wyeayeman | 24 Aug 2015 8:47 a.m. PST |
Apparently a Chinese Mechanised Brigade has been moved to within 5 miles of its border with North Korea. They may be intended to 'kick the door in' if Kim Jong Plump spits his dummy out. |
Toronto48 | 24 Aug 2015 1:47 p.m. PST |
Another possibility is that if the NORKS collapse or pull a coup the SOUKS and US forces that come into the country will have to stay back from the Yalu |
Legion 4 | 24 Aug 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
"It's just an exercise." Nothing to see here … |
tuscaloosa | 24 Aug 2015 3:18 p.m. PST |
A Chinese invasion of Pyongyang? That would be an interesting scenario. |
cwlinsj | 24 Aug 2015 4:23 p.m. PST |
That would be interesting. I've always looked at scenarios where a reluctant China steps in to prop-up a failing DPRK, but it may be interesti g to work-out a few scenarios where PLA forces drive on Pyongyang. The paranoid Norks keep all their best forces around Pyongyang in case of revolution so these troops have the newest weapons, plenty of ammo, are the most fanatical and are the best-fed. Hmmm, lemme start thinking… |
capncarp | 24 Aug 2015 5:01 p.m. PST |
"The paranoid Norks keep all their best forces around Pyongyang in case of revolution so these troops have the newest weapons, plenty of ammo, are the most fanatical and are the best-fed." Q: How many MOABs would it take to get to the crunchy center of DPRK? A(1--Old school of thought): I don't know. I never made it without nuking. A(2-newer school of thought): Let's find out. One, two, three…. |
Weasel | 24 Aug 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
I imagine they are there for border security. |
Lion in the Stars | 24 Aug 2015 7:44 p.m. PST |
Agree with Weasel. There are 26 million starving North Korean civilians, a number of whom would flee towards the Yalu river in the event of war. The Chinese do not have the resources to handle even a million refugees streaming across that border. |
cwlinsj | 24 Aug 2015 9:45 p.m. PST |
Dont forget that the Russkies also share a border with the Norks. That'd make for an interesting 3-way war between 3 different communist philosophies. |
cwlinsj | 24 Aug 2015 9:57 p.m. PST |
BTW, North Korea does not allow their people to freely travel, this combined with how militarized they are, the lack of usable roads, little mass transit availability nor fuel, and the basic lack of foods (underfed people dont have the calories to make such an arduous journey) would make the refugee issue more of a slow bleed rather than a flood of people northwards in the event of a war or govt. collapse. I also doubt that China would be as hospitable as the West in defending their border against economic refugees. They may choose more lethal means to stop illegal crossings. I think that North Koreans wod tend to flood southwards if they could. They speak the same language and have been fed propaganda of a welcoming South Korea if they can get there. |
Whatisitgood4atwork | 24 Aug 2015 11:02 p.m. PST |
PRC-NK relations have been going downhill for a long time. NK is certainly not the PRC's lapdog. There are an estimated 200,000 NK citizens hiding in China now, either trying to get to a third country, or simply trying to avoid being deported back to NK to face imprisonment, torture, or death. I agree that border security is probably China's major concern. But there could be other messages going on as well. If the PRC wants NK to tone things down with SK they can no longer just tell them to cool off. NK isn't listening. And they probably do want NK to tone it down. SK is an increasingly important economic partner for the PRC (SK construction firms are everywhere, and they love SK investment capital). NK not so much. Parading a brigade or three around to NK's North is likely to have more of an impact on their willingness to play let's-go-to-hot-war on their Southern border than any amount of diplomatic pressure. |
Weasel | 24 Aug 2015 11:38 p.m. PST |
Cwlinsj – who is the third? Certainly ain't the Russians. |
cwlinsj | 24 Aug 2015 11:57 p.m. PST |
By third, I did mean Russia, but I was being facetious. But let's face it, neither China nor the DPRK are really communist either. |
Weasel | 25 Aug 2015 10:27 a.m. PST |
China is China. I think that's the best explanation for it :-) I've heard the terms "Authoritarian capitalism" and "State capitalism" thrown around and those are probably as good as any. |
GurKhan | 26 Aug 2015 6:43 a.m. PST |
I've always looked at scenarios where a reluctant China steps in to prop-up a failing DPRK, but it may be interesting to work-out a few scenarios where PLA forces drive on Pyongyang. Indeed: rather than prop up the DPRK, a bolder China might instead overthrow the northern leadership and propose Korean reunification. Without a hostile North there is no need for US troops in the South; the new united Korean government politely says "thanks for the last 60 years, you can go home now"; and unified Korea returns to its historical role as number one client state of Imperial China. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Aug 2015 11:22 a.m. PST |
@GurKhan: Problem is that the current Koreans (no matter which side of the 38th parallel) do NOT want to be a Chinese client state. They are just as vocal about not wanting to be a Japanese client state. So any Korean government will want a rather large and powerful nation on their side. The Chinese do not want a US ally on their border. |
Cyrus the Great | 26 Aug 2015 8:40 p.m. PST |
More to the point, if Un went nuclear it would only take the wrong wind direction for it to blow back over China. Do you think China would ever allow that to happen? |