Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Why does China support North Korea?

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

They are just still under the delusion they are communist and like to keep firends with other communist nations.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:10:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:07:24 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

They are just still under the delusion they are communist and like to keep firends with other communist nations.

Ah, okay I suspected that was the reason. I wasn't fully sure though. Thank you!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:14:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:10:13 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:07:24 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

They are just still under the delusion they are communist and like to keep firends with other communist nations.

Ah, okay I suspected that was the reason. I wasn't fully sure though. Thank you!

Kind of like when you have an old friend, who is a bit of a bastard, but you are still firends with them as you have a shared history. Well that's my detailed political assessment.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:10:13 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:07:24 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

They are just still under the delusion they are communist and like to keep firends with other communist nations.

Ah, okay I suspected that was the reason. I wasn't fully sure though. Thank you!

Kind of like when you have an old friend, who is a bit of a bastard, but you are still firends with them as you have a shared history. Well that's my detailed political assessment.

It's a sensible enough assessment. I was thinking about it the other day and was like, "I guess it's just because they are both communist nations so they've got to stick together." I just wanted to see if others agreed with that reasoning or if I was missing some key aspect of the relationship.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:33:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

Historical ties. Also if China stopped supporting N Korea the country would become unstable. And china does not want millions of north korean refugees crossing the border. furthermore they create a nice buffer zone between China and the US backed south korea.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What exactly constitutes "handling" NK to you? What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:33:09 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

Historical ties. Also if China stopped supporting N Korea the country would become unstable. And china does not want millions of north korean refugees crossing the border. furthermore they create a nice buffer zone between China and the US backed south korea.

I agree with you that N. Korea would become unstable without the aid from China. I've always viewed China as the main reason why N. Korea is still standing as it is today. I just didn't understand "why". The refugee point makes alot of sense though, I can completely understand that, and also agree that they do provide a buffer. Thanks for sharing! I appreciate the response.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What exactly constitutes "handling" NK to you?

In this sense, I use the term "handling" and "controlling" in the same sense. China proves to be one of the biggest hurdles to our ability of controlling N. Korea since they aren't necessarily dependent on US due to Chinese support.

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 9:02:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

This video quite accurately sums it up: https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What exactly constitutes "handling" NK to you?

In this sense, I use the term "handling" and "controlling" in the same sense. China proves to be one of the biggest hurdles to our ability of controlling N. Korea since they aren't necessarily dependent on US due to Chinese support.

This is generally speaking false. What would we do to "control" NK? We could depose their leadership and cause a refugee crisis, something none of their neighbors want. We would alienate ourselves from the region if we did this.

From my experiences, most SK people acknowledge that they would bear the primary burden of reunification, but think that this would only be feasible decades down the road. SK has only recently become a developed economy.

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 9:56:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:02:59 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

This video quite accurately sums it up: https://www.youtube.com...

Excellent summation! Thank you for sharing!!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 10:04:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What exactly constitutes "handling" NK to you?

In this sense, I use the term "handling" and "controlling" in the same sense. China proves to be one of the biggest hurdles to our ability of controlling N. Korea since they aren't necessarily dependent on US due to Chinese support.

This is generally speaking false. What would we do to "control" NK? We could depose their leadership and cause a refugee crisis, something none of their neighbors want. We would alienate ourselves from the region if we did this.

I wouldn't say it's "false" but rather that it's not the best course of action. I could see refugees being an issue though, and that was something I failed to take into consideration. Alienating ourselves from the region isn't in the best interests of America, but neither is having a nuclear state which brainwashes its people into thinking a nuclear war with America is imminent. I see now why the whole N. Korea issue is such a tough one.

From my experiences, most SK people acknowledge that they would bear the primary burden of reunification, but think that this would only be feasible decades down the road. SK has only recently become a developed economy.

Yeah, I agree with you in this regard.

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.

I don't see any underlined section. I'm assuming it's the fact that it'd give us greater regional control though that you were probably putting emphasis on. Again, I agree. Doesn't change the fact though that someday down the road we'll have to face off with China, and having N. Korea's territory would be instrumental in bettering our chances of success, regardless of how we go about facing off against China.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 10:04:28 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.

I don't see any underlined section. I'm assuming it's the fact that it'd give us greater regional control though that you were probably putting emphasis on. Again, I agree. Doesn't change the fact though that someday down the road we'll have to face off with China, and having N. Korea's territory would be instrumental in bettering our chances of success, regardless of how we go about facing off against China.

Yeah you got the gist, some condensing to make it clearer for you. China wants a buffer state, so they keep NK going.

I'm of the opinion that if things continue to go the way they've been going, what's going to happen is that SK will in the foreseeable future (maybe 10-20 years down the road) politely ask for the US to withdraw. China has already surpassed the US as SK's #1 trading partner, and this relationship is more than likely going to continue to grow. As it grows, it will become more evident to SK that SK interests lie with China and not America. When Korea finally unifies, China will no longer need a buffer state and so would be much more amenable towards such a development.

Obviously this would be problematic towards US interests in the area, but I really do not see any feasible alternative.

For example, a couple years ago, Niall Ferguson made the "startling" prediction that China would surpass the US in GDP PPP by 2017. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) It turns out his prediction was not "startling" enough, as China already surpassed the US by this metric last year. This trend only shows signs of strengthening.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 3:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

It's geography, they share a border and North Korea serves as a buffer to Japan and the west. They supported them in the war and if they weren't an ally an enemy could become an ally and they just don't need one of their enemies on a 1400 Kilometer border. The relationship is strained and getting worse, China wants out of the relationship and they are getting closer and closer to South Korea economically.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 10:04:28 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.

I don't see any underlined section. I'm assuming it's the fact that it'd give us greater regional control though that you were probably putting emphasis on. Again, I agree. Doesn't change the fact though that someday down the road we'll have to face off with China, and having N. Korea's territory would be instrumental in bettering our chances of success, regardless of how we go about facing off against China.

Yeah you got the gist, some condensing to make it clearer for you. China wants a buffer state, so they keep NK going.

I'm of the opinion that if things continue to go the way they've been going, what's going to happen is that SK will in the foreseeable future (maybe 10-20 years down the road) politely ask for the US to withdraw. China has already surpassed the US as SK's #1 trading partner, and this relationship is more than likely going to continue to grow. As it grows, it will become more evident to SK that SK interests lie with China and not America. When Korea finally unifies, China will no longer need a buffer state and so would be much more amenable towards such a development.

Obviously this would be problematic towards US interests in the area, but I really do not see any feasible alternative.

For example, a couple years ago, Niall Ferguson made the "startling" prediction that China would surpass the US in GDP PPP by 2017. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) It turns out his prediction was not "startling" enough, as China already surpassed the US by this metric last year. This trend only shows signs of strengthening.

That's a really good point to bring up, and I think it's a serious problem. If we don't have economic superiority, the value of the American Dollar won't have much to stand on down the road. I think we've fallen into a bad prediciment. We continue to outsource our production to that country, when in reality we need to bring that production back to the U.S. The problem is that even lower class Americans are so spoiled that they wouldn't want to do those jobs at minimum wage. Hell, even the companies aren't willing to pay the U.S. minimum wage when they can get it made for even cheaper in other countries. I honestly don't know how we are going to overcome this issue, and that worries me alot. I mean, let's face it, at this point the only true threat to America's world-domination quest is China. Russia used to be as big of a threat but are not so much anymore. It's going to come down to an east vs west scenario (probably during our grandkids lifetime) and I fear our only way of winning will be militarily which isn't the best way at this point considering the WMD's that would, without a doubt, come into play. Let's also not forget about China's #1 status with the largest standing military force.

Sorry, I'm thinking way too far into this, that's just how my mind works though, lol.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 10:04:28 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.

I don't see any underlined section. I'm assuming it's the fact that it'd give us greater regional control though that you were probably putting emphasis on. Again, I agree. Doesn't change the fact though that someday down the road we'll have to face off with China, and having N. Korea's territory would be instrumental in bettering our chances of success, regardless of how we go about facing off against China.

Yeah you got the gist, some condensing to make it clearer for you. China wants a buffer state, so they keep NK going.

I'm of the opinion that if things continue to go the way they've been going, what's going to happen is that SK will in the foreseeable future (maybe 10-20 years down the road) politely ask for the US to withdraw. China has already surpassed the US as SK's #1 trading partner, and this relationship is more than likely going to continue to grow. As it grows, it will become more evident to SK that SK interests lie with China and not America. When Korea finally unifies, China will no longer need a buffer state and so would be much more amenable towards such a development.

Obviously this would be problematic towards US interests in the area, but I really do not see any feasible alternative.

For example, a couple years ago, Niall Ferguson made the "startling" prediction that China would surpass the US in GDP PPP by 2017. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) It turns out his prediction was not "startling" enough, as China already surpassed the US by this metric last year. This trend only shows signs of strengthening.

That's a really good point to bring up, and I think it's a serious problem. If we don't have economic superiority, the value of the American Dollar won't have much to stand on down the road. I think we've fallen into a bad prediciment. We continue to outsource our production to that country, when in reality we need to bring that production back to the U.S. The problem is that even lower class Americans are so spoiled that they wouldn't want to do those jobs at minimum wage. Hell, even the companies aren't willing to pay the U.S. minimum wage when they can get it made for even cheaper in other countries. I honestly don't know how we are going to overcome this issue, and that worries me alot. I mean, let's face it, at this point the only true threat to America's world-domination quest is China. Russia used to be as big of a threat but are not so much anymore. It's going to come down to an east vs west scenario (probably during our grandkids lifetime) and I fear our only way of winning will be militarily which isn't the best way at this point considering the WMD's that would, without a doubt, come into play. Let's also not forget about China's #1 status with the largest standing military force.

Sorry, I'm thinking way too far into this, that's just how my mind works though, lol.

Part of the problem is that people jump to thinking about things in an "oh its east v west! this will all come down to military conflict! who will win the battle for world domination!"

This view of China's rising influence is a) detached from the actual interests of all major players and b) counterproductive in that it is the source of its own fears.

With regard to a) - neither the US nor China wants to dominate the world. Both counties have interests the want to protect or further, but neither of them has an interest in global domination. Military conflict is always a concern when certain competing interests reach a threshold of irreconcilability, but the mere existence of powerful countries with conflicts of interests does not make violence and inevitability. Even when war does break out, the scale or extent of conflict will probably not become existential as it did in WWI and WWII.

With regard to b) - the above facts mean that we should focus on how to build political systems that minimize the chance that conflicts of interest results in war. The us has major disagreements with many if not all of its allies but these disagreements will never reach the point of armed conflict. Even countries with closer military parity generally don't go to war over disagreements. The international economy, international community, international law are all stabilizing forces in minimizing the risk of violence.

Building robust international systems and relationships is crucial, but this is undermined when people thing about military conflict as an inevitability. This sort of dumb-realist thinking makes more war more likely, and often needlessly so. Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

TLDR: That youtube video linked above explains China's support of N Korea pretty well. Geopolitics generates a laundry list of reasons for providing aid to border states plue China's involvement gives China leverage over NK.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:01:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Yeah you got the gist, some condensing to make it clearer for you. China wants a buffer state, so they keep NK going.

I'm of the opinion that if things continue to go the way they've been going, what's going to happen is that SK will in the foreseeable future (maybe 10-20 years down the road) politely ask for the US to withdraw. China has already surpassed the US as SK's #1 trading partner, and this relationship is more than likely going to continue to grow. As it grows, it will become more evident to SK that SK interests lie with China and not America. When Korea finally unifies, China will no longer need a buffer state and so would be much more amenable towards such a development.

Obviously this would be problematic towards US interests in the area, but I really do not see any feasible alternative.

For example, a couple years ago, Niall Ferguson made the "startling" prediction that China would surpass the US in GDP PPP by 2017. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) It turns out his prediction was not "startling" enough, as China already surpassed the US by this metric last year. This trend only shows signs of strengthening.

That's a really good point to bring up, and I think it's a serious problem. If we don't have economic superiority, the value of the American Dollar won't have much to stand on down the road. I think we've fallen into a bad prediciment. We continue to outsource our production to that country, when in reality we need to bring that production back to the U.S. The problem is that even lower class Americans are so spoiled that they wouldn't want to do those jobs at minimum wage. Hell, even the companies aren't willing to pay the U.S. minimum wage when they can get it made for even cheaper in other countries. I honestly don't know how we are going to overcome this issue, and that worries me alot. I mean, let's face it, at this point the only true threat to America's world-domination quest is China. Russia used to be as big of a threat but are not so much anymore. It's going to come down to an east vs west scenario (probably during our grandkids lifetime) and I fear our only way of winning will be militarily which isn't the best way at this point considering the WMD's that would, without a doubt, come into play. Let's also not forget about China's #1 status with the largest standing military force.

Sorry, I'm thinking way too far into this, that's just how my mind works though, lol.

Part of the problem is that people jump to thinking about things in an "oh its east v west! this will all come down to military conflict! who will win the battle for world domination!"

This view of China's rising influence is a) detached from the actual interests of all major players and b) counterproductive in that it is the source of its own fears.

With regard to a) - neither the US nor China wants to dominate the world. Both counties have interests the want to protect or further, but neither of them has an interest in global domination. Military conflict is always a concern when certain competing interests reach a threshold of irreconcilability, but the mere existence of powerful countries with conflicts of interests does not make violence and inevitability. Even when war does break out, the scale or extent of conflict will probably not become existential as it did in WWI and WWII.

You don't think there will ever be a time in the future when our world unifies under a one-world government? That's essentially what you're saying. I can agree with you to an extent, but to think that just because they don't publicly aim to dominate the entire world doesn't mean that it'll never happen. I do not believe it'll come down to America vs. China. I think, if anything, it'll come down to alliances under governing entities like NATO. We can already see China and America beefing over territorial disputes. At some point, our interests are going to reach a boiling point just as history has shown us with other similar situations. We can't ignore the growing military cooperation between China and Russia nor the large investments both are making militarily. While I know I can't say it's obvious evidence that they are preparing, it's compelling enough to take a longer look at the situation and consider all options should they ever form a true military alliance against western interests.

With regard to b) - the above facts mean that we should focus on how to build political systems that minimize the chance that conflicts of interest results in war. The us has major disagreements with many if not all of its allies but these disagreements will never reach the point of armed conflict.

Well, technically it hasn't happened yet. Roosevelt did betray Poland, but I suppose you can't draw a line from his betrayal to the armed conflict that eventually followed. Still, I'm not comfortable accepting your absolute claim that it will never happen. I believe that with our exponentially growing population which naturally brings a greater demand of goods, land, materials, and our history of similar situations, that it isn't wise to agree with your claim.

Even countries with closer military parity generally don't go to war over disagreements. The international economy, international community, international law are all stabilizing forces in minimizing the risk of violence.

Building robust international systems and relationships is crucial, but this is undermined when people thing about military conflict as an inevitability. This sort of dumb-realist thinking makes more war more likely, and often needlessly so. Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

I agree with you in respect to everything except the dismissal of the possibility of military conflict. Even if America comes to agree with your opinion, who is to say that any other country will? You need to consider that. I mean, I completely agree that pacifist ideologies are more ideal, but we need to remain realistic and vigilante in this world. Do you honestly think Putin's Russia isn't considering the possibility of military conflict down the road? Heck they're already investing in their military at a faster pace than ever before. Russia in the midst of a five-year $700 Billion rearmament program, and China is set to spend an unprecedented $132 Billion in Defense. Both Russia and China are land-grabbing at the moment. Yet you think this has no possibility of eventually becoming a military conflict issue?

As I said, I fully agree that it's not the best mindset. I also agree that as long as this way of thinking is around we'll never transcend beyond it. Sadly though, no-one in power agrees with you, at-least in regards to their actions (which is ultimately what counts). Both are spending heavily in military, both are land-grabbing at the moment, and eventually America is either going to have to do something or lose its position of influence within the world.

You're also aware of Russia's latest war-games they've been playing by sending Jets within 50 miles of California right? I mean, we can't just ignore this stuff. While they don't pose a true threat with these tests, they haven't tested our air defenses like this since the end of the cold war.

TLDR: That youtube video linked above explains China's support of N Korea pretty well. Geopolitics generates a laundry list of reasons for providing aid to border states plue China's involvement gives China leverage over NK.

Agreed, it was a great video.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:48:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 10:04:28 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 7:18:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:29:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:40:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:30:51 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't get it. It seems like the biggest hurdle to truly handling N. Korea is China and I just don't get what they gain from their relationship with N. Korea...

What you think US strategic interests in NK happen to be?

Closer positioning to China. They are the true enemy in the grand scheme of world control. If we could turn N. Korea into a puppet state for America like we have with S. Korea, it'll give us a greater range of regional control.

I think you have clarified your own confusion (look at underlined). Obviously that is not in China's interests.

I don't see any underlined section. I'm assuming it's the fact that it'd give us greater regional control though that you were probably putting emphasis on. Again, I agree. Doesn't change the fact though that someday down the road we'll have to face off with China, and having N. Korea's territory would be instrumental in bettering our chances of success, regardless of how we go about facing off against China.

Yeah you got the gist, some condensing to make it clearer for you. China wants a buffer state, so they keep NK going.

I'm of the opinion that if things continue to go the way they've been going, what's going to happen is that SK will in the foreseeable future (maybe 10-20 years down the road) politely ask for the US to withdraw. China has already surpassed the US as SK's #1 trading partner, and this relationship is more than likely going to continue to grow. As it grows, it will become more evident to SK that SK interests lie with China and not America. When Korea finally unifies, China will no longer need a buffer state and so would be much more amenable towards such a development.

Obviously this would be problematic towards US interests in the area, but I really do not see any feasible alternative.

For example, a couple years ago, Niall Ferguson made the "startling" prediction that China would surpass the US in GDP PPP by 2017. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) It turns out his prediction was not "startling" enough, as China already surpassed the US by this metric last year. This trend only shows signs of strengthening.

That's a really good point to bring up, and I think it's a serious problem. If we don't have economic superiority, the value of the American Dollar won't have much to stand on down the road. I think we've fallen into a bad prediciment. We continue to outsource our production to that country, when in reality we need to bring that production back to the U.S. The problem is that even lower class Americans are so spoiled that they wouldn't want to do those jobs at minimum wage. Hell, even the companies aren't willing to pay the U.S. minimum wage when they can get it made for even cheaper in other countries. I honestly don't know how we are going to overcome this issue, and that worries me alot. I mean, let's face it, at this point the only true threat to America's world-domination quest is China. Russia used to be as big of a threat but are not so much anymore. It's going to come down to an east vs west scenario (probably during our grandkids lifetime) and I fear our only way of winning will be militarily which isn't the best way at this point considering the WMD's that would, without a doubt, come into play. Let's also not forget about China's #1 status with the largest standing military force.

Sorry, I'm thinking way too far into this, that's just how my mind works though, lol.

Na, I don't think you're overthinking this at all and almost fully agree with your assessment. Given the significance of this relationship, IMHO it's far more important that everyone gets this right than other hotspot regions like the Middle East.

I don't have any good news on this front...my conceptualization of this coming conflict is to compare China's rise to Germany's rise in the 1700-1900s. The parallels are rather astonishing...Germany was fractured and weak while an offshore power, England, was unified and strong with global empire. Napoleon's wars was one factor that caused Germany to unify, much like how Japan's wars cause China to become far more nationalistic...before that, there was the distinct possibility that China could fracture into territories ruled by regional warlords. England simply could not halt Germany's rise, and I don't think America will be able to halt China's rise either. Exactly what that will mean given both countries have nukes is very hard to say.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:48:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Part of the problem is that people jump to thinking about things in an "oh its east v west! this will all come down to military conflict! who will win the battle for world domination!"

Please give a compelling reason as to why it won't come down to this. This is simply textbook realpolitik.

This view of China's rising influence is a) detached from the actual interests of all major players and b) counterproductive in that it is the source of its own fears.

With regard to a) - neither the US nor China wants to dominate the world. Both counties have interests the want to protect or further, but neither of them has an interest in global domination. Military conflict is always a concern when certain competing interests reach a threshold of irreconcilability, but the mere existence of powerful countries with conflicts of interests does not make violence and inevitability. Even when war does break out, the scale or extent of conflict will probably not become existential as it did in WWI and WWII.

Your statements here have no reasonable basis. The questions to ask:

1) How did these countries acquire their "interests"?
2) How can you "protect" your "interests" without first becoming a "protectorate" of those interests?
3) How can you become a "protectorate" without military domination? Note that just about all "US interests" come replete with an occupational military force.
4) No one is saying that there will be a shooting war between east/west...the Cold War did not involve direct confrontation between the USSR and the US, yet there's no question that was a "war" involving globally encompassing ideologies replete with a large number of proxy wars.

With regard to b) - the above facts mean that we should focus on how to build political systems that minimize the chance that conflicts of interest results in war. The us has major disagreements with many if not all of its allies but these disagreements will never reach the point of armed conflict. Even countries with closer military parity generally don't go to war over disagreements. The international economy, international community, international law are all stabilizing forces in minimizing the risk of violence.

That's because no other country, including Russia, has anything close to power parity with the US. Without any chance of achieving parity with the US, all other countries, allied or enemy alike, will accede to American superiority, to include Russia. That's going to change in the foreseeable future with China's rise.

Weren't you the one that stated something along the lines that international politics is all about power relations? Just apply that statement to this scenario, and you will refute the statements you made above.

Building robust international systems and relationships is crucial, but this is undermined when people thing about military conflict as an inevitability. This sort of dumb-realist thinking makes more war more likely, and often needlessly so. Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

Putting your head in the ground like an ostrich will indeed preclude military conflict...it also results in a dead ostrich.

Of course both sides have plans to take advantage of the other party's weaknesses, one avenue of potential weakness is military power. If there is a disparity in power, then either party will move to take advantage of it. Given that China will more than likely achieve a viable second-strike capability before the end of this decade, it will join the ranks of Russia and the US in that direct conflict with those countries becomes essentially unimaginable...still, that will only fuel the potential of proxy wars as China becomes more assertive.

All social constructs (economy, diplomacy, etc) when applied to the international realm are used in a competitive manner - "we are culturally superior", "those countries have no respect for human rights", "our standard of living is superior" etc.... They are the other facets that countries can take advantage of if weakness creates an opportunity. Again, the military dimension is just one facet of this competitive behavior, albeit the most existentially pressing one and the one that can destroy this "gem" of international relations altogether.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 11:21:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

Just to add to this, war is a social force. The most destructive kind, but a social force nonetheless. It's simply one of many ways to effect change.

I would also mention that without physicality, all of your other societal forces evaporate into nothing. Physicality is by far the most important aspect in any political consideration, and to ignore it or underestimate its primal importance is a perennial mistake that ideologues make when their ideas get slaughtered by reality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:47:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 11:21:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

Just to add to this, war is a social force. The most destructive kind, but a social force nonetheless. It's simply one of many ways to effect change.

I would also mention that without physicality, all of your other societal forces evaporate into nothing. Physicality is by far the most important aspect in any political consideration, and to ignore it or underestimate its primal importance is a perennial mistake that ideologues make when their ideas get slaughtered by reality.

I'd like to respond to everything you wrote, but it's a lot and I don't have time.

I don't know what to make of your physicality claim. Obviously physical actions are important because al politics takes place in the physical world. Are you saying hard power is needed for other societal forces to come into consideration?

Military power and other considerations interact- nothing exists in a vacuum. Military power relations impact ethical considerations in foreign policy and vice versa.

It would be absurd to claim the third Carthaginian war or its brutal conclusion was driven purely by rational considerations of interest.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:01:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:47:22 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:21:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

Just to add to this, war is a social force. The most destructive kind, but a social force nonetheless. It's simply one of many ways to effect change.

I would also mention that without physicality, all of your other societal forces evaporate into nothing. Physicality is by far the most important aspect in any political consideration, and to ignore it or underestimate its primal importance is a perennial mistake that ideologues make when their ideas get slaughtered by reality.

I'd like to respond to everything you wrote, but it's a lot and I don't have time.

I don't know what to make of your physicality claim. Obviously physical actions are important because al politics takes place in the physical world. Are you saying hard power is needed for other societal forces to come into consideration?

Military power and other considerations interact- nothing exists in a vacuum. Military power relations impact ethical considerations in foreign policy and vice versa.

It would be absurd to claim the third Carthaginian war or its brutal conclusion was driven purely by rational considerations of interest.

Blah don't respond to this I didn't make my point clearly
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:47:22 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:21:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:52:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:20:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2015 12:55:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Security dilemmas are a matter of social constructs- they exist due to issues of trust, informational asymmetry, perception of power, etc. This means they are not fixed physical forces but societal forces that can be altered.

Just to add to this, war is a social force. The most destructive kind, but a social force nonetheless. It's simply one of many ways to effect change.

I would also mention that without physicality, all of your other societal forces evaporate into nothing. Physicality is by far the most important aspect in any political consideration, and to ignore it or underestimate its primal importance is a perennial mistake that ideologues make when their ideas get slaughtered by reality.

I'd like to respond to everything you wrote, but it's a lot and I don't have time.

I don't know what to make of your physicality claim. Obviously physical actions are important because al politics takes place in the physical world. Are you saying hard power is needed for other societal forces to come into consideration?

That would probably be an accurate statement. The point is that hard power considerations are paramount, even those that advocate smart power or some other variant of realism besides what you call "dumb-realism" (lol) would readily admit this.

No one is saying that hard power is "all that matters"...but everything does come down to hard power considerations. If a populace is convinced to fight for one side instead of another, then whatever ideology was used to cause such a change in sentiment matters only because it caused a hard power shift. If it didn't or couldn't cause such a shift, that ideology does not matter.

To the extent that pointing a gun at someone's head may be less effective to motivate that person to fight for you, sure, other "soft power" methods may be appropriate. Still, the point is to amalgamate power, not the perception of power, but actual power. Power amalgamation is clearly happening faster for China than for the US, and it will clearly cause a sea change in global geopolitics once it reaches parity with the US. "Totalitarianism", "communism", "liberalism", "humanitarianism", etc simply are not relevant to this calculus, because clearly such ideological considerations have not resulted in China ceding power to the US. China has steadily gained power ever since it renounced a republican form of government, embraced totalitarianism and one-party rule, and scoffed at free speech and other forms of liberalistic treatment of its citizens. The only ideology that can explain this development is realpolitik and its close variants.

Military power and other considerations interact- nothing exists in a vacuum. Military power relations impact ethical considerations in foreign policy and vice versa.

It would be absurd to claim the third Carthaginian war or its brutal conclusion was driven purely by rational considerations of interest.

Why not? Wars 2000 years ago (or even 200 years ago) were brutal affairs. Genocide was common. It was the best way to ensure that a certain region would not rise again to challenge you (and note that was the 3rd challenge from Carthage). Are you saying that Rome should have patiently waited for Carthage to come around and not rebel, after already suffering through 3 wars? Why not just sack the city and enslave the population, especially when this was the norm during that time and the means to profit from war?

You seem to think that war is irrational. That all depends upon the premise upon which the conclusion of war was based. Wars can be deadly rational. IMHO the US's involvement in WWII is a very clear instance of such rationality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 2:01:44 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:47:22 PM, Raisor wrote:

Blah don't respond to this I didn't make my point clearly

oh well, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?