TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- China weighs covert ops to overthrow N.Korea's Kim

China weighs covert ops to overthrow N.Korea's Kim

China has begun drawing up plans to attack North Korea, according to the Paris-based Intelligence Online newsletter.

Hu Jintao, head of the Central Military Commission, has ordered the Chinese military to draw up the attack plan as a move "deliberately meant as a threat to the regime of Kim Jong-Il." The report said the plan was leaked to sources close to Western intelligence in Hong Kong.

The action follows China's displeasure at the Oct. 9 nuclear test, which Hu regarded as a snub to the International Affairs Leadership Group that he has headed since 2003.

The report said Hu has dealt with Kim in a conciliatory manner, unlike his predecessor Jiang Zemin, who disliked the North Korean ruler.

According to the report, intelligence activities against the Kim regime also are being considered. The Chinese military intelligence service, known as 2 PLA, "is toying with the idea of a palace revolution that would kick out the 'Kim dynasty' and replace it with 'pro-Chinese generals,'" the report said.

China's top military officer on North Korea is said to be Gen. Yan Jiangfeng, current vice president and secretary-general of the China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIIS), a think tank close to 2 PLA.

Yan was a military attach� in Pyongyang and is close to retired Gen. Xiong Guangkai, also at CIIS and who was close to Jiang.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtr....064583333.html

==================================================

HELL YEAH

Re: China weighs covert ops to overthrow N.Korea's Kim

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC China has begun drawing up plans to attack North Korea, according to the Paris-based Intelligence Online newsletter. ..... ================================================== HELL YEAH

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Lilith couldn't agree with you more. Violence and armed resistance is not the way. Peaceful protests will get them more respect from the world than targeting civilian homes and schools.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=3

quote:

China has begun drawing up plans to attack North Korea, according to the Paris-based Intelligence Online newsletter.

Somehow I'd say by now seeing as it's now public I doubt they'd be doing very much with it. Course, being China, annexing smaller neighbours isnt exactly unheard of either regardless along with giving a damn what the rest of world thinks.

So are you signing up for a piece of the action DevilDog? I think the worse thing is the Hell Yeah at the end. You're actually excited at the possibility of a war starting. But hey, maybe this way your boys at the USMC can learn how to wage an effective war from the Chinese.

China do NOT want an unstable North Korea, that would mean millions of refugees pouring into China, so personally I think this is bullshit. One can hope they make a "palace revolution" though, which would be a start towards real freedom

Ok kiddies. Quick lesson:

N.Korean Elites (the guys with money, and powerful)
are very very very very very pissed at Kim for the nuclear
tests and the resulting sanctions. China is equally pissed
because they told him not to. Even thou they got some
intel of our Ballistic Missle Defense when they were activated
for the missle launches earlier.

Safe to assume there's a possibility of Kim being killed
or overthrown. The ensuing chaos is bad for the S.Korea,
China, the entire region, and the world really.

SOoooooooooo why do I support China doing it and placing
pro-china generals? Because even that is better than
chaos and whoever might fill the power vacuum.

It's a 'controlled' takeover. Well somewhat but it's better
than the country collapsing with or without kim at the helm.
It's already barely afloat and Kim has many enemies foreign
and domestic.

Yes I wish for peace, but a small covert op to take him out
is better than a real war. It's not like we're talking a
UN or US vs N.Korea or even China vs N.Korea war so stop
saying I want a war. Cover Op, look it up people...

And this is a nice FU to the people who sit there and defend
his regime (people in general not anyone here that I know)
because now his only friend in the world China is turning
on him. Hence the 'Hell Yeah' statement. He's lose his only
friend and a more stable situation will probably come about
instead of that midget loon. (no offense to midgets present)

It would be much easier for China to do this than for the west. The west already does too much, and this may be China trying to take care of its own backyard dog. There is also no DMZ on the Inchon River.

I'm thinking China will likely wait until after the Olympics to do anything.

After that, game-on I guess.

Maybe they'll go after Taiwan at the same time?

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Maybe they'll go after Taiwan at the same time?

wouldn't doubt it, now that the US is all fucked up over in IRAQ? Who is there to really stop them? The UN?? ha ha "go sell some medicine bitches!!"


At least q5 will feel at home.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX wouldn't doubt it, now that the US is all fucked up over in IRAQ? Who is there to really stop them? The UN?? ha ha "go sell some medicine bitches!!" At least q5 will feel at home.

The US's strategy for decades has been to be able to
fight two huge major wars and a peacekeeping mission
and win them decisively.

If China invaded Taiwan, under our treaty with them
we would have to help. We have plenty of resources
to do that. Not sure about exact numbers but maybe
10% of our forces are in Iraq or Afganistan.

We can still kick China's bum. They have old equipment
but are modernizing right now. They're also buying alot
of naval ships and anti-ship missles to counter our strong
Navy and Marine Amphibious Assualt ships that would respond.
Also bought a dozen or so personnel transports for their
troops.

It will be another 10 years till they feel confidant they
can take our Navy and Marine Corps to invade Taiwan. But
Taiwan would be devastated and do they really want to control
a devastated island and the survivors while having lost
tens of thousans of soldiers and dozens of ships/subs for it?

In 10 years most of the 'old guard', the old communist hardline
old timers will be dead and the younger generation aren't
all butt-hurt as them over Taiwan's independence to get them
involved with a major war with the United States.

Right now they like making money, they have an economy dependant
on the west and the US. They don't want to throw that all away
for a small strip of land.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC In 10 years most of the 'old guard', the old communist hardline old timers will be dead

10yrs? But the Chinese easily live to be more than a 100!!

There's speculation though that China might not do anything unless NK, of course, decides to get stupid...

What are the chances of that?

quote:

'Concerted Front' Why Seoul is soft on North Korea. BY B.R. MYERS Sunday, December 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST No country today is as misunderstood as North Korea. Journalists still refer to it as a Stalinist or communist state, when in fact it espouses a race-based nationalism such as the West last confronted during the Pacific War. Pyongyang's propaganda touts the moral superiority of the Korean race, condemns South Korea for allowing miscegenation, and stresses the need to defend the Dear Leader with kyeolsa, or dare-to-die spirit--the Korean version of the Japanese kamikaze slogan kesshi. The six-party talks are therefore less likely to replicate the successes of Cold War d�tente than the negotiating failures of the 1930s. According to early reports from Beijing, the North Korean delegation appears more confident than ever. It has clearly been emboldened not only by its accession to the nuclear club, but by the awareness that Seoul will continue providing food and financial support no matter what happens. This support is not meant to expedite unification, which South Koreans are happy to put off indefinitely. Nor has it much to do with concern for starving children; by now everyone knows where the "humanitarian" aid really goes. No, the desire to help North Korea derives in large part from ideological common ground. South Koreans may chuckle at the personality cult, but they generally agree with Pyongyang that Koreans are a pure-blooded race whose innate goodness has made them the perennial victims of rapacious foreign powers. They share the same tendency to regard Koreans as innocent children on the world stage--and to ascribe evil to foreigners alone. Though the North expresses itself more stridently on such matters, there is no clear ideological divide such as the one that separated West and East Germany. Bonn held its nose when conducting Ostpolitik. Seoul pursues its sunshine policy with respect for Pyongyang. The relationship between the Koreas can therefore be likened to the relationship between a moderate Muslim state such as Turkey and a fundamentalist one like Iran. The South Koreans have compromised their nationalist principles in a quest for wealth and modernity, and while they're glad they did, they feel a nagging sense of moral inferiority to their more orthodox brethren. They often disapprove of the North's actions, but never with indignation, and always with an effort to blame the outside world for having provoked them. (The same is true of moderate Islam's response to fundamentalist terrorism.) To be sure, there was public anger at Kim Jong Il when his nuclear test made stock prices drop in Seoul, but it dissipated the moment the U.S. began talking sanctions. Seoul has since made clear that the nuclear issue will have no significant effect on its sunshine policy. This earns it no goodwill from the North, mind; between soft-liners and hard-liners, sympathy can only go in one direction. The ideological landscape of the peninsula defeats the reasoning that led to the six-party talks in the first place. North Korea is not a communist country with ideological and sentimental reasons to listen to China and Russia; it is a virulently nationalist state that distrusts all the other parties at the table. And though the rhetoric of a "concerted front" against North Korea has proved to be just that, it has sufficed to heighten South Korea's sense of solidarity with the North. This will continue to mean plenty of aid money for Kim Jong Il with which to build weapons. The U.S. has urged Beijing to bring more pressure to bear on the North. But if America can do nothing with its own ally, it can hardly expect the Chinese to do more with theirs. Mr. Myers is a North Korea researcher at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea.

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC The US's strategy for decades has been to be able to fight two huge major wars and a peacekeeping mission and win them decisively.

Yet we are bogged down in two "minor" wars and our forces are taxed to the limit?

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC If China invaded Taiwan, under our treaty with them we would have to help. We have plenty of resources to do that. Not sure about exact numbers but maybe 10% of our forces are in Iraq or Afganistan.

Actually something along the lines of 40-50% of our forces are combined in Iraq or Afganistan, with a significant number either out of rotation or in support roles for both those campaigns. Not to mention logistically speaking we are already devoting a lot more machine power than we should be for these missions.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC We can still kick China's bum. They have old equipment but are modernizing right now. They're also buying alot of naval ships and anti-ship missles to counter our strong Navy and Marine Amphibious Assualt ships that would respond. Also bought a dozen or so personnel transports for their troops. It will be another 10 years till they feel confidant they can take our Navy and Marine Corps to invade Taiwan. But Taiwan would be devastated and do they really want to control a devastated island and the survivors while having lost tens of thousans of soldiers and dozens of ships/subs for it?

Taiwan is a nuclear gambit, plain and simple. It is in the same position as Berlin/West Germany was during the Cold War (and very much like Japan could be in the next decade).

Do NOT kid yourself, a war with Taiwan would quickly escalate to a point where nuclear weapons are used.

You are right, China has older equipment, but they are upgrading fast. But, untill the technological gap is closed they will continue to rely on numbers and raw power. That means massive amounts of troops for land combat and the use of nuclear weapons at sea.

And they can easily make that gamble.

Think about it this way. A carrier strike force sails into the Taiwan straight to fight. China has no conventional means to counter. They use a nuclear device on it. Thats a lot of dead sailors. What does the US respond with? China has no super carriers, no massive naval armada? Do you hit a city/industrial area, do you strike troop deployment areas near the coast? If you do that you risk a Chinese strategic response. China has the means to kill a good portion of the large North American cities, and no they can't only reach the west coast. They can hit Seattle to Miami, San Diego to Boston.

Of course we could park a couple of boomers off their coast... 192 warheads... 15 minutes... 320 million dead Chinese. There is the posibilitly we could win a nuclear war with China with minimal loses on our side... but is anyone willing to take that risk?

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC In 10 years most of the 'old guard', the old communist hardline old timers will be dead and the younger generation aren't all butt-hurt as them over Taiwan's independence to get them involved with a major war with the United States. Right now they like making money, they have an economy dependant on the west and the US. They don't want to throw that all away for a small strip of land.

True, the old guard is on the way out, the last of the Maoists are dying off, but that makes them all the more dangerous. They might see Taiwan as the last unfinished part of the revolution. You never know.

With the younger generation the problems shift east to Japan... but thats a whole other story.

Exactly, they know the only way to win is by
nuclear war which is exactly why they wouldn't
invade Taiwan anytime soon like others try to
imply. And using nukes wouldn't even guarantee
a win. If Tawiwan is nuked then what the hell
was the point of the conflict? It's a no-win
situation for all parties involved.

By the time their military is upgraded in 20
years their economy will be more dependant
on it's neighbors and us so war would be a
bad thing. Nothing good would come out of
invading Taiwan. Better to sit back and keep
making money.

I think cooler heads will prevail. Yes you can
claim we're dogged down in Iraq and Afganistan
but if an aggressor attacked us or our allies
we have sufficient might to fight back and win.
Our losses will be larger than if we weren't in
Iraq or Afganistan thou. One, our forces when
back at home are doing more anti-insurgency training
than other types like winter/jungle/combined arms
and such. And second they have shorter training
periods between deployment. So we'd have more casulties
but our technical superiority will gurantee we hold
our own and defeat the enemy.

Also what no one takes into account these days is
we have an experienced, combat hardened military now.
No longer one that sits and gets fat at bases in friendly
countries but serious warriors who slaugther the enemy
when on one on one engagements between infantry. It's
why they resorted to IEDs and hit-run tactics. Fallujah
and the Sadr uprisings show they are no match for our
troops even without air support. A standing army with
air force would also get creamed. We will always have
air superiority and will make short work of their ground
forces. Only guerilla tactics can give us a bloody nose
but it won't defeat or push us back but hey, that's
assymetrical warfare for ya.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Exactly, they know the only way to win is by nuclear war which is exactly why they wouldn't invade Taiwan anytime soon like others try to imply. And using nukes wouldn't even guarantee a win. If Tawiwan is nuked then what the hell was the point of the conflict? It's a no-win situation for all parties involved. By the time their military is upgraded in 20 years their economy will be more dependant on it's neighbors and us so war would be a bad thing. Nothing good would come out of invading Taiwan. Better to sit back and keep making money. I think cooler heads will prevail. Yes you can claim we're dogged down in Iraq and Afganistan but if an aggressor attacked us or our allies we have sufficient might to fight back and win. Our losses will be larger than if we weren't in Iraq or Afganistan thou. One, our forces when back at home are doing more anti-insurgency training than other types like winter/jungle/combined arms and such. And second they have shorter training periods between deployment. So we'd have more casulties but our technical superiority will gurantee we hold our own and defeat the enemy. Also what no one takes into account these days is we have an experienced, combat hardened military now. No longer one that sits and gets fat at bases in friendly countries but serious warriors who slaugther the enemy when on one on one engagements between infantry. It's why they resorted to IEDs and hit-run tactics. Fallujah and the Sadr uprisings show they are no match for our troops even without air support. A standing army with air force would also get creamed. We will always have air superiority and will make short work of their ground forces. Only guerilla tactics can give us a bloody nose but it won't defeat or push us back but hey, that's assymetrical warfare for ya.

Finally someone who at least seems to know what they are talking about on this board regarding military stuff!

I'd have to partially disagree with you though about a combat hardened military... Iraq is a war, yea, but its not the kind with defined lines and constant combat. If anything we have a bunch of trigger happy and paranoid kids, thats not to say that some groups are coming out of Iraq worse off, the USMC have gotten a few good licks in, especially in the kind of engagments that are considered more "traditional"

All I can say is its sad that we have to fight these friggin radicals when we could be fighting so much more. It's not that I crave war, its that if you are going to wage it, wage it in a fashion that will actually do some good for your country. Iraq isnt helping us. Its wearing us down, its making our military look like a joke to those at home and abroad, and in the end its going to leave us weaker than we have been in a long long time. At least at the end of Vietnam we still had to face the Soviets in Europe... we do not have that incentive now.

I think we need to pull back, consolidate our forces and prepare for a war that will actually mean something.

In the words of Leonard Cohen:

Give me back the Berlin wall

give me Stalin and St Paul

I've seen the future, brother:

it is murder.

Partially agree. Current conflict is tiresome and demoralizing
with it's attrition.

I don't agree that other countries thikn we're weak. This is
what I think they care about :

That when we invaded Iraq, both times plus the overthrow of the
Taliban, we completely destroyed all enemy forces that stood in
our way and we overran them very very quickly. Iraq during the
1st gulf war had the largest standing army I believe. their 'elite'
republican guard divisions were easily defeated.

I think a foreign country looks at that and has understood that
the same can happen to them. Yes yes you can say the insurgency
and guerilla tactics are hurting us. But by that time their
country is occupied. Their army and government are gone. The
people in power will no longer have offices. No more luxuries
or power/influence. 100k enemy troops are in their country and
they can't get rid of them unless they try to resist with those
tactics for years and years hoping we'll quit and they can get
their cushy jobs back.

No longer do they have confidence their divisions and air force
will protect them and their way of life. They've seen thousands
and thousands of well trained and equipped armies/air force overran
in a couple of weeks and fear that can easily be their fate too.

So they can sit in their office and play ball, or oppose us and
hide in a hole like Saddam the great dictator of Iraq did. Guerilla
tactics are after the fact that your country is in enemy hands
and your grand army done for.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Partially agree. Current conflict is tiresome and demoralizing with it's attrition. I don't agree that other countries thikn we're weak. This is what I think they care about : That when we invaded Iraq, both times plus the overthrow of the Taliban, we completely destroyed all enemy forces that stood in our way and we overran them very very quickly. Iraq during the 1st gulf war had the largest standing army I believe. their 'elite' republican guard divisions were easily defeated. I think a foreign country looks at that and has understood that the same can happen to them. Yes yes you can say the insurgency and guerilla tactics are hurting us. But by that time their country is occupied. Their army and government are gone. The people in power will no longer have offices. No more luxuries or power/influence. 100k enemy troops are in their country and they can't get rid of them unless they try to resist with those tactics for years and years hoping we'll quit and they can get their cushy jobs back. No longer do they have confidence their divisions and air force will protect them and their way of life. They've seen thousands and thousands of well trained and equipped armies/air force overran in a couple of weeks and fear that can easily be their fate too. So they can sit in their office and play ball, or oppose us and hide in a hole like Saddam the great dictator of Iraq did. Guerilla tactics are after the fact that your country is in enemy hands and your grand army done for.

Well minus the first gulf war and NATO/UN peacekeeping missions in Europe during the 90's we have not fought a comparably equipped military force.

The Taliban was barely a military... hell most of them didnt even have uniforms (why we can skirt around the Geneva convention! ).

Iraq in 2003 was a cake walk. We were fighting a country that had been under over a decade of sancations, militarily and against its civilians. It was a weak state to begin with. Their armies were unequipped and untrained. Most of them were reserves, hell most of them were Shiites that didnt even like Saddam in the first place!

This is not to say that the US is weak force. No, the US is the strongest military power on the planet at this time. It has been unrivaled in strength since the USSR fell, but that is not to say we don't have capable opponents.

Look at Iran for instance.

If we were to want to take Iran (god forbid) for some reason that means troops on the ground, slogging it out.

Iran is a capable military force. We would win, but first week casualities on our side during the ground war would probably be the same as we have had 4 years in Iraq, if not more. Of course if that is the case, Iranian casualities would probably be off the charts.

It comes back to "do we risk it", look at anger people get over ALMOST 3000 dead over 4 years, granted most of them have died playing neighborhood cops more than they have died being Marines or Soldiers, which is sort of sad.

But imagine the outcry if we had to fight a war where we have 3000 dead in one week, 12,000 dead in a month.

A war like this will come, probably in our lifetimes, and hubris developed from Iraq and Afganistan will be the cause.

I doubt we'd occupy Iran. A ground engagement would
be a piece of cake thou. The parts I wrote about foreign
governements watching us take out enemy divisions quickly
is true. When we fight formal military divisions, they
are wiped out, even without air support. First gulf war
our untested Abrams took on the newest most advanced soviet tanks
and we had engagements were we didn't lose one tank and
destroyed dozens in just tank on tank battles.

War to cripple Iran's nuclear weapons research wouldn't
take a huge invasion. Mostly air power projection would
be needed. We wouldn't send divisions on a rush to Tehran.
Basically I think we'd sit back and let them counter-attack
us. And defense is the best position, they'd have a really
hard time attacking us either in Iraq or elsewhere with their
land forces.

They do invest alot into anti-air defenses but so did Iraq
both wars and they were still not a match for cruise missles
and stealh technology that took them and their radars out.
Plus we got UAV fighters not too far away in the future coming.
(unmanned aerial vehicles)

Difficult thou would be the strait near them. They've occupied
an island near it (not officialy Iranian territory) and based
anti-ship missles and garrisoned some troops on it. They would
try to disrupt oil tankers at it's smallest gap where I believe
a thrid of sea based oil tranports go near. But I think that
would just seriously piss off the entire world and give them
more negative attention. Right now they got a few friends, mostly
China and Russia but I think even they would get pissed if Iran
messes with the oil supply.

The other arab countries don't like Iran and it's nuclear ambitions.
They wouldn't be pleased with the situtation on the strait but
they def don't want a persian nuclear power. Well except Syria.

Anyway point being I don't think we'd have heavy casualties during
the conflict anywhere near the 3,000 of the 4 years of the Iraq war.
Would be mostly a naval and air force battle and our technical
superiority would be a great advantage. They did test a new super-sonic
torpedo but I think we have good counter-measures for those if they
even get close with them. That would be a danger, the anti-ship missles
aren't as bad as we've trained to counter those for decades with
our own missles and computerized gatling guns on board most ships
just for that purpose.

EDIT:

Also I'd like to point out, a HUGE problem with arab armies
is the lack of a strong NCO corps. Most soldiers leave the
military as soon as they can, not sticking around to move
up to NCO ranks. So in the enlisted corps it's mosrly new
soldiers with little experience and almost no leadership
experience. The Officer Corps are distant, they are members
of rich families and think they're alot better than the
common soldier who mostly comes from poor families.
There's a huge gap between them, this means the enlisted
soldiers don't trust the officer's abilities and vice versa.
They don't want to risk their lives or say "I'd follow you
anywhere" like many other armies who have respect for their
officers. Kinda tired so not making much sense but you get
the picture I hope. Without a good NCO corps bridging the
gap, their armies won't be very effective, as we've seen
many just surrender and little 'espirit de corps' in their ranks.
Officers think they're too classy to get their hands dirty
and have no respect from lower ranks and no NCOs to rely
on. This means ALOT during combat ops. Sgt's are our backbone
and without them we'd be lost.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.