/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics

More saber rattling and maybe a proxy war. Total war is a lost art form.

>>13
This.

But also while I do think it's yet another enemy the elite can point at to justify increased weapons spending (and thus profits) I can't help by feel the media hype. Whenever the media hypes a war, it seems to be in preparation for a real one. Getting the public on the side, getting the hype, the specific facts that the elite want us to know.

"NK bad. US good. Nukes bad. Our nukes good."

Maybe we'll see Desert Storm 2: Electric Boogaloo? But I don't think it's an immediate threat. China would need to thoroughly reverse their NK policy before the US would risk that war. But China will play along with the US so long as their trade isn't threatened but at the same time the last thing they want is a US proxy to have a land bridge to the chinese mainland.

Not only would the newly formed US proxy have direct land access to the richest part of China and be a huge military threat, it would also make the One Party look weak against imperialism. The Chinese people look to the infinitely strong One Party to take them out of the century of humiliation (1850 - 1950) and to make them as rich as the US. If the Party stood by while the US trashed an 'ally' of the Chinese people then they would lose faith in their rulers. By its nature, the One Party cannot have even the slightest crack in its appearance of strength lest the people lose faith and look elsewhere for alternatives. As such the Chinese government is forced to play along with the Chinese people's desire to stay strong and project military power to deflect what they see as US imperialism. The US wish to apply force to North Korea in order to control the Sea of Japan and the Chinese coast without a buffer between the US and China. A threatened Japan and South Korea could feel that the US is not doing enough to protect them and may look elsewhere for support or become more nationalistic and independent, either way they would withdraw from US influence and further weaken US pressure on China.

In the end this has never been the West VS North Korea. This has always been USA VS PRC. The proxies of Taiwan, NK, SK, Japan and so on have always been means to an end. The end goal being the suppression of existential threats.

I hope this makes sense and wasn't too rambling.

>>14

You are correct, in my admittedly uninformed opinion.

NK is sitting on trillions of exploitable rare earth minerals (http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-stockpile-minerals-worth-trillions-2017-6). They don't have the technology to extract them on their own.

So, if you're willing to indulge my conspiracy theory for a moment…

The global crisis has been created out of whole cloth to allow China to annex NK without the interference of the UN or other world powers. There's already Korean people living in the area of China on the border who can help with integration. Also, China is much more authoritarian that the US or South Korea have the ability to be on the world stage, so it's easier for them to crack down on any rebellion or dissent after the annexation.

The Kim regime is already so dependent on China that as long as they gave him a puppet government position, I don't think that it would really affect how things work for the average resident unless you live in a death camp.

Seoul is NK's trump card, since they can really do a lot of damage if the US were to attack. If I really got my tin foil hat on, I'd say that back room discussions were already going on for the annexation.

Just a thought, worth what you paid for it…

>>14
>>17
given the America's history and the current status of North Korea, I'd say that overthrowing the DPRK's government from the inside (e.g. illegal funding and CIA support of dissidence and rebellion) is a much more likely scenario at this point. South Korea has no interest in going to war with the North, but perhaps the U.S. may even change THAT using intelligence infiltrations.
under no circumstance do I think the US will officially declare war on North Korea, not even the same way as they did with Vietnam or Syria.

>>12
North Korea only exists because the Chinese still need it's resources. Nothing's going to happen between the USA and DPRK, nothing nuclear at least.

Sorry to disappoint you, friends, but a war with NK is very unlikely. It would be simply too risky having China and Russia right there, allies of the regime, watching across the border. Eventually, some sort of deal will be made between the powers involved. I don't doubt that China and Russia are pushing for a peaceful solution somewhere in the background. Maybe a deal where Korea becomes unified, but signs papers promising never to host foreign armies, or be part of military alliances of any sort. The South Korean government has shown good will by not stopping humanitarian aid to the North even after the latest string of penis rattling.

The far more scary invasion that might be close to begin is in Venezuela. It is a risky as fuck move, and the US government seems to be more or less waiting for the situation to develop. Either to explode into a civil war, or for a coup to happen, or for an actual, more or less natural power-toppling revolution on the streets. There's not much new about the situation there, except for the announcement by the government of Venezuela that they will stop selling oil for dollars. That is always the tipping point of regimes. Look how quickly was Libya dealt with once it announced the same thing. Just remember! If you see a mushroom on the horizon, duck, cover, and start rolling to the nearest cemetery, so that your remains, if any, are easier too scoop up later on Present Day, Present Time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>214
We have to wait and see. If the DPRK fires a test nuke into the Pacific Ocean of the US West Coast then it's a sure thing that this isn't just an empty display of power. By such a move, Kim pressures the USA to finally accept North Korea as a nuclear power and to roll back all sanctions to which the DPRK is subjected to. From this point, it entirely depends on the US whether there's going to be a nuclear slugfest with several million dead people as a result or stopping to interfere into the foreign relations of this dictatorship and thus letting North Korea leave its isolated position amongst the globe's nations .

>The far more scary invasion that might be close to begin is in Venezuela. It is a risky as fuck move
There's nothing "far more scary" or "risky" about invading Venezuela. First of all, it's in the United States' backyard, namely South America, so it won't be as much as demanding, in regards to logistics, like interventions in the Middle East. Furthermore, the US military is definitely superior to the Venezuelan one, of course. Another point is the starving population. It's hard to believe for me that the guy who hunts his neighbour's dog for food bothers much about ideology or religion, he would be grateful that somebody who is a little bit more competent than the current despot takes over his country. So the backlash against the US American invaders won't be that big. The USA can go for it without expecting to pay a high toll for satisfying their imperialistic urges in this case.

I personally don't think there will be war and it's mostly through North Koreas nuclear capabilities.
Kim Jong Un and his officials know exactly what happend to Libya and Iraq after they gave up their nuclear weapon programs, they got destroyed by the US. Kim Jong Un doesn't want to end up like Gadaffi did.

What I fear most is that a war breaks out by accident through either the US and their more or less unstable/impulsive government declaring war or North Korea reacting to a military exercise or enemy plans near their airspace with an attack.

We had this situation going on for a decade now and I think that both sides know how many lives a war would erase

>>245
that's a good point about the locals of Venezuela, the protests were/are widespread against the current gov, they might be at the point where they want some help even if it's from america.
I thought about making a Vietnam comparison; but I think this would be more akin to a coup than a full out war… & I'd hope that we've learned from then, but even if we didnt and went to war, I think the technological advantages we have today would be too much for the sneaky guerrilla warfare that they'd use.

Please stay on topic:
>What do you think will happen between North Korea and the USA?