North Korea: 2012-2016

[Dayuhan]

You mean you didn't detect the sea change?

If by "sea change" you mean somethinmg fundamental, there isn't one... just the usual cycle of occasional spasms of saber-rattling interspersed with business as usual. At the end of the day business generally prevails over saber-rattling; it makes more money.

I believe North Korea sent a note of thanks to uncle Hong.

Why? Which side of the peninsula the exercise occurred on makes little difference to the north. In fact the entire exercise makes little difference to the north, just the expected step in a ritual dance. The North Koreans would have been desperately hoping for a US-China confrontation, which would only benefit them, but they didn't get it.

Mountains out of molehills, soon to be forgotten and of no lasting relevance.

[JMA]

If by "sea change" you mean somethinmg fundamental, there isn't one... just the usual cycle of occasional spasms of saber-rattling interspersed with business as usual. At the end of the day business generally prevails over saber-rattling; it makes more money.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The fundamental change happened on two fronts. One, China crossed the line where it now felt strong enough to instruct the US to stay out of the Yellow Sea, and two, that the US position has weakened to the extent that it complied. That is a sea change when viewed in terms of the international pecking order.

Why? Which side of the peninsula the exercise occurred on makes little difference to the north. In fact the entire exercise makes little difference to the north, just the expected step in a ritual dance. The North Koreans would have been desperately hoping for a US-China confrontation, which would only benefit them, but they didn't get it.

LOL... it reinforces the belief in North Korea that China has assertited itself and as a result the US has accepted a subordinate role to China (certainly in that region) which will have a material effect on what happens in North Korea, Taiwan and ultimately Japan.

Did you really miss this or are you just arguing for the sake of the fun of the argument?

[Dayuhan]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The fundamental change happened on two fronts. One, China crossed the line where it now felt strong enough to instruct the US to stay out of the Yellow Sea, and two, that the US position has weakened to the extent that it complied. That is a sea change when viewed in terms of the international pecking order.

There are those even blinder... those who can only see what they want to see.

In a more realistic world, not committed to cataclysmic interpretation, we have the Chinese Government deciding that they need to rattle a bit of saber for domestic consumption (if you follow China's internal political/economic situation you'll know why), and the US deciding that making an issue of it would be too much hassle - and too much distraction from the issue at hand - to be worth the effort.

it reinforces the belief in North Korea that China has assertited itself and as a result the US has accepted a subordinate role to China (certainly in that region) which will have a material effect on what happens in North Korea, Taiwan and ultimately Japan.

Nothing has really changed much. The US role in managing North Korea is exactly what it was before: we provide the military guarantee (necessary but most unlikely to be used, as the North Koreans know a full scale confrontation would be fatal for them), and we provide the vocal opposition. The economic pressure - a much greater factor in terms of actual influence - comes from China and South Korea. The Japanese and Russians are at the table because they have to be, but have less of an actual role.

It is not a binary US-North Korea standoff, with others looking on.

Of course all of these powers use what influence they have in accordance with their own perception of their own interests, not according to a US script. This has not changed and is not likely to. The interests involved are not entirely consistent, but they do have a lot of common ground: nobody wants to see open conflict.

The North Koreans would, of course, have preferred to see a US-China confrontation. Such a confrontation would not have been military, at least beyond the level of posturing: too much to lose on both sides. It would turn into one of those diplomatic ###-for-tat dances, and the first ### the Chinese would pull out of their kit would be to reduce pressure on and increase assistance to North Korea. That would not help us at all.

All in all the entire incident is a wrinkle, and nothing to get upset about... unless of course getting upset is what you want to do.

[Dayuhan]

Does the US really need military dominance in NE Asia?

Is a major US military presence in NE Asia really justified?

If so, why?

I'm, inclined to think the answer to both questions is "no". Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are fully industrialized countries at a high level of development. Their combined GDP is fairly close to that of China; their per capita GDPs far higher. North Korea isn't even remotely comparable.

How do we justify the application of major resources to defend those who are clearly capable of defending themselves?

Not suggesting that we should take no role at all, but given the capabilities of our regional allies and the combination of our limited resources and our commitments elsewhere, I see no reason why we should seek a dominant role.

[JMA]

Does the US really need military dominance in NE Asia?

Is a major US military presence in NE Asia really justified?

If so, why?

I'm, inclined to think the answer to both questions is "no". Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are fully industrialized countries at a high level of development. Their combined GDP is fairly close to that of China; their per capita GDPs far higher. North Korea isn't even remotely comparable.

How do we justify the application of major resources to defend those who are clearly capable of defending themselves?

Not suggesting that we should take no role at all, but given the capabilities of our regional allies and the combination of our limited resources and our commitments elsewhere, I see no reason why we should seek a dominant role.

You propose that the US should hunker down on mainland North America and be prepared to beg others to allow oil imports safe passage? Didn't work then won't work now. Unless... the US can feed its oil addiction through Arctic exploration.

While the Chinese are not the most intelligent of diplomatic operators but they still believe that they can dispense with the US on the basis of "death by a thousand cuts". Why they even have a growing number of US citizens believing that public humiliation of their country by China is in reality good solid acceptable diplomacy. You go figure.

Now if one wanted to get rid of the US from the area then China should consider removing the threat from North Korea to the South which in turn would leave the US with no reason/justification to keep troops in Korea. That would be the first domino. The next will be the pressure on the US to reduce its forces on Japan, who will willingly comply using the "fall" of North Korea and the associated threat reduction as an excuse.

[Dayuhan]

You propose that the US should hunker down on mainland North America and be prepared to beg others to allow oil imports safe passage?

What percentage of US oil imports pass through NE Asia?

Obviously we need to protect and defend our key economic interests. That's precisely why we can't afford to be draining our resources protecting the interests of others, especially when those others are quite capable of doing it themselves.

Of couirse a great deal of US merchandise trade passes through NE Asia, but China isn't likely to interfere with that. They're the ones selling, and with the balance of trade in their favor by some margin, why would they want to rock that boat?

Why they even have a growing number of US citizens believing that public humiliation of their country by China is in reality good solid acceptable diplomacy. You go figure.

I went and figured... and concluded that since the alleged humiliation exists only in the imaginations of those desperate to see it, it's not something I need to worry about.

The next will be the pressure on the US to reduce its forces on Japan, who will willingly comply using the "fall" of North Korea and the associated threat reduction as an excuse.

Why would the US need an excuse to want to ramp down deployments in Japan and South Korea? Those deployments are expensive, we have need of the forces elsewhere... and what do they do for us?

America's fully developed and prosperous allies - not only ion NE Asia - need to understand that they can no longer huddle under the protective umbrella of Big Brother. Security arrangements have to be made between equals, and they have to understand that while we will help them if they get in trouble, we are not in a position to be their first line of defense. Time to step up and carry their share.

[JMA]

What percentage of US oil imports pass through NE Asia?

If the US pulls back then all its trade routes and foreign interests become vulnerable. Now with all US forces at home and the navy inside the coastal waters how will the US protect its foreign interests? Does it have any foreign interests in your opinion?

Obviously we need to protect and defend our key economic interests. That's precisely why we can't afford to be draining our resources protecting the interests of others, especially when those others are quite capable of doing it themselves.

Would you be so kind as to have a stab at what these US "key economic interests" are?

Of couirse a great deal of US merchandise trade passes through NE Asia, but China isn't likely to interfere with that. They're the ones selling, and with the balance of trade in their favor by some margin, why would they want to rock that boat?

If you had not been aware the South China Sea is the busiest maritime trade route. And you may also have been asleep when Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea.

And you are going to tell me why the US has no strategic interest in this area?

I went and figured... and concluded that since the alleged humiliation exists only in the imaginations of those desperate to see it, it's not something I need to worry about.

That response works both ways.

Why would the US need an excuse to want to ramp down deployments in Japan and South Korea? Those deployments are expensive, we have need of the forces elsewhere... and what do they do for us?

May I suggest that you desist from using words like 'we' and 'us' thereby giving the impression that you speak on behalf of the American people. Clearly you represent a minority view and would be better served by using the likes of 'I believe', 'in my opinion' and 'IMHO'.

You think for a moment why the US would not unilaterally withdraw from South Korea and Japan right now. Phone the State Department, I image they may be able to give you a half intelligible answer.

America's fully developed and prosperous allies - not only ion NE Asia - need to understand that they can no longer huddle under the protective umbrella of Big Brother. Security arrangements have to be made between equals, and they have to understand that while we will help them if they get in trouble, we are not in a position to be their first line of defense. Time to step up and carry their share.

Who has decided this? ... LOL

Yes I tend to agree that the US should withdraw from Europe as well. Can you figure out why they don't?