrations. if you choose to call that a peace, so be it. you'd be wrong.
as for the us's part in keeping the peace all by itself: wrong again. if anything, it's the lack of support that either korea gets from its allies: nkorea would get zero support from china should they get adventurous, and skorea would find itself blacklisted from american--and western--support should it go gallivanting without a very good reason.
add to that the fact that both koreas are heavily fortified, such that any military action would be costly to both sides, and that neither side particularly wants to get decimated...
it's a cost-benefit scenario. neither country has the will or the means to break the situation back into a hot war.

and u continually fail to see the fragility in that.

i continually fail to see the fragility? really, yavoon, you make me laugh.
your cousin isn't the one facing thousands of artillery pieces and tens of thousands of machine guns and automatic rifles right now being stationed less than 25 kilometers from the border. your relatives aren't the ones facing death by complete immolation from artillery shells. your history isn't the one facing complete eradication by the spectre of conventional war, let alone complete annihialation by weapons of mass destruction.
so don't lecture me about failing to see the fragility, friend. if you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you'd note that i:
a) cannot understand why skorea put so much of itself into seoul, practically placing its jugular right within reach of north korea's military;
b) show grave concern in the event of any collapse, as skorea currently does not have the political will nor the financial wealth to absorb the shock of 22 million new citizens, the majority of which are starving;
c) shy away from any overt military solution, precisely because the situation is so unstable;
d) would prefer a solution that did not increase weapons stocks in the area because the situation, already unstable, does not need to have more fuel added to the fire--i see the difference between now and your solution as being the difference between two people pointing guns at each other, and two people with guns pointed and smoking cigarrettes atop four leaking propane tanks atop a thousand tons of c4.

I propose a more robust system that could handle itself.

see d).

u propose continuing to demand that americans put their very lives/cities and economieis on the line in perpetuity.

where did i say that? i'll tell you: i didn't. if anything, i'm suggesting that we do not go to war simply on the basis that it would hurt our economy for no easy or tangible benefit in the short term.
yes, i propose keeping american troops there: but further away from the dmz, where they can actually do something rather than be killed.
keeping america to its current duties as an ally, it is only natural for americans to put their lives on the line for their allies; indeed, in the event of any war, don't worry, most of the dead and wounded won't be american, so rest your little head.
if nkorea does develop strike capability at america, america's economy will be able to recover quite swiftly: only alaska and the northwestern pacific region are immediately threatened, leaving all of california, the northeast, a resurgent southeast, a vibrant midwest, and a burgeoning southwest to pick up the slack and rebuild.
all of japan and all of south korea are within strike range. it would be far harder for them to recover.

to maintain as a longterm goal the wishful thinking that things will stay the same is utterly naive.

again, you're not reading anything, are you?
i don't expect things to stay the same. many times before, i state that we have to do something about nkorea, without the use of military force, because if we let it fester now, it will blow up in our faces later.

if you're going to argue with me, please try and read what i write.

[Q Classic]

ned:

It is clear, based upon some of the posts in this thread for example, that if Japan were to acquire nuclear weapons, virtually every other Asian nation would be concerned. Regardless of political systems, Japan is not viewed as an ally against China but as an enemy. In fact, one would almost believe that the Taiwanese and South Koreans would join an anti-Japanese alliance if Japan when nuclear. I don't see Japan forming an anti-China Chinese/North Korean alliance with South Korea and Taiwan.

technically or more likely unofficially in the case of taiwan, they're already allied. they're more allies of convenience, being the trio of democratic, capitalist nations. even if they toughened up their alliance to nato-levels, they could easily be outspent by a resurgent china.

Q. Qubed, I find your conclusion that China would strongly support a pro-Democratic coup in North Korea very interesting. This is counterintuitive.

^^; looks like i misread that thing. i was responding as if i had control of any of the democratic nations. a chinese government would likely neither support nor sabotage a democratic coup in north korea.

[q]

(I have, though, spoken recently with a ROC native who speak kindly of the former Japanese administration. This, though, may be an aberation.)

on the whole, the taiwanese have more favorable views towards the japanese, mainly because the japanese were not as crushing to them during the occupation era. koreans, on the other hand, fared far less well, and thus, their distaste is far greater.

===

The chinese leadership has to rule 1.2 billion people: they don;t need hegemony over asia, they already have to deal with more people than live in the entire Western hemisphere.

ruling 1.2 billion people effectively under one banner, under one government, would be quite a sizeable feat.
especially if it can provide us$10000+ per capita income, even more so if it funneled those monies into its military.
even if it didn't, it still has enough military capability to make a run for hegemony should it so choose.

===

tingkai:

Okay... So you're saying your definitions are wrong?
You do realise that you provided two different definitions of hegemony.

no, i'm not saying my definitions are wrong.
perhaps i did provide two different definitions, but you do realize that they are not mutually exclusive?

If China has the ability to defeat Korea and Japan then both countries would be forced to follow the Beijing line or risk destruction. They might be granted a modicum of independence for appearance sake, but if, and this is a big if, they feared China then they would not risk offending it. As a result, they become client states.

britain, germany, and france could be defeated by america should it so choose. are they client states?
mexico, cuba, honduras, brazil, venezuela, and japan could be defeated by america should it so choose. are they client states?
china could defeat pakistan, vietnam, both koreas, and japan right now if it so chose. are they client states?
in the past, both korea and japan looked towards china for leadership when it was the de facto hegemon of east asia. neither were client states then.

However in a nuclear age, it is unlikely that China would gain the military strength to dominate SK and Japan.

not on conventional merits alone. because it has the potential of a much greater latent economic strength if it continues on this growth path, its aggregate military power, including nuclear stocks, would provide it a decisive advantage over both nations, even if both nations chose to develop nuclear deterrents.
if china raised its per capita gdp to south korea's levels, not only would it be able to develop first-strike capabilities, it would be able to develop enough to deny any retaliatory strike, as well as potentially even wiping out much of both nations without even having to break a sweat on the people's army's foreheads.

Wrong.. military power is not a simple, straight translation of economic power. Just because China's GDP might become bigger does not automatically mean China would have the resources to defeat SK or Japan.

i realize that there is quite a bit of marginal returns here. however, we can make obvious comparisons: skorea spends 2.7% of its gdp on the military, yet outspends nkorea by at five times, which spends close to half of its gdp. japan spends less than 2.7%, yet outspends south korea by a hefty margin. the united states spends less than 5%, yet outspends much of the world combined.
if china approached south korea's gdp levels per capita, and developed technology comparable to that of the united states, it could spend less of its gdp than the united states and still outspend the united states.
more money, in this case, could go to anything--and if spent wisely by a military, can prove to be devastatingly effective.

For example, while SK and Japan would be able to put 100% of their military resources towards defending their nations, China would only be able to allocate a fraction of its military force to an attack. It would still have to commit resources to defending its other borders.

you do realize that china could abandon its no-first-use policy, and did briefly consider using such weapons in any potential invasion of taiwan?
nuclear weapons are unfortunately the great wildcard in modern warfare. used tactically, it can theoretically decimate formations and fortifications, creating vulnerabilities where there previously were none.

Or just look at the second world war. Britain and France were economically stronger than Germany in 1939. The French military had more tanks, IIRC more aircraft, and more men under arms than Germany, but Germany was still able to defeat France. This is a prime example that shows economic strength, and the size of an army, does not guarantee military victory.

i never said greater military strength guaranteed victory. i merely said that odds would very definitely be against anybody who sought to oppose china, in such a situation.
btw: in 1939, germany's gdp was greater than that of france's and england's individually, mostly due to rearmament and government spending. this did somewhat, actually translate into technologically superior tanks and aircraft for the german side. numbers don't matter as much as what the money is spent on: the classic dilemma of quality versus quantity. surely you, a masterful military historian, must realize this?

No offense, but do you know anything about military history?

i'm not so bold to say i know much about military history, nor do i pretend to say i'm expert in it. i am willing to say that i know enough about certain situations to be able to draw my own conclusions.

Why do you say that Asian nations view Japan as an enemy?

unlike most in the west, asians unfortunately have long memories. thus, in the case of korea, you have much displeasure leftover from not only hideyoshi's invasion during the 16th century, but also japan's brutal annexation and occupation between 1905 and 1945. in the case of china, you have the sino-japanese war, everything in manchuria, the disaster at nanking for china, as well as numerous other brutal battles during the 30s and 40s. those two nations, being immediate neighbors of japan, not holding too friendly view about their militarism...
to say that asians view them as an enemy may be a bit too harsh, but to pretend or imagine that they would not show much nervousness and anxiety over a militarized japan would be ignoring some very obvious signs.

Japanese travellers and investors are welcomed throughout the region (although I'm not sure about South Korea).

travellers are not quite welcomed, but they are not shunned in korea. there is still much protectionism, however.

Japan is a popular tourist destination. Japanese culture is admired and emulated.

some aspects of it, mostly the industrialization path. that's about it, really.

One thing to remember is that the crimes committed by the Germans did not stop countries from forming an alliance with West Germany. Politicians are quite comfortable with putting past crimes in the closet when faced with a perceived present danger.

as i've noted: allies of convenience. they're possible, and indeed do exist. i'm not certain, however, of their ability to develop anything as strong as nato, let alone develop anything in the future like the eu.

[Q Classic]

appears i'm yelling at yavoon.

if you take offense at that, sorry. i still mean every word i say in that post.

[yavoon]

Re: yavoon, this is dedicated to you

Originally posted by Q Cubed
because you seem to have trouble isolating exactly what it is that i say.

do u think in the time america drops its nuclear umbrella that taiwan will be able to develop nukes.

depends on how much time the us gave in warning. if the democratic asian nations were given a year's notice, all of them would likely have the technological capabilities to have small nuclear arsenals and viable production lines by the end of that year.

or is it getting invaded just an acceptable consequence?

is creating enough weaponry to vaporize every single zipperhead twenty times over with their home-brew weapons an acceptable consequence?

do u think that south korea w/o nukes can hold back china/n.

au contraire. what i've been saying is that a south korea with nukes would no more be able to hold back china than a south korea without nukes. following the same logic as before, a nuclear south korea would only serve to increase china's nuclear stocks. south korea will never have the economy to outspend china to the extent that it alone can guarantee a second strike retaliatory capability, let alone a viable first strike capability that would eliminate china's nuclear stocks.
in any case, korea can hold back china, whether it has nukes or not; it had done so for a few thousand years. china having nuclear weapons does not currently imbalance the situation, while a nuclear south korea coupled with a nuclear allies in america, taiwan, and japan would.

korea. the US is holding ur great peace together.

right.
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
don't kid yourself. that's not a peace, and the us is not holding it together on its own.
live ammunition is regularly traded back and forth, as are detonating mines, the occasional naval skirmishes, belligerent windbag speeches, and the rare infilitrations. if you choose to call that a peace, so be it. you'd be wrong.
as for the us's part in keeping the peace all by itself: wrong again. if anything, it's the lack of support that either korea gets from its allies: nkorea would get zero support from china should they get adventurous, and skorea would find itself blacklisted from american--and western--support should it go gallivanting without a very good reason.
add to that the fact that both koreas are heavily fortified, such that any military action would be costly to both sides, and that neither side particularly wants to get decimated...
it's a cost-benefit scenario. neither country has the will or the means to break the situation back into a hot war.

and u continually fail to see the fragility in that.

i continually fail to see the fragility? really, yavoon, you make me laugh.
your cousin isn't the one facing thousands of artillery pieces and tens of thousands of machine guns and automatic rifles right now being stationed less than 25 kilometers from the border. your relatives aren't the ones facing death by complete immolation from artillery shells. your history isn't the one facing complete eradication by the spectre of conventional war, let alone complete annihialation by weapons of mass destruction.
so don't lecture me about failing to see the fragility, friend. if you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you'd note that i:
a) cannot understand why skorea put so much of itself into seoul, practically placing its jugular right within reach of north korea's military;
b) show grave concern in the event of any collapse, as skorea currently does not have the political will nor the financial wealth to absorb the shock of 22 million new citizens, the majority of which are starving;
c) shy away from any overt military solution, precisely because the situation is so unstable;
d) would prefer a solution that did not increase weapons stocks in the area because the situation, already unstable, does not need to have more fuel added to the fire--i see the difference between now and your solution as being the difference between two people pointing guns at each other, and two people with guns pointed and smoking cigarrettes atop four leaking propane tanks atop a thousand tons of c4.

I propose a more robust system that could handle itself.

see d).

u propose continuing to demand that americans put their very lives/cities and economieis on the line in perpetuity.

where did i say that? i'll tell you: i didn't. if anything, i'm suggesting that we do not go to war simply on the basis that it would hurt our economy for no easy or tangible benefit in the short term.
yes, i propose keeping american troops there: but further away from the dmz, where they can actually do something rather than be killed.
keeping america to its current duties as an ally, it is only natural for americans to put their lives on the line for their allies; indeed, in the event of any war, don't worry, most of the dead and wounded won't be american, so rest your little head.
if nkorea does develop strike capability at america, america's economy will be able to recover quite swiftly: only alaska and the northwestern pacific region are immediately threatened, leaving all of california, the northeast, a resurgent southeast, a vibrant midwest, and a burgeoning southwest to pick up the slack and rebuild.
all of japan and all of south korea are within strike range. it would be far harder for them to recover.

to maintain as a longterm goal the wishful thinking that things will stay the same is utterly naive.

again, you're not reading anything, are you?
i don't expect things to stay the same. many times before, i state that we have to do something about nkorea, without the use of military force, because if we let it fester now, it will blow up in our faces later.

if you're going to argue with me, please try and read what i write.

u have so many ad hominim attacks. hell two months after the original argument u still go around in random threads claiming victory for the sole purpose of igniting this again. Its funny how u don't think the peace is fragile yet u mention how often people exchange gunfire.

are u saying that china will first strike all three capitalist nations on every centimeter of their territory? cuz thats what u seem to be suggesting. all one needs to maintain retaliatory capability is a nuclear submarine under the polar caps. 5 warheads/missile. should the economies wish, they could accomplish that. and then u have a standoff.

ur constant claiming of victory and other inane ad hominems as well as complete tangential arguments are hard to muddle through. I'll just refer u back to my first post for my thoughts.

sorry q. I'm not a 6 page arguer. if u don't bring up concise points in a orderly fashion. I'm not going to shotgun method this.

[Q Classic]

u have so many ad hominim attacks. hell two months after the original argument u still go around in random threads claiming victory for the sole purpose of igniting this again.

give me an example of an ad hominem attack i've made against you.

Its funny how u don't think the peace is fragile yet u mention how often people exchange gunfire.

i answer this quite clearly in the above post that you quoted. not only do i think that the situation is unstable, making the peace fragile, but it's precisely because of the gunfire situation among other reasons that i think it's unstable.
it's funny how you don't seem to notice that.

are u saying that china will first strike all three capitalist nations on every centimeter of their territory? cuz thats what u seem to be suggesting. all one needs to maintain retaliatory capability is a nuclear submarine under the polar caps. 5 warheads/missile. should the economies wish, they could accomplish that. and then u have a standoff.

neither south korea nor japan currently has boomer submarines. they could develop such weapons platforms, but it would indeed be a pyrrhic retaliation in their case. five nuclear weapons to take out beijing, shanghai, shenzen, hong kong, and, say, harbin... and yet at the same time, they won't have anything to go back to. not much of a standoff, if you ask me.

ur constant claiming of victory and other inane ad hominems as well as complete tangential arguments are hard to muddle through. I'll just refer u back to my first post for my thoughts.

sorry q. I'm not a 6 page arguer. if u don't bring up concise points in a orderly fashion. I'm not going to shotgun method this.

i'm still asking you to point out a specific ad hominem attack, and that previous post was not "shotgun method". i answered every single point you made with my own, in an orderly fashion: each of your points is rebutted immediately thereafter by my points.
nice try, though, trying to weasel out of this by going to procedure rather than material.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

well 5 warheads/missile. I think its like 15 missiles/sub. tho I could be wrong(easy to look up). at any rate yah. nuclear annhilation sucks.

china ain't giving up its nukes though.

and I did say the peace was unstable. infact thats one of the centerpoints of my argument. that the region as a whole is very unstable. and that this patching it soto speak w/ american might. While it will work as long as america is as strong and as willing as it is today. is not something that if I were an enemy of china I would rely on.

I will state again that I propose a more robust system capable of handling itself. WHEN america is no longer the world super power. mind u when america is no longer willing we will be in the UN condemning what china has done w/ GREAT VIGOR! we will even write up many proposals saying how bad china has been. and probably even second them, leading of course to them being ratified!