1) Because by bringing in NATO in your statement, it highly insinuates that you feel NATO will join the party. Also, the big two in NATO (France and Germany) actually opposed US intervention in Iraq. It's not an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement; quite the contrary. NATO nations individually might support another Korean defensive war, but NATO as an organization will not.
NATO involvement in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, abd Libya, among others, indicates a past record in the last two decades of intervention. Why would an East Asia conflict be any different? An easy clextrapolation because there is grounds for it, unlike yours which would fly in the face of NATO's post-USSR policy.
A nuclear NK is of benefit to China. It acts as a thorn in the side of the US, and provides slightly more leverage in negotiations. China's main objective in NK policy is merely to keep the nation afloat; it's primary concern is a mass exodus of NK refugees should the nation disintegrate. If a nuclear program is going to keep that country together, China will not do anything against it.
I aggree that China wants to meep the country afloat and avoid refugees, but a nuclear NK would almost inevitably lead to this! As NK proceeds with its nuclear development, it will face more more and sanctions for doing so. This is evident in the UN sanctions recently placed upon it.
Sanctions which China voted for. A nuclear NK is NOT beneficial to China, and China clearly does not want a nuclear China!
My point is that it is highly unlikely that Japan will jump on the bandwagon and attack China in a hypothetical war over Korea, given that they already have another serious problem broiling on their hands, which needs no more inflammation.
May be not. But Japanese involvement in a Korean conflict, whether indirectly or not, is inevitible given the close proximity of Japan to the peninsula. In the Korean War, Japan served as a launching platform for US forces, and such support at the very least will be expected.
As for the islands, Japan considers it soverign Japanese soil. Any action on the islands by China will be seen as an invasion, and would justify their use of force in compliance with Article 9. This is also why I brought up the US' nuclear umbrella, because an attack on Japan is equivalent to an attack on the US.
Zhu Chenghu was a rogue hawk, he was transferred to a second line appointment pretty fast after he mentioned that. In 1995, General Xiong was widely, and incorrectly quoted as threatening to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles. The person to whom he was alleged to have said this, Chas Freeman, denies it.
In 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a white paper stating that the government would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. In addition, the paper went on to state that this "no first use" policy would remain unchanged in the future and that China would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.
I revise my earlier statement to say that Chenghu allegedly threatened to blow up LA.
The "White Paper" I found was 2011, but thats immaterial really. Sure, but it never denies first use against a nuclear weapons capable state. Spoken policy isn't operational policy, and shouldn't be given equal weights. If China truly maintains an NFU policy, why then are they in the process of modernizing their nuclear arsenal? If actions speak louder than words, this speaks volumns.
