ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

North Korea

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DesktopCommando, Mar 26, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No doubt Ivan will be along to fight their corner, it's all a tad bizarre this American / Chinese cooperation on North Korea, yet the tensions ensue in the South China sea.
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  2. The South China Sea is probably a longer game. The 'willy waving' on both sides doesn't seem on the same scale to me and may all fall flat on its face if China plays one off against the other and deals with other countries claims on a 'one to one' basis as it seems to be doing.

    Time will tell but just when you think US and Chinese cooperation has reached a new high, Russia may go its own way. Reminds me of somebody picking up their football and storming off as they haven't been picked for the team
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Aye agreed mate, that last sentence sums Vlad up to a tee.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  4. As far as I'm aware the UN General Assembly can apply sanctions to NK without veto interrupting the declaration, but if it is a UNSC resolution then the 5 permanent members can apply a veto i.e. Russia in this case. The thing that always bugs me about the UNSC is that we ever allowed Russia to take over the former USSR permanent seat at the SC table in 1991, that was a real bollox move! After all the USSR BS in the preceding 45 years!
    Soviet Union and the United Nations - Wikipedia
     
  5. The Russians already did that in 1950 I think over the China / Taiwan issue.
     
  6. In effect the actions of the USSR in 1950 regarding the China / Taiwan seat at the UNSC table, not only spurred NK to invade the South with the contrivance of the USSR, but also hampered their strategy. As a consequence of their withdrawal from the UNSC they couldn't veto the resolution that committed UN forces to the Korean War in defence of SK, which ultimately cost their NK allies of the time an early defeat until they were subsequently reinforced by the Chinese to arrive at the 38th parallel ceasefire i.e. the status quo.

    In effect the USSR lost the war to their primary opponent (the US) and conceded the stalemate to their former ally China! Communism was so simple in concept and yet so fcuked up in practice. Guess who wants to win this time? China, Russia - neither, both, nobody else?
     
  7. I believe these are adding to the list run by the 1718 Cttee and the 15 members agree (or not) by consensus:
    Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) | United Nations Security Council Subsidiary Organs
    There's more info on the link but (and happy to be corrected) I believe the panel look at the evidence and add companies, individuals etc. by consensus
     
  8. Didn't work out quite how they wanted though with the UN agreeing to help S Korea :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Indeed, albeit I personally don't have a problem with Russia taking on the Soviet Unions mantle at the UN. It's just a pity it's not the Russia of '91 to '99. Still, they 'elect' their leader (unlike the Tubby dynasty) even if his opponents have a nasty habit of dying or being 'convicted' of crimes :)
     
  10. U.N. council to vote Friday on blacklisting more North Koreans - diplomats
    According to reports these are sanctions agreed in private by the 1718 Cttee above but taken to the public forum of the UNSC for a Resolution. The US and China having agreed. Presumably France and the U.K. will have, so Russia may use their veto in retaliation to the US sanctions above.

    Was the timing of the US sanctions on purpose?
     
  11. Russia was agreed to as being the successor in interest to the Soviet Union, which simplified things for other countries. That resolved any questions about whether they were still bound by various treaties that were still convenient for the West to still want in force. It also made them liable for the Soviet Union's foreign debts, without which a lot of Western banks would have lost a lot of money. Don't underestimate the latter point when it comes to what decisions get made in the capitals of the major powers.

    The other side of the coin is that having a major power, with a very, very, large nuclear arsenal outside of the Security Council would render the Security Council itself rather pointless. If the UN was just to consist of countries that agree with you, there would be no point to having it. The whole point of the UN is supposed to provide a forum for the opposing sides to try to talk things out instead of their first resort being to start shooting at each other, and the Security Council gives the major powers (especially the official nuclear ones) a way to cut deals between themselves while ignoring the interests of the smaller counries.

    The UN will face a major headache in future when India becomes big enough to want to start throwing their weigh around on their own. They will eventually demand a permanent seat on the Security Council. Pakistan will almost certainly throw a tantrum at even the thought of that. This has a high probability of provoking a major crisis between two nuclear powers, with other major powers lining up behind one or the other.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. If NK does provoke a war it would be on China’s border, China would have to face potential fall out, deal with the refugees that flooded in that direction, and it would lead to the US/SK right on China’s border.

    None of which are at all palatable to China.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. [​IMG]
    Japan's military begins major drill with U.S. carriers watching North Korea
    Two US carriers and a Japanese helicopter carrier exercising in the Sea of Japan. First time the Japanese have exercised with two carriers:
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. I can't see that happening should a war take place without direct Chinese agreement. I believe the Chinese troops on the border would be marching south as quick as possible to ostensibly 'deal with refugees in place' and 'secure DPRK military assets' as mentioned about twenty pages ago. Deconfliction would more likely occur between US and RoK SOF when the Chinese get to the nuke and missile sites, if indeed the Chinese don't get there first.

    I can (currently) see an agreement and deconfliction being reached, albeit as usual the wild card being Russia (and whether they will try and steal a bit of N Korea by) marching their troops over the border to act as some kind of security force (and not to feel left out).

    I believe the Chinese are best suited to deal with a defeated N Korea and hopefully they restore law and order and install a 'puppet regime' that eventually wants Korean reunification on the proviso US forces don't go any further north or even leave the peninsula.
     
    • Like Like x 1