.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
1 hour ago, Splinty said:
I see an almost zero chance of the US acting unilaterally against the DPRK without the RoKs full cooperation. The entire air/ land battle strategy for the peninsula is based on the RoK and US militaries along with our other allies in the region to act in concert. One US division plus air support isn't going to win on it's own.
I agree that any direct action against DPRK will be greatly hindered or at least being far less effective if we don't get full RoK support. But still, such scenario is still possible and planned as well. And if RoK denies the full cooperation at the moment of action, then that will be also a political and economical burden for RoK leadership as well.
Key is the PRC intervention, and how much they will intervene. If PLA does not support KPA then chance of success will be increased. But IMO PLA will intervene in one way or another, in that case any operations will be really tough. Another aspect is the how much Japan and any other allies can support US. Well, good time to play CMANO for myself
-
5 hours ago, IanL said:
Oh for sure. The NK regime is just playing for time and looking for opportunities to put a wedge between the SK government and the US government. Both governments should avoid letting them. I don't see that changing. The issue I have with your prediction is that any time a US admin might think about being preemptive they have to think about the casualties the SK will suffer. I honestly don't see how it can be justified without a provocation from NK first. Of course that could happen because Kim has little to no regard for his people or anyone else's for that matter. I just don't see the US going unilaterally without some kind of provocation first. Granted what level of provocation might be needed could vary as time goes along.
I honestly think the most likely path forward is for this stalemate to continue - possibly even for decades.
Good point, but I also don't know when, or what kind of DPRK action, is the last red line which will initiate the serious reaction from US-RoK. I think current US planners are considering any reliable signal / image detection of DPRK nuke activity or long range missile activity, or detection of evidence of serious level of imminent nuke test from DPRK, or detection of evidence of DPRK's will to continue the weaponize nuke plan as the moment for the intervention, but that is just truly and purely my thinking. No one may know for sure about this point, isn't it? But several newspapers already mentioned that preemptive strike is also one of the options. It is not like we will never going to attempt the preemptive strike, but the key is what will cause that.
News says that RoK and DPRK leaders are agreed to have head to head meeting in April. We will see where those events will going to lead us. This can be a beginning of miracle which leads the total denuclearization from DPRK, but IMO this is just another show to bring fake hope and earn more time for Kim's regime. I really do wish the miracle, but history already taught us that when it comes to DPRK, this kind of peace talks or stalemate just earn more time for Kim. Time is their side, and they will not just going to sit and rest during 'peaceful time', they will slowly and secretly try whatever they can do to achieve some level of nuclear capability.
Well, it is good to read that we are not that naive like we did before, and we already detected the indication of plutonium production. See, they will not give up. But I still wish to see the miracle despite of very low chance.
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
Not sure, but it very well may be we attack S Korea first.....
WASHINGTON — The White House said Monday that Donald Trump had been referring to a call with South Korea's leader when he appeared to suggest a landmark direct contact with the nuclear North.
Trump raised eyebrows at a Washington media dinner on Saturday when he said "they, by the way, called up a couple of days ago and said 'we would like to talk.'
"And I said, 'so would we, but you have to de-nuke, you have to de-nuke,'" Trump added.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP that Trump had in fact been referencing a call he had on Thursday with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
Let's see what will going to happen, but again, I already mentioned that I'm very skeptical about it, and it is not only me that thinks in that way. How many talks have been done since 1990s when the first DPRK nuke attempt was detected, and see what happened now? Whatever sanctions we pushed or supports we provided, they just proceed their plan (with the help from PRC, Russia, and Iran). They think we are fool. How many more times are needed to for you to be satisfied? How many times do you think we are OK to be fooled? 100 times more?
Are you sure that Kim's regime will follow the agreements and promises? Whatever promises and agreements we had since 1990s, Kim's family just pushed missile and nuke program whatever they promised. I don't think talks will going to work to denuclearize DPRK. Kim will send the peaceful gesture, saying he is willing to give up nukes, but I bet Kim will never agree to full scale inspection, and he will try to secretly continue their nuke program. It is not the first time they lied and did something similar to us, they already did this during Clinton and Bush. Honestly, I personally believe that anyone who claims the talk will going to work is very naive or fool or spy. If Kim will accept unconditional denuclearization and full scale inspection over entire nuke facility after the talk, I will be really surprised, but that is the miracle we (including me) are looking for. I really do wish the miracle, but realistically, I don't think Kim will give up nuke.
Regarding RoK president Moon, like I mentioned above, the current RoK leadership and cabinet are more or less lefty position and have pro-DPRK / pro-PRC tendency, all of them are originated from radical left organization like 'national university student front' or 'liberation movement' when they were young. Some of them sneak into DPRK and meet Kim il sung to support and praise Kim's regime during their 20s. Because of that, I'm very dubious about current RoK leadership's intention over 'peace talks' since they are willing to support DPRK regardless of UN sanctions.
Those are reasons why I'm not that positive to talks. I'm just crossing my fingers.
-
24 minutes ago, sburke said:
well you seem pretty set in your view and unfortunately I can't say I feel convinced by your arguments. DPRK conventional and potential chemical attack is more than enough leverage on S Korea. Anyway, like I said before and as you noted time will tell. I do agree things are heading to a critical point, whether that critical point is war or a diplomatic solution of some sort remains to be seen, but I am hoping cooler heads prevail.
I don't disagree about relying on PRC and Russia hence my feeling that we need to do something about those ships. Hard for PRC and Russia to contribute to smuggling if we intercept, board and seize the N Korea ships they are meeting.
Because the effect of weaponized nuke will be significantly destructive then chemical attack... Missile is not the only the nuclear concern for RoK,
This is the most problematic threat to RoK. What if Kim threatens to detonate 20 sleeping agents in big cities with nuke back pack in the future, after he successfully minimized nukes? The chance for such events are really small right now, DPRK's technological capability is not even close to such minimization of weaponized nuclear device. But, still, it is possible in the future, if they get what they want. With the nuke in one hand, he will ask more, and more, and more to RoK and try to increase their influence over RoK, and will try to decrease the US influence over RoK, slowly but steadily. The merit of dictatorship is that they can make really really long term plan, ahead of 20 years or so.
Virus and chemicals are deadly as well, but potential risk from nuke is much much worse, like order of magnitude different level.. That is why nuke will definitely work as a leverage to threaten RoK.
Do Russia and PRC will agree to board and investigate their ships form us on international water? I don't think so. Even if they allow such action and they agree with the blockade, like I said, they will find another way to help DPRK.
I really wish something magical happens, but magics only appear on fantasy... I dunno, maybe I'm missing something but to me it is clear that all those indications are directing one possible outcome, the one very deadly and bloody... I really don't want to see that as well.
-
36 minutes ago, sburke said:
Sounds like a rehashing of the domino theory. Trump has already gone on record suggesting support for a nuclear arms race in Asia with Japan and S Korea having that capability so that kind of undermines the proliferation argument.
Regarding our support vs N Korea, it is one thing to call for an economic blockade, it is quite another to support a war. I fail to understand how an almost guaranteed catastrophe for S Korea (Seoul is a city of 10 million people) is balanced out by protecting the US from a possible but highly unlikely DPRK nuke strike on the US. I doubt many other countries will see that either especially if S Korea starts saying hold on here we have millions of civilians at risk right now and the US has no answer as to how to prevent that.
The US is in position to enforce a sea blockade of N Korea, what is it like 33 ships we know about that we have to contain (only 19 of which are actually N Korean flagged)? That would have significant impact and force Russia and China's hands on the sanctions that they supposedly support. The only retaliatory action N Korea has is to attack S Korea, but that is also their only ace in the hole. If they play that card then all bets are off and S Korea would not only support a US attack, they would probably be all in leading the charge.
However that only works if we continue to push on the sanctions and blockade side. Only those who ignore the human catastrophe that could unfold keep pushing for war.
This on the other hand is what sane people say.
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says that war with North Korea -- should tensions ever come to that -- would be "catastrophic."
"A conflict in North Korea, John, would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes," Mattis told CBS News' "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson in his first official interview as defense secretary.
The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on Earth -- Seoul, the capital of South Korea, Mattis said.
North Korea is a threat to the surrounding region, including Japan, China and Russia, he said.
"But the bottom line is it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into a combat if we're not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means," Mattis said.
This is not a same domino theory. Is the DPRK and Kim's regime trustwothy party like Soviet Union or PRC? No, not at all. Nuke on DPRK is totally different story, since they cannot be trusted at all.
What do you think Kim will going to do after he get the nuke? He will spread it to Syria and make all the trouble around the region, and he will try to use nuke to increase the influence over RoK. He will attempt to use the nuke as a leverage to threaten RoK, to get significant amount of financial and logistic support from RoK. And then? after he recover the readiness of his forces then he will ask more, and more to RoK. Sorry for Koreans, and you would be surprised but even myself is half Korean, but for RoK, they don't have that much choice in this situation. Once DPRK successfully develops a nuke, the fate of RoK will be slowly but firmly diminished. Whether they like it or not, DPRK nuke should be removed whenever it is possible even for the sake of Koreans. And this will be significant direct threat to Japan and Austrailia, not only this will ignite nuclear race again, worldwide scale.
I'm skeptical about the blockades, after watching of secret Russian and PRC support to DPRK
Especially PRC. Like I mentioned in first post, PRC will never allow unified Korea as democratic nation because of clear strategical reason. They will never going to join blockade, or they will act like they are doing something, but they will secretly support DPRK anyway by any means, like they've done after UN sanctions for last several months. Maybe, they will try secret tunnel next time to support DPRK.
Regarding the lethality of next Korean war, I couldn't agree more, Kim will throw chemicals and virus and anything he has to densely populated area. But all those situations and movements around Korea right now are heading to the ciritical point, whether we like it or not. Time will tell us what will going to happen.
-
37 minutes ago, sburke said:
well none of us really knows, but the idea of the US trying to launch an attack where we admittedly are not going to be able to stop N Korea from causing a huge number of casualties puts the US in a bind. Is it legitimate for the US to launch an attack because N Korea could possibly launch a missile at the US knowing that attack will likely cause untold suffering in S Korea? I think what you would find is the US extremely isolated and without allies as the thought that they could be sacrificed to prevent a possible attack against the US just isn't going to go over well. So is the US prepared to be that isolated internationally for this?
I don't think war is inevitable. What I do think is inevitable is the US has to realize we do not have a military option to solve this situation. But what the hell do I know....
Hell I couldn't even figure out how to get rid of Bermuda grass. Ended up ripping up my entire backyard and building my own wall to stop it...and Mexico won't pay for it.
It is about nuke, proliferation of nuclear weapons, more precisely. If DPRK has nuke, then RoK will have it, Japan will have it, Taiwan will try to get one and PRC will never going to happy about that. DPRK nuke will be very likely to spread out to Syria, which will bring nuke build up from Saudi and Israel, and Turkey will try to have a nuke. Then, Europeans will not gonna happy about that situation. DPRK already supported pilots, weapons, ammunition, and advisory group and instructors to Syria. Why not nuke to Syria if they have one? Everyone knows DPRK is crazy country, and everyone knows what could possibly happen if they have nuke in their hand. This is why we don't want the nuke on DPRK and why almost every UN nations agreed with sanctions against DPRK. And this is why I think the attack will not gonna isolate us. UK, Austrailia, and Japan already declared support to US when we attempt maritime interdiction and even naval blockade. Whether Mr Trump wants it or not, he will be forced to choose, soon.
Do you think are there any other option? I don't think Kim will give up nuke, after he watched the fall of Gaddafi and Sadam, and all those mess in Syria. I'm skeptic about talks, so many sanctions, supports, and talks were done but DPRK ignored all of them. They just used peace talks as a mean to earn time and money. I don't think any more talks will gonna work in here, they will eventually get nuke, just like they did in last 20 years. Peace talks should've been worked 10 years ago and 20 years ago, if the talks really works against DPRK, but no it didn't.
That is why I think it is coming close. I wish I'm wrong, but to me, I think it is kinda inevitable...
-
6 hours ago, sburke said:
War is logistics and the US trying to wage a war on the peninsula without S Korea is highly unlikely. There are millions of S Korean lives at stake. It is the US that is risking the relationship by trying to unilaterallly push a war, not S Korea.
Like I said, there is Japan right beside the Korea with much more ammunition and fuel storage and logistics, and current US readiness and ability is capable of pursuing such operations over Korean peninsula regardless of RoK support.
His video has some limitations, but still, IMO it is very detailed and reasonable expectation on US-DPRK war, better than any other youtubes. Again, I'm not saying this video is entirely and absolutely true. But one thing I wish to point is that, for US forces, RoK support would be great if it is possible, but it is not like "absolute necessary requirement" for the operations against DPRK and PLA targets.
Like I mentioned above, RoK can deny the decision against US but that will be also big political and economical burden to RoK leadership. US and RoK agreed mutual defense treaty and RoK survived thanks to US/UN support, and now RoK refuse to break DPRK? That doesn't make sense.
Yes, I agree that the war will be very ugly and bloody, and Seoul is too close from border. But regardless of all those gloomy expectations, I think we are really serious right now this time, and IMO this administration will never allow nuke on DPRK, while Kim will probably never give up the nuke option. To me, it is kinda inevitable regardless of RoK's opinion.....
US is already building up reasons and justifications, mentioning human rights, defectors, and chemical weapons to Syria, and etc... We will see what will going to happen, but I think it is coming, fast.
-
19 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
It won't end well.
Indeed, Kim will not gonna give up nuke, and Trump will not gonna allow that, it is kinda obvious and inevitable.....
-
11 hours ago, sburke said:
Even if the US was committed to launching a war against the DPRK, it isn't gonna happen off 3 months of mobilization. Not to mention S Korea will not back a war. Without them it is pretty much saber rattling. Any attempt to launch it on our own would be a political disaster. Likely before the US got close S Korea would demand all US troops leave.
Good point, but I have a bit different opinion.
Yes, current RoK leadership and cabinet are consist of left-wing figures, from moderate to extreme, most of them are originated from student activist organization like 'liberation front'. And yes, the position of current RoK is they don't want the war.
However, if US decided to go on war, can RoK veto that decision? I don't think so, such decision from RoK will bring fundamental change of US-RoK relationship, and RoK will be regarded as 'PRC-side' or 'Russian-side', off from conventional 'western ally list'. This will be huge political burden, even for the left wing RoK president. Mr. Trump is very serious right now towards the DPRK, and he is kinda person who doesn't care about traditional alliance or any form of "old community", so such decision will bring destructive consequences in RoK economy, considering the RoK - US trade (both import and export) takes major part of RoK economic portfolio. I don't think the current RoK leadership has huge balls to attempt such a dangerous gambling.
On the other side, there's nothing to lose for US and Trump. US has Japan instead, and can strike DPRK key points from safe distance. Of course air strike will be less effective when compared to air-land battle with ground forces, but still, at least US still can do something despite of denial from RoK.
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/world/asia/us-north-korea-military-war-planning.html?referer=
It is nothing new that this administration is preparing war against DPRK, but I think it is closing really fast. I think this really might happen before this summer. IMO, Kim will never give up nuke, Kim already saw what happened to Gaddafi after he declared denuclearization of Lybia, and Kim is watching what is happening in Syria. For Kim, nuke is a solid insurance for his regime, and can be used as a leverage to increase his influence over RoK.
Kim's best plan and intention is reduce the US influence over RoK one by one, little by little. Then, he will try to exploit the advantage of left-wing parties in RoK, which are very pro-DPRK and pro-PRC. During this process, nuke will prevents the intervention from US or Japan or any other western allies. So, I think Kim will not gonna want to give up nuke.
I'm still worrying about the intervention from PRC. PRC will never allow the unified-Korea as a democratic nation, right in front of their capitol city Beijing. Beijing is placed right beside the ocean. If RoK and US defeats DPRK, then the control over Yellow sea will be given to RoK-US fleet, and Beijing is not that far away from Yellow sea. PRC will do anything to prevent that, as much as possible. Plus, Xi is trying to abolish the term limitation for his position, i.e. he is trying to become a dictator, saying "Chinese value that Westerns will never gonna understand". Emergence of unified Korea as a democratic nation will be burden for Xi's regime.
IMO PRC will try to secretly support DPRK, but not sure how much. PRC will not gonna want to fight against US army directly, but they don't want unified Korea. So, they will try to do something.
-
This project is really interesting, considering the recent situation around Korean peninsula.... How about design US army vs KPA first, then introduce RoK army later?
Regarding places, you could also choose Pyongyang and approaching route to Pyongyang, and some important crossroads on the way to PY...
I really wish something like KPA + PLA vs US + RoK army, but I know the chance for such set up in current CMBS is fairly low.
-
Anyone knows what happened to him? I have a will to support him if he open his patreon account. I'm a bit worried.
-
7 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
Sounds like this may be the case. Given real world developments this seems to be a valid conclusion
You mean, is this reactivated? Are there any other source than southfront?
-
I heard that this program was suggested back in 2012 but cancelled.... Is this program reactivated again?
-
15 hours ago, HerrTom said:
You could also do it as a waypoint like hull down, where the waypoint is where it goes after firing, arc or not.
22 hours ago, Amizaur said:reverse (for vehicles) or run (for soldiers) to the next designated waypoint
Great idea, waypoint-method has an advantage that the players can designate the destination of reverse / move after shot.
-
36 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
BFC introduced a shoot-and-scoot command in CMBB but could never get it to work really satisfactorily. I've heard nothing about them being willing to try it again.
Michael
You mean "barbarossa to berlin"? But that is old engine... Reducing turn time might be an option, but that will bring another side effects and headaches, so I think best choice would be the new "Shoot and scoop" command. I wish to hear some good news regarding TACAI and new commands.
-
Current TAC-AI cannot perform several tactical approach or tactical moves, which requires very elaborate control. So sometimes I feels like 1 minute for a single turn is too long.
One good example is shoot-and-scoop behavior. Sometimes I really wish my ATGM teams or RPG teams to move fast to the building or woods behind immediately after the first engagement from the ambush. But it is unable to make them perform such chain of actions from ambush position, because we can't. Pause-and-run (with target arc) technique can follow something similar, but it would never be the perfect since we never know exactly when and where the contact will be made. Plus, the units require some time to detect and identify as well, and we would never know when they will identify and engage. You can't command forced attack by target briefly or target command to unidentified vehicle by RPG or ATGM teams from ambush position. It is very dangerous and stupid. I wish to command them to fall back behind right after the identification and the first shot, but it is impossible to do that.
Same thing also happens when I play with tanks. From the hull down position or any other situation, sometimes I wish my tanks to reverse or hide behind the building right after identify and shoot the first shot to the target. But simply, it is unable to perform such actions under current 1 minute turn.
One can say "enjoy real time" But that cannot be the answer. Most of the H2H contents in CMx2 is played via PBEM, rather than TCP/IP because PBEM has its own merits.
ARMA3, Warthunder, Wargame RD, and Steel Beasts PE, one can perform such actions very easily in all of those games. I know all of them are real time contents, and some of them are FPS rather than RTS, so it might be unfair to compare this game with them. However, still, shoot-and-scoop is very essential tactical movement from WW2 to modern era. I think this movement can be categorized as one of the screening action, right? This command would boost the usability of recons/recon vehicles, AT teams, and tanks, and make those units more flexible than before.
I bet almost all CM players once thought about this idea at least once. Maybe this post is one of the another redundant.
How about introduce "shoot-and-scoop" arc? Same as the current target arc, but when the unit identify and shoot, fall back 50m (or designated distance) behind or reverse behind to nearby cover. I believe there would be other idea for shoot and scoop action under the current CMx2 system.
It would be far better if you can provide more elaborate version of this command, by separating "kill-and-scoop" (engage until penetrate/kill the target and reverse) and "shoot-and-scoop" (reverse right after the first shot) or "2/3-shoot-and-scoop (reverse right after second or third shot)
-
17 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Yes.
Each team was passing 12 tasks. For tasks "platoon firing in offensive" and "platoon firing in defense" temas can take per 500 points. Other tasks give per 50 points.
I have insider photo of preliminary results of UKR team in offensive/defensive. Our vis-a-vis in offensive task was US team and our results were not so bad. In defense task target area set fire, competitions was stopped and five targets, which our team hit after ignition were not counted in our score.
Some tasks were atypical for Ukrainian army. For example target spotting & artillery call - our tankers havn't such duty on battlefield. Or pistol shooting - our crews has AKS-74U. Also some other NATO standard tasks turned out unfamiliar for us. In last day we occupied 4th place with French team, but physical tests results downed us to 5th.
Alas, from competition program was excluded 5 km firing and night shooting. Our team had upgradedd T-64BV with IR sights for commander and gunner and GPS navigation system, but were unable to check capabilities of sights in tasks in comparison with other tanks
Very interesting story. Any other stories behind this contest from Ukraine platoon?
And what happened to Poland? They did well last year...
-
On 5/8/2017 at 9:08 PM, HerrTom said:
How do you utilize your fire support - do you use the whole gamut of options? Emergency, harrassment, medium, light, etc along with quick, short, medium, long missions? Under what circumstances do you use which combinations?
Followings are coming from my play style, and most of my PBEMs are meeting engagement QB. So, my opinions would not be the answer for all-around situation.
I think 80% of my artillery supports are heavy mission, with short or quick, sometimes medium duration, like "squall" style pouring. Quick but heavy. I choose quick or short mission usually, because my opponent usually retreat his forces when artillery falls. (TACAI retreating issue is also a reason) Any 152/155mm after 1 turn are usually wasted away because the target moves away. If the target is infantry-rich, than medium duration also works. Reason behind the heavy mission is obvious - to bring maximum damage within relatively short time frame of 1~2 turn.
One of the moment I call longer duration is when I bring 203mm (or 155mm if US) pre-planned strike. 203mm usually takes 8+ min even with elite artillery and elite fire support team without TPS, 4~5+ min with TPS. This is too long, it is unable to react with all the rapidly changing situations. Due to this restriction, if I bring 203mm, I only use it as pre-planned with some delay, to very obvious towns, woods, buildings, or any other key points on the map. With a good battle plan, this can be used as preparatory fire in the middle of meeting engagement.
I rarely use harassment or light missions. But under some circumstances, I call them to deny area from enemy infantry for some time. Those 'infrequent' missions consume less ammo, so can be fired for longer duration without burden. I usually call those missions with mortar + air burst shell, forcing ATGM teams / infantry squads to run away from, or deny them from very obvious tree lines or woods. Then I could move my vehicles and forces with far less danger of ATGM ambush or being observed during some turns.
Plus, @Artemis258 is right. TRP is really useful. I bring TRPs to almost all of my games (depending on map), especially for UA or Rus forces. You can bring and field TRPs in the meeting engagement games. For Ukraine, TRP is must-have item because they have no UAVs in this game.
On 5/8/2017 at 9:08 PM, HerrTom said:Do you use linear targets, area targets, point targets, and what do you use each on?
This really depends, but I think I usually prefer area targets for woods and towns. Linear target for the treeline or building line time to time. I don't think I use point target that much. I usually play without UAVs or only with micro UAVs. In this case, UAV + precision round combo is not allowed. To deliver precision ammo without UAV, you need to bring your fire support vehicle or fire support team to a position which ensures the direct LOS to the target, but it is very dangerous time to time, especially if your target is 'clairvoyant' ones like crack or elite Abrams. Naturally, I try not to rely on precision rounds.
-
https://www.army.mil/article/187584/
This year's winner is Austria. Second is Germany, US is third. US played better than last year.
But one thing we need to make sure is that this kind of competition would never really tells anything about meaningful specs of tanks. And it never tell us about the which team is good at exam. Like the interview mentioned, it is about teamwork, training, and interoperability.
-
18 minutes ago, akd said:
" independent commander’s panoramic day/night sight with thermal imager,"
nope
Really? If that is true, http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/6/ is this catalog only for the T-72B3M model of the Tank Biathlon? I thought they upgrade T-72B3s to exactly the 'Biathlon' model...
Oh well, even in the next CMBS module, T-72B3Ms will be likely to suffer from weak sight problem XD
-
Maybe one might develop a skin mod for female soldiers or crews? I really wish to see Kieme's work again.... What happened to him?
-
1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
To forestall a flood of refuges pouring over the border. And also, nukes.
Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not.
-
5 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The problem with that is that the DPRK is a terrible craphole. It's broken as a country, has massive problems with literally every measure of human health and services. If China swoops in to pick up the pieces, the DPRK becomes their problem. Right now they can just Alfred E Newman every time the DPRK does something dumb and the blame/attention remains on the DPRK because its the DPRK and no one expects them to do a damned thing right.
China takes over, even through a puppet, it becomes their albatross around their neck. They want nothing to do with "owning" the Korean problem, and by most understandings would rather it bankrupt the ROK.
Basically the value of the bufferstate is outweighed by the cost of having direct control over it. The old "priority" of keeping Korea divided doesn't wash in the face of the amount of trade and increasing ties between the PRC and the ROK. A better "long" game would be allowing reunification, using financial aid to the new Korea as leverage while conducting a campaign to highlight how pointless American forces in Korea would be post DPRK.
Basically the DPRK is a feces sandwich and no one but parts of the ROK really want a bite.But still, it is the PRC, who is supplying oil, foods, weapons, strategic assets such as TEL vehicles, heavy machines such as tractors and trucks which are being used as artillery and MLRS carriers in KPA, and multi axis machine tools for manufacturing which are banned by UN, to that "terrible craphole". And it is the PRC, allowing DPRK ships, illegally exporting weapons to Syria, to stop by at Chinese harbors and get resupplied. Those ships got caught at UAE later. Of course, PRC denied all of those charges, calling them "western propaganda", but they also denied all of the attempts or suggestions for further investigations from UN and any other nations......
If you're right, why PRC invest and support those items to "terrible craphole"?
They want to keep the Kim's regime. If Kim's regime fails, and they will intervene. They don't want to lose their hold over Korean peninsula. PRC regards DPRK as an asset. They don't like Kim's regime but that is different story. PRC is basically totalitarian and communist regime, and in their equation, keeping DPRK as it is now is costly option but brings more merits for them, enhancing PRC influence over east Asia, and ensuring their long term strategic goal - influence over entire 1st - 2nd island chain. Setting up puppet or second DPRK would could be understand in same logic. It will be costly, but it will bring other advantages to them.
Plus, IMO this is kinda similar with Putin's 'strong man' approach. PRC doesn't want to be looked 'weak', and they take care of this issue very seriously. It is kinda tradition of communist or totalitarian states. Keeping DPRK alive, or setting up the puppet in the Korean peninsula if inevitable, serve in this way as well. Giving up their influence over Korean peninsula would bring worries towards PRC leadership among their hard-liners, which could be the burden for chairman Xi, who is trying to become real "emperor" over PRC....
So my opinion is that expecting PRC behavior over DPRK should not be approached in economic motivation only. In this equation, political / geopolitical environments and their long term strategic goals should be significantly considered, especially if we are talking about communist or single-party-controlling states such as PRC. It is true, and I already mentioned, that the economic situation of PRC at the moment would be the important guidelines for them to consider. But for me, it is hard to imagine that PRC will give up all of their influence over Korean peninsula just because of economic motivation.
I served long time ago, so my info and data might be outdated, and I maybe wrong. But, well, I think some part of them are maybe still valuable. Anyway, it was very good conversation & discussion sir, and thank you for your opinion
Hell I couldn't even figure out how to get rid of Bermuda grass. Ended up ripping up my entire backyard and building my own wall to stop it...and Mexico won't pay for it.
Next Korean war is coming close...
in General Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by exsonic01
That is also a good point, and I think it is already going on, isn't it? (I mean the trade war) We'll see what will going to happen. But I don't think PRC will 'take care of' DPRK, they are in the same boat, PRC will try to save Kim's regime. Or, they will make their puppet NK if Kim's regime fail. PRC has no intention to give up the control of northern part of Yellow sea.