Forums → WEPR → North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.
| 163 | 170262 |
- 163 Replies
Iraq was not a NATO operation as stated earlier. NATO entered the Afghan war because the 911 attacks was considered an attack on all member states under Article 5. As for Yugoslavia, reasons of regional security were brought up, justifying itself under Article 4, which allows involved parties to consult together whenever political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened. However, Korea does not necessarily fit under any of these situations, and furthermore, treating NATO as a monolith with a single macro-foreign policy is misleading.
Mea culpae on NATO being in Iraq. However, note that many NATO countries were in the Coalition.
From the NATO website:
These countries develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest, including emerging security challenges, and some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way. Individual global partners choose the areas where they wish to engage with NATO, as well as the extent of this cooperation, in a spirit of mutual benefit and reciprocity.
Over recent years, NATO has developed bilateral relations with each of these countries. Global partners now have the same access to partnership activities as other partners. Activities range from joint exercises and joint operations, to strategic-level training, and information, intelligence as well as technology exchange.
SK is a Global Partner of NATO, and as such is a recipient of the same benefits as any other member nation. But I don't really see why we're arguing this; NATO intervened in the Korean War, which I might add, is still *technically* ongoing, meaning that NATO is still *technically* participating. Think of the last 60 years as a really long half time.
Isn't it a macro-foreign policy? The foreign policy of the vast majority of the member nations agrees that a nuclear-capable NK is bad, and that NK attacking SK is bad. Without going into details, it isn't all correct to paint them with a fairly broad brush.
China's support for Pyongyang ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border, and provides a buffer zone between China and South Korea, which is home to around 29,000 U.S. troops. This allows China to reduce its military deployment in its northeast and "focus more directly on the issue of Taiwanese independence,". It is clear that China has enormous leverage on NK, but what most people don't realise is that North Korea can pursue a highly independent policy by itself; rendered even more complex by factionalism within the CCP's ranks. China has shown signs of being increasingly frustrated by nuclear brinkmanship, but it knows that a nuclear North Korea that is relatively dependent on it (E.g the growing bilateral trade), can prove useful in times of negotiations. Furthermore, a nuclear program provides the North with a meagre source to rally around with pride, holding the nation together, even if only by the string of their teeth
A nuclear Pyongyang may be of a slight benefit to China in the short term, but Beijing stands to lose out the instant the world reacts. It's a matter of the bird in the hand being worth the two in the bush. Beijing would rather have the migraine of a virulent and non-nuclear NK than have to deal with the nightmare of a unified Korea knocking on it's door. China can serve to lessen the affects of UN sanctions, but the US will not tolerate nuclear weapons on the peninsula. That much is clear.
Besides, Kim just has to bang the war drums (gongs?) and the fervor will rise as it always does. A parade here, an appearance there, and all the time being lauded by the state media.
This is a wrong assumption, because it assumes that Japan will want to attack China/NK, when its constitution forbids it to (Even the name of the JDF reflects its attitude that it has given up the right of belligerency)
Yes; Japan has given up the right to belligerency. As their Defense Force's name implies, Japan maintains a military for *defensive* means. So if attacked by China over their islands, or by NK, that would place them under attack, and thus, on the.defensive. Combined with the US' nuclear umbrella over their hands, Japan just has to wait for NK or China to hang themselves.
Japan's constitution merely prohibits it from firing the first shot. With any war, the response after fighting off the first attack as the defender is to wage a counter attack to consolidate your position and weaken your opponent. Thats base strategy.
When we look at this with the understanding that the Japanese government has a history of looking at Article 9 with a very liberal/ambiguous approach, a regional conflict with Japan providing at least auxiliary support in the event Japan is attacked is to be expected.
In short, Article 9 merely prevents Japan from initiating a conflict. It says nothing, and in fact implies, that Japan will defend itself if ever attacked.
Why does not signing an NFU policy not prevent you from upgrading your arsenal? Under Article 9, Japan has been forbidden from actually maintaining any armed forces, leading to the JDF being more or less classified as awkward extensions of the police force; yet it constantly upgrades and imports new materials.
Furthermore, In 2010, the Pentagon concluded that although there is "some ambiguity over the conditions under which China's [no-first-use] policy would or would not apply...there has been no indication that national leaders are willing to attach such nuances and caveats to China's 'no first use' doctrine".
Article 9 in Japan's Constitution merely prohibits the creation of an armed force for use in offensive and belligerent warfare. Japan has, and has always had, the right to maintain a force with which to defend itself. That has been clear from the start. How such a force is classified in Japan is immaterial; what matters is that they have the right to do so. You're completely misinterpreting this as if to imply that Japan has no right to maintain even a defense force!
As for China's lack of an official NFU policy, it's a matter of putting your money where your mouth is. It would be akin to the US telling Canada it has no intention of violating the Rush-Bagot treaty, and then start building large fortifications and military installments right on the border.
You don't need state-of-the-art technology to send a warhead around the world. China already has the capability. Why, then, if they insist they have an NFU policy, do they go and start upgrading their capacity to make war? It's completely contradictory to do so, and you'll forgive me if I remain suspicious of their intentions.
hey didn't surrender because of the 2nd bomb but because russia betrayed them that same day
USSR had been against Japan since USSR had been betrayed by Hitler. USSR only began a major offensive into Manchuria pursuant the aggreement at Yalta, which had the USSR invading occupied China in between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To suggest that Japan losing an outer territory ended the war when the US had liberated Japanese soil is ludicrous.
I'd like to draw your attention to this graphic. You find that, of all the deaths in WWII, 58% were Allied Civilians. Only 4% were Axis Civilians.
As for the honorable Japanese, here's a page detailing all the honorable things they did during WWII. They're pretty modest today though, since factions in the Japanese government today deny all the honorable things they did back then.
No evidence of war crimes here, folks.
now i can also say again why they didn't surrender to the bombs
They actually did surrender to the bombs, as you put it. Hirohito broke tradition and actually spoke at a cabinet meeting, reading out a haiku and asking for surrender to the Allies after citing the destruction caused by the atomic bombs. And in the Gyokuon-hoso, or the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, Hirohito directly cites the A-Bomb: "...the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable... ". He later says that it has the power to obliterate the entire Japanese nation.
In fact, historians around the world cite the Atomic bombs as ending the war in the pacific. You stating otherwise not only doesn't change things, but shows me you're close minded and in denial of reality!