China warns North Korea: You’re on your own if you go after the United States

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Well they could be smuggling other stuff as well, which they're not supposed to. Considering they'll fight for NK side, in an attempted coup, there's no reason to believe that China isn't a major chess player on the board. They might not hold an ace but an armed conflict will bring China right back to the Korean war, no matter who escalates first.

This isn't a big secret. North Korea is a buffer for China, if there is a Korean reunification the US could/would have a metric shitton of troops right on their border and that is understandably something they don't want.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Repeat after me, N.Korea is a side issue for China. China is far more interested in expanding it's borders off the coast. If we allowed them to expand unimpeded, they'd probably serve up N. Korea on a platter.

No, they won't. Again, North Korea is a buffer for China and they have no intention on losing it.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
This isn't a big secret. North Korea is a buffer for China, if there is a Korean reunification the US could/would have a metric shitton of troops right on their border and that is understandably something they don't want.
So they're using North Korea for their selfish reasons? Why does a unified Korea sound so horrific anyway, or would a democratic Korea be more of a threat?
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,001
126
This just in: No shit!!

Christ, is this news? Nothing has changed. NK is attacking nobody. The US is not attacking them. China wants everyone to just shut up and buy things from them. NK talks about war with us because they need to have an enemy that unites them and we talk about war with them because we need to have an excuse for military spending. The situation on the Korean peninsula hasn't changed in the last two weeks, it hasn't changed since Trump got elected, hell, it hasn't changed in 50 years.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,001
126
Nuclear missiles does not change anything? o_O

No.

We had nukes. Then Russia got them. Anything change other than us using it as an excuse for military spending?
Then the UK and France got nukes. Anything change?
Then China. Anything change?
The India and Pakistan. Anything change?
Then Israel. Anything change?

Every country acts in its own best interest. Period. Whether democracy or dictatorship every government is most committed to keeping itself in power. Paving the roads and locking up criminals come far down the list. NK getting nukes changes jack shit because NK won't use them. Every fucking thing the henny penny doom mongers say about NK was said about Russia getting nukes and it was said about China getting nukes. Oh no! They're unstable! They can't be trusted! They could nuke us at any time! This is the end! Run and hide!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!

No. Nothing changes. Using nukes is suicide and in the last 50 years NK has not done a single thing to demonstrate that they're suicidal. They talk, they talk, they talk, they talk. They don't do anything that will prompt anyone else (read, us or China) to squash them like the annoying little insect they are. They just talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,532
759
146
No.

We had nukes. Then Russia got them. Anything change other than us using it as an excuse for military spending?
Then the UK and France got nukes. Anything change?
Then China. Anything change?
The India and Pakistan. Anything change?
Then Israel. Anything change?

Every country acts in its own best interest. Period. Whether democracy or dictatorship every government is most committed to keeping itself in power. Paving the roads and locking up criminals come far down the list. NK getting nukes changes jack shit because NK won't use them. Every fucking thing the henny penny doom mongers say about NK was said about Russia getting nukes and it was said about China getting nukes. Oh no! They're unstable! They can't be trusted! They could nuke us at any time! This is the end! Run and hide!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!

No. Nothing changes. Using nukes is suicide and in the last 50 years NK has not done a single thing to demonstrate that they're suicidal. They talk, they talk, they talk, they talk. They don't do anything that will prompt anyone else (read, us or China) to squash them like the annoying little insect they are. They just talk.

cb0771fdb026a2f67b962ae1c1eae6794f1f5315f3f40c86248f0f1a4fb6befe.jpg
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
No.

We had nukes. Then Russia got them. Anything change other than us using it as an excuse for military spending?
Then the UK and France got nukes. Anything change?
Then China. Anything change?
The India and Pakistan. Anything change?
Then Israel. Anything change?

Every country acts in its own best interest. Period. Whether democracy or dictatorship every government is most committed to keeping itself in power. Paving the roads and locking up criminals come far down the list. NK getting nukes changes jack shit because NK won't use them. Every fucking thing the henny penny doom mongers say about NK was said about Russia getting nukes and it was said about China getting nukes. Oh no! They're unstable! They can't be trusted! They could nuke us at any time! This is the end! Run and hide!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!

No. Nothing changes. Using nukes is suicide and in the last 50 years NK has not done a single thing to demonstrate that they're suicidal. They talk, they talk, they talk, they talk. They don't do anything that will prompt anyone else (read, us or China) to squash them like the annoying little insect they are. They just talk.

Nukes made direct confrontation impossible as you admitted in your own argument.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,058
4,809
136
We should offer NK a hotdogs for nukes exchange program. They give us their unfired/unarmed nukes and we give them truckloads of Oscar Mayer hotdogs in return. We could even rebrand them and slap Martha Stewart and Snoop Dog on the wrapper for appeal. They eat food and we don't have to eat (their nukes) which is a pretty good deal.:p

Alternatively we could offer them tons of government cheese from our WIC program. A country full of cheese farts would do them some good.:D
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,309
8,221
136
I agree that neither North Korea nor the US are irrational enough to start a nuclear exchange (and I also tend to think the N.Koreans desire to have a nuclear deterrent is a perfectly rational one, as they have seen what happens to US enemies that don't have one, and the US has done plenty to make the NK regime feel under threat).

But isn't the problem that it isn't 'The US' or 'North Korea' making the decisions, but Trump and Kim? Though I don't know for sure how absolute Jong Un's power is in that respect - just possibly he couldn't fire them on a personal whim, the NK regime may not be sufficiently stable and rule-following for that - is it not legally and practically the case that Trump could order a strike without anyone else getting a say in the matter?

Normally I would interpret Trump as a socio-economic-political phenomenon, rather than as a flawed individual. But on this one question I would worry that it might in fact just come down to personal psychology.

I mean, say impeachment looked imminent - would Trump react well to the prospect of that humiliation?
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,058
4,809
136
Normally I would interpret Trump as a socio-economic-political phenomenon, rather than as a flawed individual. But on this one question I would worry that it might in fact just come down to personal psychology.
Maybe Trumpelstiltskin and Lil Kim can open up a dialogue using a hair salon as a bonding tool. Since both of them have the most horrible hair cuts among world leaders they could bet together and take advice from a gay hair dresser
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Meanwhile behind the scenes China is asking to extend its sea boarder to the man made island


This. There's public facade and back channel reality. This probably ends with China getting the islands to the south in exchange for cooperation with NK. Im sure that's not what's going to be made public.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
This. There's public facade and back channel reality. This probably ends with China getting the islands to the south in exchange for cooperation with NK. Im sure that's not what's going to be made public.

Nice conspiracy theory.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,211
597
126
Nothing but naked self-interest from China as expected. So they want to maintain the current status quo where NK citizenry suffers to no end and is collectively turning into a Kamikaze pact..

Is it realistic that NK's current regime will not pay for its actions if it acts out first? Its death is certain, question is at what cost. That is, hopefully, why it will not act out.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,211
597
126
But isn't the problem that it isn't 'The US' or 'North Korea' making the decisions, but Trump and Kim? Though I don't know for sure how absolute Jong Un's power is in that respect - just possibly he couldn't fire them on a personal whim, the NK regime may not be sufficiently stable and rule-following for that - is it not legally and practically the case that Trump could order a strike without anyone else getting a say in the matter?
Hate to be that guy but Tяump is innocent in this case. Tяump could not care less about NK. (obviously) The problem(s) with NK is that their conventional weaponry is being depreciated fast. Computers and robots are quickly replacing humans in battlefields, and their weapons are hopelessly aged and rusty. Their citizens are like a time bomb, fed up with the regime and their miserable lives. The regime cannot resort to the SK for a grace seeing that SK just tossed its own president to prison for "mere" corruption. Imagine what waits for the regime's enablers if the SK essentially absorbs the NK via one way or another. (e.g. Guillotine or worse) All of these push the regime towards nukes for its self-preservation.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,309
8,221
136
Hate to be that guy but Tяump is innocent in this case. Tяump could not care less about NK. (obviously) The problem(s) with NK is that their conventional weaponry is being depreciated fast. Computers and robots are quickly replacing humans in battlefields, and their weapons are hopelessly aged and rusty. Their citizens are like a time bomb, fed up with the regime and their miserable lives. The regime cannot resort to the SK for a grace seeing that SK just tossed its own president to prison for "mere" corruption. Imagine what waits for the regime's enablers if the SK essentially absorbs the NK via one way or another. (e.g. Guillotine or worse) All of these push the regime towards nukes for its self-preservation.

Well clearly the NK regime wants a nuclear deterrent (just like the countries already in the 'club') for self-preservation. The US has blown hot and cold over the years in it's attitude to the country, and has clearly demonstrated what can happen to you if you _don't_ have nuclear weapons. Plus both Koreas have experienced the devastation of bombing and war in living memory. That's got to prey on your mind. I am unconvinced that fear of SK courts is the main driving factor (would SK actually _want_ to take on the economic basket case that is the North, anyway?)

Proliferation is very scary if only because nobody knows what will happen in the future and who will end up controlling these things, but I really fear it may be inevitable - slowly but perhaps inexorably the nuclear club is going to expand.

But, as I said, it's Trump's finger on the button that I'm slightly more worried about. The man is not quite right in the head and the US system gives him final say on the question.

Edit - whereas it's North Korea's very undemocratic, politically violent nature that makes me think maybe Jong Un doesn't have complete control over nuclear weapons use. Even if he decided to be so crazy as to provoke a US counter strike, that might just lead to his removal by others more concerned with self-preservation.
 
Last edited:

SOFTengCOMPelec

Platinum Member
May 9, 2013
2,417
75
91
The latest news seems to boil down into, that China are saying that as long as Trump is careful with what he says, and stops being so rude/aggressive, and anyway as long as the US doesn't fire first or anything.
Things will peacefully quiet down and China won't help North Korea.

So will the war break out next week or the week after ?
Unless a miracle happens, and Trump is careful with what he says, because he is president of the United States and hundreds of thousands of people could be killed, including many Americans, if he doesn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40909468

North Korea: China urges Trump not to worsen situation
  • 8 hours ago
  • From the sectionAsia
p05c5w4h.jpg


Media captionPresident Trump says North Korea will be in "big, big trouble" if it acts against Guam
China's President Xi Jinping has urged Donald Trump and North Korea to avoid "words and actions" that worsen tensions, state media say.

Mr Trump and North Korea have been exchanging hostile rhetoric, with the US president threatening to rain "fire and fury" on the North.

But China, North Korea's only major ally, has been urging restraint.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,585
7,835
136
Here's the problem.

Trump thinks: Hey, threats and unpredictability are what we should use against North Korea. We threaten them, they don't know what we're going to do, they back down, winning! But you know, when you release your impromptu threats on twitter, it turns out that it's not just North Korea that reads those words. It's the American people. It's our allies. It's China. It's Russia. So even if it would make sense to strongly threaten North Korea, how does the rest of the world that is not North Korea interpret your words?

And Trump clearly believes that unpredictability is a great tactic, it worked for him in business. So, be unpredictable to your enemies, makes sense. But the problem is that in business you're mostly working for yourself. You aren't answerable to the public. So this sort of thing, "Hey, let them think maybe we'll nuke them, or start a war...the more uncertain the North Koreans are about our intentions the better, neglects that it's not just North Korea that is uncertain. It's the American people. It's our military. It's our allied governments and the people all over the world.

And this is why everybody who attempts to make a "deal" with Trump is an idiot and are going to come out on the short end of the so called "deal", because according to his principles you can't believe anything he says. He likes it that way. Oh, he promised to do something for you? I am altering the deal. I may not pay. I might change my mind. Pray I don't alter it any further. Which means you can't ever make a deal with Trump, because Trump doesn't believe in deals, he believes only in getting an advantage through his vague deal making, and eventually screwing the other guy. This is what happens when you get a reputation as a con man.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Cuz we's all White Nationalist Degens or stupid Libruhls outsmarted by the Degens & deserve only scorn.

I mostly offer accurate descriptions of the situation at hand. The value judgements people subsequently place reveals the most about themselves. For example, some believe they should be angry at the degenerate white nationalists identified, and to alleviate their anger it's best to pretend degenerate white nationalists aren't.o

To be fair, if you were getting completely decimated in any and every argument you start, you too would be angry.

Think of him like a mini-Trump.

Lying doesn't help your case any more than it does your leader.