China rejects North Korean coal shipments, opts for US supplies instead

[Victoria33]

I generally think it is high time to stop kicking cans, grab the bull by the tail, and face the situation.

@Smokin Joe

I agree with you.  It appears to me, as I said, we will be forced into it by an emergency situation by the crazy NK leader, which is why I think it is better if we control when it happens and how it happens.  Those plants and bombs have to go.

[Victoria33]

On the flip side, Trump's words also pressure the Chinese to be more active, because they don't want to see things blow up over there either.  And for all his titular power, Kim still must rely on his military for support.  And they can be influenced by the Chinese.

If you really think Kim is that erratic/sensitive, and that is enough for him to launch nukes, then he's pretty much certain to do it within the next decade or so anyway.  I'd rather bring things to a head before he's got that good ICBM, and when we can maximize our influence with the Chinese.

I don't think we can kick this can down the road any further.

No we can't kick it anymore, the can is coming apart from years of kicking it down the road land there aren't any more cans.

[Fishrrman]

The Chinese may actually go in, take out the lil' fat boy along with the rest of his family, install a new government (dominated by them), and dismantle the nukes.

I wouldn't be surprised if their intelligence re NKorea's internal workings are far better than ours, and I also wouldn't be surprised if they have a few "moles" within striking distance of Kim.

This is their big chance to become a major player on the world stage. If they can pull this off, no one will be able to say that China is not the foremost nation striking a blow for peace in the nascent twenty-first century.

If they install a Chinese-run government to come to the relief of the struggling NKorean people, that, too can only advance their resume.

The U.S. forces will stand by, idle for the most (all?) part.
I could be wrong.

Questions:
If the Chinese annexed NKorea, running it governing it as a part of their own country, would South Korea become less or more safe?
If the Chinese did this, would the United States become less or more safe?

[Smokin Joe]

The Chinese may actually go in, take out the lil' fat boy along with the rest of his family, install a new government (dominated by them), and dismantle the nukes.

I wouldn't be surprised if their intelligence re NKorea's internal workings are far better than ours, and I also wouldn't be surprised if they have a few "moles" within striking distance of Kim.

This is their big chance to become a major player on the world stage. If they can pull this off, no one will be able to say that China is not the foremost nation striking a blow for peace in the nascent twenty-first century.

If they install a Chinese-run government to come to the relief of the struggling NKorean people, that, too can only advance their resume.

The U.S. forces will stand by, idle for the most (all?) part.
I could be wrong.

Questions:
If the Chinese annexed NKorea, running it governing it as a part of their own country, would South Korea become less or more safe?
If the Chinese did this, would the United States become less or more safe?

I will assume the Chinese would be more safe. Everyone else would be up to them. After all, Pyongyang would be part of Korea if it hadn't been for Chicom intervention.

What would definitely happen is an increase in "Face" for the Chinese, elevating them to status of worldcop in the region, and placing them on par with the US there. That's an intangible that cannot be ignored. I'm still not sure they would want to annex N Korea, the place is a mess, rather set up a puppet government and trade for what they need, while exerting economic hegemony to go along with the military shadow cast.

By controlling relative prosperity for the new and improved DPRK through trade, they would retain a buffer state and still come off as 'the good guys' as far as the North Koreans were concerned.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

You said, "With all due respect, I think you have a bias in favor of thinking that just because Israeli air raids in 80's stopped the Syrian and Iraqi programs, we can do the same thing today with North Korea."

No, I merely mentioned the Israeli attack as a matter of history, in that they didn't wait until Saddam had bombs ready to go, plus because they didn't publicize what they were going to do, it was over and done.  I do remember when they took out Syria's facility, too.

That doesn't address the point about why you believe military strikes are likely to succeed.  What do you envision us actually doing to knock those things out?  Drop nukes, or conventional air strikes?  And saying "I'm not sure because I'm not a military expert, but I'm sure there's something" doesn't answer the question.  It assumes there really is a "something" that actually can be relied upon to do the job without giving him ample opportunity (and obviously motive) to start an all-out war.

And even before actually getting to that point, I assume that this is one of those actions where you'd insist that the President get the permission of Congress first.  How do you think NK will respond if they see that Congress is about to authorize a first strike on them?

[Smokin Joe]

That doesn't address the point about why you  military strikes are likely to succeed.  What do you envision us actually doing to knock those things out?  Drop nukes, or conventional air strikes?  And saying "I'm not sure because I'm not a military expert, but I'm sure there's something" doesn't answer the question.  It assumes there really is a "something" that actually can be relied upon to do the job without giving him ample opportunity (and obviously motive) to start an all-out war.

And even before actually getting to that point, I assume that this is one of those actions where you'd insist that the President get the permission of Congress first.  How do you think NK will respond if they see that Congress is about to authorize a first strike on them?

Any overt action would have to be swift (one shot), decisive, and deniable.  Elimination of nuclear facilities with what appeared to be an accident, which would involve serious ground penetration, accuracy, and a tailor made device to give off the right spectral GR readings and daughter product profile.... Otherwise, there'd be hell to pay.
Likely a peaceful solution is the best.
Let the Chinese put Kim on a short leash, or put him down (he has plenty of folks who wouldn't cry over that.) They don't need that crap on their doorstep, either.
Maybe there is someone who would be a better leader with just a little help, and they can start a new dynasty, if that's what they want.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I hope there's no quid pro quo involving the South China Sea. That there is some bad chinese juju.

I hope the quid pro quo is saving their ass from Japan 70+ years ago.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@don-o

Saw an interview with Trump today and he said something like this: "North Korea is doing bad things."  Then, quoting Trump's actual words, he said, "I've sent an Armada of ships with submarines over there."  Then, he said something like this, "If China doesn't help us, we will do it ourselves."  That was a dumb thing to say - he ratcheted up the idea of actually starting a war, bragging about sending ships and submarines.   The North Korea crazy man will likely drop a nuclear bomb because of this, just because he can.  People are objects to him, killing them is nothing.  I thought Trump would start a war but not this soon.  I hope this doesn't happen.

you know he "can"?  This may be just bluffing all the way.

And you say Trump is starting the war? Where have you been these years when NK has said they wish to obliterate us?

Me saying I will kill you means I have started the war, and You are taking action due to my imminent and declared threat.

[Jazzhead]

That doesn't address the point about why you believe military strikes are likely to succeed.  What do you envision us actually doing to knock those things out?  Drop nukes, or conventional air strikes?  And saying "I'm not sure because I'm not a military expert, but I'm sure there's something" doesn't answer the question.  It assumes there really is a "something" that actually can be relied upon to do the job without giving him ample opportunity (and obviously motive) to start an all-out war.

And even before actually getting to that point, I assume that this is one of those actions where you'd insist that the President get the permission of Congress first.  How do you think NK will respond if they see that Congress is about to authorize a first strike on them?

Bombing their facilities is likely to be only partially successful,  and hence encourage Fatboy to resort to desperate measures.  ("If you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.")   The great unknown, it seems to me, is whether our cyberwarfare capabilities are advanced enough to shut down the country and prevent the NORKs from effectively retaliating.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No we can't kick it anymore, the can is coming apart from years of kicking it down the road land there aren't any more cans.

yet you say in a prior post "It does no good to bring up what Obama did or did not do and/or what Bush did or did not do.  The situation is what it is.  "

Hilarious.  You choose not to recall history so it will not be repeated yet then bemoan the fact that there are no more cans to kick down the road.

One MUST confront the facts on how we got here so we learn from history.  The recipe you adopt is a recipe to lose repeatedly.

[Smokin Joe]

Bombing their facilities is likely to be only partially successful,  and hence encourage Fatboy to resort to desperate measures.  ("If you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.")   The great unknown, it seems to me, is whether our cyberwarfare capabilities are advanced enough to shut down the country and prevent the NORKs from effectively retaliating.

Maybe hack in and cause them to have an 'accident' that will cause the facility to become too contaminated for future use?

[Smokin Joe]

yet you say in a prior post "It does no good to bring up what Obama did or did not do and/or what Bush did or did not do.  The situation is what it is.  "

Hilarious.  You choose not to recall history so it will not be repeated yet then bemoan the fact that there are no more cans to kick down the road.

One MUST confront the facts on how we got here so we learn from history.  The recipe you adopt is a recipe to lose repeatedly.

Maybe we could send them another basketball player?

The reality is that this problem is a leftover from the '50s. and became one because we decided not to deal with one in the '40s (Mao). If Mao hadn't been running China, If we'd stopped the Chicoms at the Yalu, If...If...If... but we didn't and that's how we got here.
Will the survivors of Seattle say If...If...If..? Or will we (with or without) Chinese help do something about the situation?
Maybe letting the Chinese take the lead on this is a good idea, and likely they can exert pressure we can't because they are a trading partner.

[ABX]

Come on baby light his fire.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Maybe hack in and cause them to have an 'accident' that will cause the facility to become too contaminated for future use?

Their cyber-systems are far more closed than were the Iranian systems.  And I'm quite sure that if we were able to do what you suggest, we'd have already done it.  Further, even if we could, that wouldn't do anything about the nukes he's already built.  No reason to think we wouldn't have stuxnetted North Korea as we did Iran if it would have been possible to do so.  Perhaps we even tried.

The other issue is that if the premise of this is that he's so unbalanced that anything could set him to firing nukes, I'd suggest that cyber-sabotage would likely do the trick.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Any overt action would have to be swift (one shot), decisive, and deniable.

That option does not exist except in Tom Cruise movies, and perhaps if we had multiple Avengers on our side.  Iron Man and Thor would might be enough.  We might need a Hulk too, though.

Let the Chinese put Kim on a short leash, or put him down (he has plenty of folks who wouldn't cry over that.) They don't need that crap on their doorstep, either.  Maybe there is someone who would be a better leader with just a little help, and they can start a new dynasty, if that's what they want.

Agreed.  I think that is the most plausible option not likely to result in very large numbers of dead people.