Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
fela fan said:
They never nuked each other.
North Korea Goes Nuclear!!
- Thread starter Dandred
- Start date
They never nuked each other.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
fela fan said:
History has revealed that not only the bay of pigs, but also the whole Cuban Missile crisis was a giant botch up by the Kennedy administration.
FruitandNut
New Member
Giles said:
Another problem is that it is the disempowered, largely innocent and suckered masses who will get clobbered first.
'It's the rich wot gets the pleasure,
It's the poor wot gets the blame,
It's the same the whole world over,
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame!'
I believe that the DPRK will accelerate its already instigated (but rather languishing at the moment,) "China style" experimentation with Special Economic Zones.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Just as the opening of Shenzhen to Hong Kong in 1980 instigated the opening of, and subsequent transformation of, mainland China, so the opening of SEZ's in the DPRK will herald-in a new era for the country.
Seems obvious to me that China is not-quite-ready-yet to see this happening (hence putting the brakes on the DPRK's first "real" SEZ, which nearly opened in 2003), but equally obvious that it is in the pipeline.
Seems like a good way forward to me. Better than almost any alternative.
Woof
There is a perceptable but almost unseen shift in the PRCs view of the penninsula.
As I mentioned earlier, the PRC is actively using the DPRK as a cheap source for much of its most basic raw materials via the land border & via sea.
the PRC history books are also changing ( as they often do ) to show that historically, the penninsula was Chinese - a little article from Chosun ( right wing BTW )
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609070028.html
Theres a little bit of a history conflict going on behind the scenes :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI16Dg01.html
apologies for the biggish links, but its not a simple subject.
Does the PRC now feel it has a vested interest in getting hold of some new territory ? Its been a while sicne they annexed Tibet & they wont get Taiwan in the forseeable future
From some perspectives, it would seem that the groundwork is being prerpared to maybe justify such a move ?
who knows
As I mentioned earlier, the PRC is actively using the DPRK as a cheap source for much of its most basic raw materials via the land border & via sea.
the PRC history books are also changing ( as they often do ) to show that historically, the penninsula was Chinese - a little article from Chosun ( right wing BTW )
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609070028.html
Theres a little bit of a history conflict going on behind the scenes :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI16Dg01.html
apologies for the biggish links, but its not a simple subject.
Does the PRC now feel it has a vested interest in getting hold of some new territory ? Its been a while sicne they annexed Tibet & they wont get Taiwan in the forseeable future
From some perspectives, it would seem that the groundwork is being prerpared to maybe justify such a move ?
who knows
I don't think so, zol, at least not overtly. China has no need to.zoltan69 said:There is a perceptable but almost unseen shift in the PRCs view of the penninsula.
As I mentioned earlier, the PRC is actively using the DPRK as a cheap source for much of its most basic raw materials via the land border & via sea.
the PRC history books are also changing ( as they often do ) to show that historically, the penninsula was Chinese - a little article from Chosun ( right wing BTW )
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609070028.html
Theres a little bit of a history conflict going on behind the scenes :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI16Dg01.html
apologies for the biggish links, but its not a simple subject.
Does the PRC now feel it has a vested interest in getting hold of some new territory ? Its been a while sicne they annexed Tibet & they wont get Taiwan in the forseeable future
From some perspectives, it would seem that the groundwork is being prerpared to maybe justify such a move ?
who knows
China's firm stance on interference in the internal affairs of other countries mitigates the opportunity of any overt moves to appropriate territory (other than that it claims already).
And at the end of the day, China already exerts enough control over the DPRK to suit its purposes almost entirely, while at the same time (as I've mentioned,) being able to claim only limited influence. Gradual change in the DPRK - directed and controlled by China - along the lines of the Chinese model is likely Chinas goal. Reunification with the South or disintigration into refugee madness is not on the agenda.
No need to absorb the DPRK when it's much more useful as a "seperate" state.
Woof
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Jessiedog said:
Given current developments, who do the North Koreans hope to attract to their Special Economic Zone?
British AmeriKan Tobacco doesnt seem to have any qualms about getting involved in the DPRK for one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1593914,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1593914,00.html
Was China really at any risk of being boycotted or embargoed, in the same way as North Korea is now?Jessiedog said:That's what people said about Shenzhen in 1980.
Woof
The other factor re. BAT investing there: it is more likely that companies making something like cigarettes would locate there, as even in North Korea people would probably be able to afford them to some extent and the products seem to be intended for the domestic market.
Companies needing to re-export manufactured goods or making more expensive products would face a harder task.
It's also worth noting that BAT actually pulled out of Burma after 4 years. No doubt any companies doing business in North Korea would come under massive pressure and negative publicity which would impact on their world-wide operations. I doubt that for the vast majority of companies it would be worth it even in purely cynical terms, especially at the moment.
TeeJay said:
Interestingly, scurrilous rumours suggest that the BAT plant directs most of its production to China, via tax free back doors & via middlemen.Of course rhey knowm nothing of this & can claim they deal with the state tobacco Ministry & wha haoppens after that is not their concern.
Familiar scenario & familair allegations for some of the Big tiobacco boys.
Heh!zoltan69 said:
Interestingly *ahem*, I was researching BAT in HK back in 1993/4. A few months later it all went tits up, Tommy Chiu's Porsche was found in Singapore (he was dragged drowned from the harbour,) and Jerry went down for a few years (I'd interviewed him a few times - he was evasive).
At that time, about 95% of all tobacco-product imports into China were outside of the state monopoly and in the "grey" (read "black") market.
BAT profited hugely from sales of billions of sticks to "agents" outside of China and then denied any knowledge of how most of them "unexpectedly" somehow ended up inside China - tax free.
I remember Jerry kept answering my quesions with "officially, BAT has no knowledge of the grey market in China".
Made me wonder what might unfold.
Woof
Sometimes the devil is in the details and yet sometimes the forest is obscured by the trees. Quite oftentimes, China will take a long term perspective.TeeJay said:
The risk of investing in the DPRK has already been discounted. Everyone wants in.
The only question is when China will see fit to begin the opening. It was ready to go in 2003, politics postponed it. Due to recent "setbacks" it'll be a wee while, but within a decade, probably five years and even, possibly, still, within 3 1/2, it will begin.
Strategy is all.
I'm far from being a rabid capitalist, but I'd sure prefer to see the DPRK "do a China", than "do a Darfur".
I'm an optimist.
It's all a game.
A grand game.
Woof
david dissadent
New Member
Like every crisis and every country, China has competing needs out of this. Its first and greatest short term goal is to prevent the implosion of the NK regime. This would result in an enormous flow of desperate refugees into China and Russia. It would also create a power vaccume that various hostile forces would seek to fill and China would be forced to move on. This is destabilising and destabilisation is bad. In as tense a region as this it is best when everyone can predict what everyone else wants and will do.
Sudden changes (neo con opertunities) are not what is wanted by any sane government. To this end Russia and China will only put out weak sanctions. The most likely explanation for there vocal complaints so far is to give them a loud voice on the sanctions.
Actualy no one will benefit from the collapse of Pyong yang.
The fact of a nuclear bomb does nothing to alter the local strategic balance as it was on the cards for so long. Also there is huge scepticism of this bomb being a deployable weapon that can reach any interesting target.
Given the staggering scale of militarisation of the Korea's border it does not really change anything in terms of offensive or defensive positions. Not with 22 million people in Seoul so close to NK artillary.
In the long term, eventualy Pyong Yang will develop a deliverable weapon. No one wants this. China no more wants them to turn its black mail on the PRC than america does. The possibility of a joint US Chinese invasion of Pyong Yang is not to be scoffed at. Both have identical interests in many areas here. A Finlandized agrarian state may result.
Sudden changes (neo con opertunities) are not what is wanted by any sane government. To this end Russia and China will only put out weak sanctions. The most likely explanation for there vocal complaints so far is to give them a loud voice on the sanctions.
Actualy no one will benefit from the collapse of Pyong yang.
The fact of a nuclear bomb does nothing to alter the local strategic balance as it was on the cards for so long. Also there is huge scepticism of this bomb being a deployable weapon that can reach any interesting target.
Given the staggering scale of militarisation of the Korea's border it does not really change anything in terms of offensive or defensive positions. Not with 22 million people in Seoul so close to NK artillary.
In the long term, eventualy Pyong Yang will develop a deliverable weapon. No one wants this. China no more wants them to turn its black mail on the PRC than america does. The possibility of a joint US Chinese invasion of Pyong Yang is not to be scoffed at. Both have identical interests in many areas here. A Finlandized agrarian state may result.
david dissadent said:
Right, no one will benefit from the fall of Pyongyang except the North Koreans who face periods of starvation tugging at their elbows and who can't leave their village without special papers.
Let China and Russia "trade" with North Korea, except they won't be trading but giving handouts. What goods and services does the North Korean Economy produce to trade with? Exactly...
Japan is going to clamp down and make life much harder for the "dear Leader". If China or Russia wants to pick up the slack than let them.
Sanctions may bring a period of more hardship to the North Korean people but in the end it may hasten the downfall of this despicable regime.
That is the policy I advocate. International diplomatic and economic isolation of Pyongyang. Strict travel restrictions into North Korea and strict restrictions on any North Korean government officials leaving the socialist paradise.
call me naive or an idealist, but I think its the least we can do to help these oppressed, starving people end their jail sentence.
Fez909
toilet expert
Here we go again.
Ten years of sanctions did what to Saddam Hussain's regime? And killed how many people?
Why will this be any different?
Mears to North Koreans: Because you are starving, we're cutting off all aid/trade and imposing strict sanctions on you. We're aware that this "may bring a period of more hardship" to you, but it's for your own good.
Ten years of sanctions did what to Saddam Hussain's regime? And killed how many people?
Why will this be any different?
Mears to North Koreans: Because you are starving, we're cutting off all aid/trade and imposing strict sanctions on you. We're aware that this "may bring a period of more hardship" to you, but it's for your own good.
OK fair enough - China has a long term plan.Jessiedog said:I'm an optimist.
It's all a game.
A grand game.
I don't see why you are smiling about it tho'.
A lot of people are suffering *greatly* because of the utter shit the North Korean regime is inflicting on people, and it is also destabilising the region possible creating a regional arms race. What is there to
about?Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Jessiedog said:Sometimes the devil is in the details and yet sometimes the forest is obscured by the trees. Quite oftentimes, China will take a long term perspective.
The risk of investing in the DPRK has already been discounted. Everyone wants in.
The only question is when China will see fit to begin the opening. It was ready to go in 2003, politics postponed it. Due to recent "setbacks" it'll be a wee while, but within a decade, probably five years and even, possibly, still, within 3 1/2, it will begin.
Strategy is all.
I'm far from being a rabid capitalist, but I'd sure prefer to see the DPRK "do a China", than "do a Darfur".
I'm an optimist.
It's all a game.
A grand game.
Woof
China gave Kim a secret tour of the Shanghai stock exchange, and the 'special zone', or whatever. He didn't take the bait.
I think what's likely to happen, is that China will cause 'regime change' to occur in NK, putting in a military junta of generals who favour china, but loathe Kim. They'll base it on a pretext of Kim's bad health, or they just won't bother with a pretext.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
In the next frame, the bear turns around and bites the head off the midget.
Agree with most of this, David, but does Seoul really have 22 million inhabitants these days? Sounds alot.david dissadent said:
Interesting idea that the US and China might team up over the DPRK. Can't see it happening myself though, not in the next five years anyway. China is very wary of the US. Would you trust the US to play fair in a JV?
Woof
Methinks it's the other way round. The DPRK was ready to go with its first SEZ in 2003. It was virtually a done deal, with a wealthy Chinese entrepreneur lined up to be the Chief Executive of the region and 15,000 workers ready to be shipped in and sealed off. At the last minute, China arrested and jailed the entrepreneur (on non-related charges) and the whole project was stopped in its tracks. China, it seems, was not ready for it to go ahead.Johnny Canuck2 said:
S'possible.
Woof
Similar threads
- Poll
