Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Another matter we have not yet looked at is Mynamar

http://thediplomat.com/tag/china-myanmar-relations/

It may be hat Mynamar allies with China - relations have been good in the past or it could be that China occupies the country as the conflict in RoF escalates from regional conflict to World War

In he early stages all the US can do on th ground s send expeditionary forces, certainly to Korea, possibly to help defend Taiwan, certainly Japan and eventually to the Indian subcontinent which becomes a major theater of ground combat in the early to mid war phase. British forces, perhaps including armour eventually show up here to defend a member of the Commonwealth

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

10 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Nah, you guyz too much underestimate the PRC's will to achieve the regional supremacy. If Kim regime falls, they will send troops over the border, try to set the puppet government in the northern part of Korean peninsula. PRC will never allow unified Korea as a democratic nation and one of western ally. Their first priority is to keep the Korea divided. To achieve that, they will support Kim regime if it is needed. But if that option is not viable, they will try to make their own. 

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.

5 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Well said, now the world is connected to each other more than ever. But that never means that PRC will give up their strategic plan of 1st / 2nd island chain, just because of economic reason.

It is well known that there are overall 2000+ tanks under Northern Theater Command (previously Shenyang Military Region), and ~1000 of them are supposed to be ZTZ 99 and their later variants like ZTZ99A2. Is anyone in this forum really thinks that that amount of 3~3.5 generation heavy armors and mechanized forces are there, just only for the refugee control and humanitarian missions? Really? Is this just really a coincidence, that major part of their annual drills and exercises are performed very close to PRC-DPRK border, instead of PRC-Russian border? They have very very clear intention and objective for their 'vital national interest' like Russians do now. 

We need to understand PRC's intention is to build the buffer zone against western influence. They would invade into the DPRK border at the very first sign of coup against Kim regime or any other 'irregular' situation. I bet PRC already secured wide spy networks and links inside the DPRK, they would know very fast if anything happens. First they will try to save the Kim's regime, try to keep the Korea divided as much as possible, saving DPRK head and system, and keep everything as same as possible. They really don't want change anything. They wish DPRK to alive, to perform the 'meat shield' role. If that option is not viable, PLA forces would occupy the northern part of Pyongyang, and they will try to make the new puppet government, easier to control than Kim's regime, but good enough to play the 'buffer role' as much as possible against RoK and US ally. Then PRC will withdraw their forces, after 'approve' the puppet as 'sovereign state', leaving several elements of 'advisory group' inside. 

In part, you're right, there's not that much chance of land clash between US army vs PLA even in this scenario. However, if, only if, RoK + US demands PLA to leave from entire Korean peninsula, and demand them to cross the border and go back to China again, then there's some chance that we could see some action. It is one of the most possible and very plausible scenario. But, like I mentioned in the prior post, this depends on the economic ability and potential of PRC at the moment. 

Vast amount of KPA forces are deployed south of the Pyongyang, as a result, northern defense line of Pyongyang would be relatively weak. Plus, western part of NK (including north Pyongyang) are not that mountainous, relatively flat. All of those conditions are perfect for the PLA mech/armors. Plus, I think PRC thinks that they would not need to face the US forces, if they are really really fast enough to occupy the north of Pyongyang. 

Overall, from my knowledge and information gathered from here and there, PRC would not give up DPRK. If Kim's regime fails, they will try to build the new meat shield for them.  

The US military has 4 ABCTs, two SBCTs, and at least one SBCT, in addition to major reserve and guard assets all aligned in Texas facing down Mexico.  Does it mean they're standing by to go to war in Mexico?

The positioning of Chinese forces in proximity to Korea has many different possibilities.  However again, the expense of assuming the DPRK seems to indicate it's more likely they'll want to make it someone else's problem.

5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

maybe you would like to consider current world tensions in the very complex Middle  East Crisis and the tensions in the Far East and in Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War your view may have been correct but, looking at the multiple crises in the real world today all that could be about to change.I suggest to you that in many ways the real world situation in 2017 is actually more dangerous than the situation circa 1983 - 1985. Unlike then where we had a bipolar world we now have a multipolar world - and multipolar systems are more prone to war  http://www.uamd.edu.al/new/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A.Tomja-9.pdf

My ultimate issue with most of your assessments is you might correctly identify friction, tension, or even a possible conflict, but your assessment is almost invariably the total national commitment to a full spectrum of warfare with all echelons fully engaged, ending with one country utterly destroyed by the conflict and the other running a victory parade through their capital (see your assessment of a Ukrainian conflict ending with a NATO invasion into Russia).  In a Pacific conflict, outside of a ROK-DPRK type war, it's doubtful we will see ground combat between two near peer foes simply because if the various air forces/naval forces are so shot to pieces as to allow for such things....it's doubtful the US, PRC, whoever is going to keep fighting the conflict.  

We've entered an era of limited conflict.  This isn't to say a "big one" is impossible, but the treshhold for such a conflict has not been met, and we're still a few crises back from being on that much of a razor's edge.  

[sburke]

It is more likely that they will find the most rare Pokémon go character is in Beijing and Japan invades to go after it. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Now I am only going to give you one warning. Keep this up and I am going to have to use the "ignore" button. I really do not want to have to do this but I am getting to the point where I will have no other option. 

You're kidding right?

He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?

I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.

Jesus.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Raptorx7

[db_zero]

The leadership of China biggest worry is internal strife. The PLA and new tanks are first and foremost there to keep the people in line and if need be crush them if they get too ornery.

Taiwain is next on the list as is North Korea if it collapses. 

Somewhere way down on the list of priorities is an actual land war with the west...

Many view China as a homogenous country which is far from the truth. Lots of ethics groups who have thousands of years of disagreements, political intrigue and disdain for one another. 

Then there is the rural vs urban, costal vs countryside things going on.

The war being fought is basically a cyber one.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour 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.

The US military has 4 ABCTs, two SBCTs, and at least one SBCT, in addition to major reserve and guard assets all aligned in Texas facing down Mexico.  Does it mean they're standing by to go to war in Mexico?

The positioning of Chinese forces in proximity to Korea has many different possibilities.  However again, the expense of assuming the DPRK seems to indicate it's more likely they'll want to make it someone else's problem.

My ultimate issue with most of your assessments is you might correctly identify friction, tension, or even a possible conflict, but your assessment is almost invariably the total national commitment to a full spectrum of warfare with all echelons fully engaged, ending with one country utterly destroyed by the conflict and the other running a victory parade through their capital (see your assessment of a Ukrainian conflict ending with a NATO invasion into Russia).  In a Pacific conflict, outside of a ROK-DPRK type war, it's doubtful we will see ground combat between two near peer foes simply because if the various air forces/naval forces are so shot to pieces as to allow for such things....it's doubtful the US, PRC, whoever is going to keep fighting the conflict.  

We've entered an era of limited conflict.  This isn't to say a "big one" is impossible, but the treshhold for such a conflict has not been met, and we're still a few crises back from being on that much of a razor's edge.  

Like I said periods of limited wars is something we have seen befoore. The 18th Century was ne suc period. We saw the Spanish War of Succession which was a limited war n many ways. A few decades later it was followed by th 7 Years War and a few decades after that the Napoleonic Wars. 

Since 1945 we have seen limited wars and short duration conventional conflicts and long insurgencies. How can you be sure that th international system is not going to change back again to high intensity Great Power Coalition Wars of the type we had pre 1945. The conditions for this are likely to be present already

We may actually be in a period where the pre-conditions for the next big one are being set. Maybe we are uin a period like the 1870s and the big one is a few decades away. Or maybe we are already in a situation more like the lead in to he First World War. I hope I am wrong about this but, given the current world situation I am reminded more of the latter period. For RoF purposes I am assuming the latter is the case.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

53 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

You're kidding right?

He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?

I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.

Jesus.

And I suggest you read up on your Geopolitics and your History. Also read what I wrote - invasions of China don't happen at the outbreak of this war. They happen several years down the line in the closing stages of the war. Youu kerep getting hung up on something that I have made clear, multiple times.happens only several years down the line towards the end of the war.

According to your "logic" that is like arguing something like D Day happens in 12940. It didn't - but you still had expeditionary forces deploying to France and Norway and fighting serious campaigns there I envisage something similar for the early phases of this war. So, on final time gt over this obsession about an early campaign involving an invasion of China!

At the outset we are looking at the US deploying expeditionary forces to places like Korea and India to defend against he PLA juggernaut. Much like the deployment of the BEF 1939 - 1940 to Norway and France. I suggest that we confine debate to the early phase for now and consider the initial expeditionary force deployments to Korea, India etc Ths future timeline's equivilants of Norway and France 1940. OK so the US suffers early defeats just as the Allies did in WW2 - but we can still have the PLA being halted somewhere in Central India. This timeline's equivalent to the Battle of Moscow could be a Battle of New Delhi

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

It is more likely that they will find the most rare Pokémon go character is in Beijing and Japan invades to go after it. 

Just because the US & PRC don't want a fight in North Korea doesn't mean it couldn't happen, in that much OP's 1914 analogy has some validity IMHO, I still consider this to be the most likely (potentially CM:Title-worthy) 'flashpoint'.

FWIW

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just because the US & PRC don't want a fight in North Korea doesn't mean it couldn't happen, in that much OP's 1914 analogy has some validity IMHO, I still consider this to be the most likely (potentially CM:Title-worthy) 'flashpoint'.

FWIW

We are however looking at Korea in the context of a wider regional conflict starting in the Spratley Islands. An outbreak of hostilities at sea over that issue is widely considered a plausible scenario. Remember  that the additional crises in Korea, the Indian subcontinent etc come over the following weeks. International crises do not always have to develop quickly or along simple lines. The crisis n the Middle East developed over months and years for example

Since we are looking at a situation that culminates in a World War 3 situation the scenario must be a complex one starting in this instance in the South China Sea and escalating with additional crises elsewhere. Unlike the crisis leading to war in CMSF or CMBS the Ring of Fir situation is far more complex involving multiple states and several developing crises developing across the region over weeks if not several months

This way, as well as Korea we can cover India-Pakistan. China-India, China Taiwan and include Russia as well resulting in many more scenario options than just limiting the scope of the conflict to Korea, The geographic region extends from Siberia to the Indian sub continent

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, db_zero said:

The leadership of China biggest worry is internal strife. The PLA and new tanks are first and foremost there to keep the people in line and if need be crush them if they get too ornery.

Taiwain is next on the list as is North Korea if it collapses. 

Somewhere way down on the list of priorities is an actual land war with the west...

Many view China as a homogenous country which is far from the truth. Lots of ethics groups who have thousands of years of disagreements, political intrigue and disdain for one another. 

Then there is the rural vs urban, costal vs countryside things going on.

The war being fought is basically a cyber one.

Cyberwar is one part of the conflict and, at the tactical level is certainly an issue we should look at. What about the future possibilities of drone hacking and hacking into enemy command/battle management systems. Obviously we ned to abstract all of this much as we did with electronic warfare

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/drone-wars-uav-tech-transforming-future-war/

[exsonic01]

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   

Edited May 11, 2017 by exsonic01

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 minute ago, exsonic01 said:

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 conditions 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   

Exactly why Beijing will at least consider intervening in a North Korean collapse/civil war. Also the millions of refugees likely to be pouring across the Chinese Border tryng o escape from a ferocious and bloody civil war. Although obviously fictional Larry Bond's recent novel Red Pheonix Burning shows what the scenario might look like

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29211001-red-phoenix-burning

In the RoF scenario he situation would if anything be much worse.

[Vanir Ausf B]

40 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

If you're right, why PRC invest and support those items to "terrible craphole"? 

To forestall a flood of refuges pouring over the border. And also, nukes.

[Codename Duchess]

I think this thread is best left to die. Logic and reason have no place here.

[exsonic01]

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. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

57 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not. 

What is TEL? What weapons has China sold NK in the past 10 years?

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

I think this thread is best left to die. Logic and reason have no place here.

Agreed. 

[sburke]

11 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Agreed. 

+50

[LUCASWILLEN05]

18 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

You're kidding right?

He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?

I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.

Jesus.

I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

18 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

You're kidding right?

He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?

I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.

Jesus.

I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do.

Oh and by the way I said multiple times that any invasion of China would be years into the war. Not at the outswet. Your "logic" is like arguing the Allies could have implemented D Day in 1940. They did not and could not. However, what they could and did do was send an expeditionary force to Norway, in the British case to France. There were also expeditionary operations to Syria, Italian East Africa, and Madagascar. In the earl war phase of RoF similar US operations can be mounted, for example to India. A Dieppe style raid on the Chinese coast might even be considered at some point though unless there are very good reasons to the contrary that job might be best done using Cruise Missiles. Smaller Commando style raids anywhere along the coasts of Chinese occupied Asia involving perhaps platoon or company size unit 

With war breaking out in 2021 a massive invasion of China won't happen until at least 2024 or 2025. Read my posts more carefully in future.

Edited May 12, 2017 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not. 

Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL.

Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in  the press

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10808719/China-plans-for-North-Korean-regime-collapse-leaked.html

However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not. 

Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL.

Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in  the press

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10808719/China-plans-for-North-Korean-regime-collapse-leaked.html

However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US

[LUCASWILLEN05]

19 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.

The US military has 4 ABCTs, two SBCTs, and at least one SBCT, in addition to major reserve and guard assets all aligned in Texas facing down Mexico.  Does it mean they're standing by to go to war in Mexico?

The positioning of Chinese forces in proximity to Korea has many different possibilities.  However again, the expense of assuming the DPRK seems to indicate it's more likely they'll want to make it someone else's problem.

My ultimate issue with most of your assessments is you might correctly identify friction, tension, or even a possible conflict, but your assessment is almost invariably the total national commitment to a full spectrum of warfare with all echelons fully engaged, ending with one country utterly destroyed by the conflict and the other running a victory parade through their capital (see your assessment of a Ukrainian conflict ending with a NATO invasion into Russia).  In a Pacific conflict, outside of a ROK-DPRK type war, it's doubtful we will see ground combat between two near peer foes simply because if the various air forces/naval forces are so shot to pieces as to allow for such things....it's doubtful the US, PRC, whoever is going to keep fighting the conflict.  

We've entered an era of limited conflict.  This isn't to say a "big one" is impossible, but the treshhold for such a conflict has not been met, and we're still a few crises back from being on that much of a razor's edge.  

That is how you understand my thinking. Historically we have had periods where we have had limited wars before. For example the Spanish War of Succession or the Cold War/Post Cold War era 1945 - present. What I am saying is, based on History periods of limited war are followed by periods of large scale warfare.

Western forces have been cut back dramatically over the last couple of decades. China and Russia however  have been doing the opposite. Expanding and/or modernizing. Your view is overly Western centric. In reality it is Western militaries who my not be ready for a war like this. just as British, French and US forces were not ready for World War 2. I think you may be drawing some of the wrong historical lessons here

You do however seem to agree with me that the geopolitical situation can change. However, taken WW1 as an analogy I am thinking we are in a 1900s (1905 - 1914) position. You are thinking in terms of a position similar to the 1870s/1880s. Either of us could be correct on this one

However your reasoning in regard to current Chinese thinking on Korea makes sense. However it i possible that the situation in North Korea my change suddenly and swiftly.In those circumstances everybody will be trying to catch up

[LUCASWILLEN05]

18 hours ago, db_zero said:

The leadership of China biggest worry is internal strife. The PLA and new tanks are first and foremost there to keep the people in line and if need be crush them if they get too ornery.

Taiwain is next on the list as is North Korea if it collapses. 

Somewhere way down on the list of priorities is an actual land war with the west...

Many view China as a homogenous country which is far from the truth. Lots of ethics groups who have thousands of years of disagreements, political intrigue and disdain for one another. 

Then there is the rural vs urban, costal vs countryside things going on.

The war being fought is basically a cyber one.

In addition to those issues you have correctly listed here is also the potential of an India - Pakistan War,  trouble in Tibet, war with Vietnam (which is where the Spratley and Paracel Islands come in)

Though a land war against the West may be further down the priorities for Beijing  wars on China's borders will be much further up the list