North Korea: 2012-2016

[Kenyatta]

As for China being a threat to Taiwan.

I highly doubt it there will be war with Taiwan.

China and Taiwan are very closely linked economically. Most of the Taiwanese factories are situation in Fujian province, China. Taiwan is one of the largest investors in the Chinese economy. Also the pro independence party have been booted out of office in the recent election(due to rampant corruption and poor economic performance) and the KMT(Kuomintang) party is back in the drivers seat which by the way(ironically) acceptable to the Chinese gov. There is even talks now(that the Ind. party is gone) of directs flights from Taiwan to China.

[orange dave]

I've also had similar thoughts about such a trade, and I'm not quite as skeptical as some here. Giving up Taiwan is not going to be a blow to democracy everywhere, or make our allies distrust us. Taiwan has very little soft power, and it really hasn't ever done any kind of activism on the part of democracy, ever. Moreover, China has opened up quite a bit since we last re-evaluated our Taiwan policy, so even if this is about democracy one would have to take that into account. The analogy here with Japan is academic, as nobody in the region wants to see Japan re-arm itself. A similar trade could also be discussed for Korea, but this would only be in the very long term, after North Korea cleans itself up the way China has.

The only main caution I would have about this would be whether the Chinese are actually concerned over military control over Taiwan as they say they are. It would of course be a disaster if the US executed such a policy to only a lukewarm response in the PRC. It could be more effective to simply arrange some kind of apology for historical whatever, or to concede on some question of governance philosophy or the like. The US supposedly specializes in understanding foreign cultures better than they understand themselves, and this may be a case where that sort of skill is necessary.

I wouldn't totally take a Taiwan political trade off the table. It could be a useful element of our foreign policy 'toolbox' in that region, to at least hold in reserve. One should assume that the end of American protection would immediately mean a PRC conquest; however this wouldn't be bloody if Taiwan were convinced that they would lose and the US wouldn't back them up. So such a move would need to be planned very thoroughly.

[Jedburgh]

The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group, 20 May 10: Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS "Cheonan"

......Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.

[William F. Owen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asi...c/10160204.stm

Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.

[Tukhachevskii]

...The Atlantic (Online)conducted a war-game, Pentagon style, in 2005 investigating and testing various hypotheses over how to deal militarily (and diplomatically) with the DPRK;

North Korea: The War Game

[AdamG]

How might a shooting war start? Defense analysts and military sources in Seoul and Washington agree that an outright, all-out attack by either side is unlikely. Even a nuclear armed North, a Seoul-based defense analyst says, "would not risk an all-out war because it would be the end of the regime. Period, full stop." But there are ways in which smaller skirmishes could break out, and if they aren't contained, they could conceivably lead to disaster. Here are three that are uppermost in defense planners' minds:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2010052...08599199192800

[William F. Owen]

Even a nuclear armed North, a Seoul-based defense analyst says, "would not risk an all-out war because it would be the end of the regime. Period, full stop."

Someone can tell the future and see into the mind of of North Korean Leadership! Wow...
Telling people what they want to hear is not useful in this case.

[JMA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asi...c/10160204.stm

Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.

Maybe the North is crying out for a war so as to have something to blame/excuse their situation on. Want to go out in a blaze of glory rather than die of starvation? It time for Uncle Sam to do the right thing... where will the wind blow the fallout?

[Tukhachevskii]

It time for Uncle Sam to do the right thing... where will the wind blow the fallout?

Sir, apart from the amazing flippant (bordering on offensive) tone of many of your posts I shall address myself to the above comment alone.

Yes. Uncle Sam should indeed do the right thing......sign a peace treaty ending the state of war between the North and the South/US (UN). It takes two to tango.

For a good summary of the issues up to 2004 see; U.S-North Korean Relations, Asian Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2004

[JMA]

Which means what, exactly?

I suggest for background you read this article 10 lessons on empire before moving on to the big one The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997 and then for the gluttons for punishment this one Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power

Certainly Brendon's book should be required reading for all British officers if only to balance the input indoctrination and propaganda over their lifetime.

Surely it can be understood that the use of the "end justifies the means" can work both ways? One can't really be taken seriously when with a shocking record of skulduggery one cries fouls when the boot is on the other foot?

There is no longer any guarantee that the Brit nation will blindly follow their government nor believe without question what it tells them... and not a moment too soon.

The British people must live with the consequences of their voting in democratic elections but the permanent thread running through British foreign policy is an unelected clique of foreign office staff of very dubious ethical and moral character. Time for a clean out?

[JMA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asi...c/10160204.stm

Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.

I welcome comment from someone who understands the (North) Korean mind/psyche. (Yes I say this is a novel concept for the like pf the Brit Foreign Office and the US State department.)

[Rex Brynen]

Yes I say this is a novel concept for the like of the Brit Foreign Office and the US State department.

Which means what, exactly?