Vive la France

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by neverfail » Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:10 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:16 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:22 pm

Well, from 1953 until the time less than a decade ago when NK exploded its first rest atomic bomb, the USA had left NK alone. During this long period what was to stop the USA from wiping NK off the map? Only American self restraint!
China, that's who...
China only test-exploded its first nuclear device only in 1964: so that leaves a gap period of at least 11 years when the USA could have done North Korea over unopposed. Then it must have taken many years longer for China to develop the miniturising technology along with the ICBM's needed to deliver the bombs to targets in the USA itself: all the longer because of the disruptions caused by their (so called) :lol: Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the 1960's. All in all the USA has had a long time to nuke North Korea without needing to fear retaliation.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by Sertorio » Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:46 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:10 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:16 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:22 pm

Well, from 1953 until the time less than a decade ago when NK exploded its first rest atomic bomb, the USA had left NK alone. During this long period what was to stop the USA from wiping NK off the map? Only American self restraint!
China, that's who...
China only test-exploded its first nuclear device only in 1964: so that leaves a gap period of at least 11 years when the USA could have done North Korea over unopposed. Then it must have taken many years longer for China to develop the miniturising technology along with the ICBM's needed to deliver the bombs to targets in the USA itself: all the longer because of the disruptions caused by their (so called) :lol: Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the 1960's. All in all the USA has had a long time to nuke North Korea without needing to fear retaliation.
The Chinese didn't need any nuclear weapons back in 1950/1951 to almost throw the so-called UN forces into the sea. Any further attacks by the US would have met the full force of the Chinese army, with its several million soldiers. I very much doubt the US would have been able, so soon after WW II, to mobilize enough forces to defeat China on its backyard. And using nuclear weapons might draw a similar use by the Soviet Union. No, the US was not then free to attack North Korea.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Vive la France

Post by Milo » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:58 pm

Deleted

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by neverfail » Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:18 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:46 pm

The Chinese didn't need any nuclear weapons back in 1950/1951 to almost throw the so-called UN forces into the sea. Any further attacks by the US would have met the full force of the Chinese army, with its several million soldiers. I very much doubt the US would have been able, so soon after WW II, to mobilize enough forces to defeat China on its backyard. And using nuclear weapons might draw a similar use by the Soviet Union. No, the US was not then free to attack North Korea.
Even while war was raging up and down the Korean peninsula, the Soviet Union just sat on the sidelines and allowed it to rage on for 3 years without intervening militarily. So had the US used nuclear weapons against even China while leaving the USSR unscathed I doubt whether the Soviet Union would have been tempted to respond in kind on China's behalf. Conceded that the risk was there but it would have been a very low risk.

The PRC method of waging warfare in the early 1950's was human wave infantry attacks - the same kind that the Russians used against the Germans during WW2. Yes, the Chinese could have used their millions of reservists against the UN sanctioned multinational force opposed to them but with the Americans in utter control of the skies above the battlefields it would have resulted in millions more of Chinese dead bodies. Not a bright outcome even for the most populous nation that in recent memory at the time had lost tens of millions of its own during the struggle against the Japanese invaders.

I believe that you are on more solid ground in suggesting that I very much doubt the US would have been able, so soon after WW II, to mobilize enough forces to defeat China on its backyard. Not because, technically speaking, they could not have done it but a long war with an indeterminate outcome would have been very unpopular with public opinion back in the United States. In any case the outcome at the time of ceasefire, with both sides getting approx. one half of the Korean peninsula each, was in broad compliance with the original UN resolution that sanctioned the sending of an American led UN force to push back a North Korean invasion of the South in the first place.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by Sertorio » Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:55 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:18 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:46 pm

The Chinese didn't need any nuclear weapons back in 1950/1951 to almost throw the so-called UN forces into the sea. Any further attacks by the US would have met the full force of the Chinese army, with its several million soldiers. I very much doubt the US would have been able, so soon after WW II, to mobilize enough forces to defeat China on its backyard. And using nuclear weapons might draw a similar use by the Soviet Union. No, the US was not then free to attack North Korea.
Even while war was raging up and down the Korean peninsula, the Soviet Union just sat on the sidelines and allowed it to rage on for 3 years without intervening militarily. So had the US used nuclear weapons against even China while leaving the USSR unscathed I doubt whether the Soviet Union would have been tempted to respond in kind on China's behalf. Conceded that the risk was there but it would have been a very low risk.

The PRC method of waging warfare in the early 1950's was human wave infantry attacks - the same kind that the Russians used against the Germans during WW2. Yes, the Chinese could have used their millions of reservists against the UN sanctioned multinational force opposed to them but with the Americans in utter control of the skies above the battlefields it would have resulted in millions more of Chinese dead bodies. Not a bright outcome even for the most populous nation that in recent memory at the time had lost tens of millions of its own during the struggle against the Japanese invaders.

I believe that you are on more solid ground in suggesting that I very much doubt the US would have been able, so soon after WW II, to mobilize enough forces to defeat China on its backyard. Not because, technically speaking, they could not have done it but a long war with an indeterminate outcome would have been very unpopular with public opinion back in the United States. In any case the outcome at the time of ceasefire, with both sides getting approx. one half of the Korean peninsula each, was in broad compliance with the original UN resolution that sanctioned the sending of an American led UN force to push back a North Korean invasion of the South in the first place.
I have no problems accepting these views of yours on the subject. Which does not invalidate my views on the overall negative character of US presence in Asia. Besides, the US presence in Asia can only last as long as Japan does not decide that it too can become a nuclear power. If - or once - that happens, the US presence west of Hawaii will no longer be tolerated. Not by China and not by Japan. And everybody else in Asia will follow suit.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by neverfail » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:18 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:55 am


I have no problems accepting these views of yours on the subject. Which does not invalidate my views on the overall negative character of US presence in Asia. Besides, the US presence in Asia can only last as long as Japan does not decide that it too can become a nuclear power. If - or once - that happens, the US presence west of Hawaii will no longer be tolerated. Not by China and not by Japan. And everybody else in Asia will follow suit.
If Japan were to even attempt to go nuclear, I do not believe that the PRC would hesitate for a moment to nuke Tokyo.

Which is why it is safer for Japan to shelter behind the US nuclear umbrella than to try and go it alone.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Vive la France

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:20 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:55 am


I have no problems accepting these views of yours on the subject. Which does not invalidate my views on the overall negative character of US presence in Asia. Besides, the US presence in Asia can only last as long as Japan does not decide that it too can become a nuclear power. If - or once - that happens, the US presence west of Hawaii will no longer be tolerated. Not by China and not by Japan. And everybody else in Asia will follow suit.
Why would that be? Japan and the US are allies. Both will come to a realization that the day will come when the Chinese will be more powerful militarily than the US. Thus they need to pool their resources to contain Chinese ambitions. The Japan-US alliance will grow as China grows stronger.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by neverfail » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:00 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:20 pm

Why would that be? Japan and the US are allies. Both will come to a realization that the day will come when the Chinese will be more powerful militarily than the US. Thus they need to pool their resources to contain Chinese ambitions. The Japan-US alliance will grow as China grows stronger.
Makes sense! But both had better get their act together as both have significant weaknesses.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Vive la France

Post by Sertorio » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:06 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:20 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:55 am


I have no problems accepting these views of yours on the subject. Which does not invalidate my views on the overall negative character of US presence in Asia. Besides, the US presence in Asia can only last as long as Japan does not decide that it too can become a nuclear power. If - or once - that happens, the US presence west of Hawaii will no longer be tolerated. Not by China and not by Japan. And everybody else in Asia will follow suit.
Why would that be? Japan and the US are allies. Both will come to a realization that the day will come when the Chinese will be more powerful militarily than the US. Thus they need to pool their resources to contain Chinese ambitions. The Japan-US alliance will grow as China grows stronger.
China has no designs in respect of Japan, and Japan no longer can afford an expansionist policy directed against China. Their economic interests are not incompatible with each other, so I do not see any reason for future conflicts between the two countries. As such Japan's alliance with the US is totally useless. In fact, that alliance is the main reason why Japan and China cannot get along with each other. If Japan wants to penetrate the Chinese market, it will have to give up its alliance with the US. Japan may have to make a more convincing admission of guilt in respect of Japanese intervention in China in the 30's, but I suppose that could be arranged. A 1.3 billion potential market is certainly worth some more convincing apologies... Sooner or later Japanese pragmatism will come to the surface.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Vive la France

Post by cassowary » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:32 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:06 am

China has no designs in respect of Japan, and Japan no longer can afford an expansionist policy directed against China.
China certainly has designs for Diaoyu or Senkaku Island. The US has promised Japan support in the event China takes it by force.

Post Reply