No I can pretty easily, you made it clear that you didn't want to drag out something trivial, and was just a friendly reminder not to be nearly as upset about being
...Being, what? Please finish what you are trying to imply. Indeed, I don't want to drag on something trivial, as it were, if it's not going to add much to this discussion going forward. Honestly, you shouldn't even try to accuse me in the first place. Would've saved us both time.
Problem? You said fourth super power, I said I couldn't think of one and that the closest fourth nation would be S. Korea, and asked if that was what your suggestion was. You brought up GDP and not underestimating them based on size, and the first point economy. That's two things. It's a wrong statement outright, in the sense of what it is to be a super power or great power they're not there they aren't close to it and may never be. Same goes for Japan, the country that was so obvious to see, even though yet again others like me didn't understand what you were on about.
I just went back and read my prior post - since I can hardly recall what I did write back then - and just realised that I was unclear about who the four major players in the regions were, since my definition for a "superpower" nation was wrong. For that, it was my fault. However, it also became somewhat clear to me too, that there seems to be a certain underlying disregard for South Korea in your reply post and the subsequent follow ups.
Thus, GDP was brought into the mix to clarify my position, which, seen from above quote, you still seem to take issues with. And yes, it is a "wrong" statement to call SK a superpower, funnily enough, I never did - it was you who first introduced the idea to the table.
No I asked if that was who you were referring to, rather than say no outright you decided to defend them for whatever reason. As if it could have been the fourth, rather than your equally head scratching example of Japan.
See above. In my rebuttal, I clearly stated the four nations I believed to be "superpowers." You did see that, didn't you?
The 4 superpowers I implied, if it wasn't clear to you for some reason, are China, Russia, Japan and the US.
How are both regions similar in the war torn as your colorful imagery puts it? The east by your point just posed here easily shows they're not similar, one is a constant boiling over point with various higher powers in the world. And really when any major power got involved with it has been bogged down and politically pushed out.
Where did I say war-torn? Wasn't it "both regions are dyed in the colours of blood" - may I remind you of Korean War, Japanese aggression in the mainland China, battles fought by Japan and Russia, the conflict in Vietnam? And the Far East, despite all that, found a way to stabilise their economy. In your contention that the conflict in the Middle East has more major powers involved, that seems rather false to me. After all, China has all but distanced itself from it, with its state media hardly mentioning the ongoings, if at all. Of course, that could be due to certain other factors, but the point is, one of the major global players aren't as heavily invested in the Middle East situation as much as you're implying.
No Japan owns the greatest deal of U.S. debt, China no longer has that title and has for a couple years now been off loading it. I've never heard that the U.S. owns the greatest deal of Chinese debt, since the Federal Reserve owns the greatest deal of U.S. debt among any entity/power. The idea which is where I was figuring you'd head to, is that North Korea is some true flash point, that will embroil the other five nations of the six parties talks into combat. Most of the groups in that region are aligned with the U.S., China has been a mediator and this isn't the 50s. China would most likely protect its border, and there is no indication Russia would retaliate either, other than protecting its border as well.
I think this here also is partly my fault - the debt isn't truly the accurate depiction of what I wanted to convey - debt implies someone owes something to someone else. However, I didn't say "the greatest" as I highlighted in the quote. I simply said "a great deal" which is rather different in meaning, no? Hopefully, you aren't going to try denying the fact that the economies of the nations involved in this ever growing mess aren't intertwined beyond comprehension.
And it's interesting you bring up 50s, because actually that's a pretty good analogy - the current Chinese President Xi Jingping has been aggressively pursuing the policy of "Chinese Dream" where the nation becomes the greatest economic, military and political powerhouse of the world, even to overtake the US in the future. Just the way the Communist leaders of the 50s were telling the populace they were building the greatest nation on earth back then.
You may not believe it, but there have been confirmed reports of Chinese troops moving near NK borders as the THAAD systems were being put in place. Are they there for a show, or to pounce the moment something happens to NK leadership by external forces?
You think China will not retaliate using their military? Their near showdown with India at the borders of Bhutan begs to differ.
And Russia - whew, this one's more complicated. There's a chance that they might not act, but if NK is embroiled in a war and falls, would they risk a complete besiegement of their borders by NATO nations? Or will they chose to support NK regime, as they have been doing currently with covert crude oil shipments? And they do have form when it comes to engaging in combat - just ask Crimean residents.
So we agree then, N. Korea is alone at this point. And since there is so much at stake, a group that offers nothing to the big powers in that region seems to be hardly a reason to bring a world into conflict. It's the political storm after the a potential war has ended that I think would be the worry.
As I said, wars start with just about any excuses people in power can come up with. North Korea isn't really, really alone, though - it still has China and Russia backing it.
Of course China doesn't want a new U.S. ally on their border. They do have neighbors though that are U.S. Allies so it's not like this would be a first one. Why can you bet that those two will intervene? The new sanctions imposed on N. Korea show that China and Russia don't like the current trajectory of NK, because they voted in favor with the U.S. which is shocking considering the history of how they've voted in the past. And still N. Korea in the face of that shows no disregard. At this point it's the U.S. waiting for something to happen, and having provocation. Those two aren't going to do anything if the U.S. is provoked. If the U.S. invades I find it risky but still unlikely of any actual fight between anyone that isn't NK or U.S.
You don't know what's truly being discussed behind the close doors at the Chinese leadership. Neither do I, and we can only speculate. From what I read so far, the so-called UN sanctions haven't been supported down at the ground by either China and Russia, so....
And also from the pieces straight out SK media, the current SK president, Mr. Problematic Person, has been singing the tune of "the US won't start anything without my consent." Whether that's true or not... who knows. But if the US invades, then again, I assert that China and Russia will intervene. Their current policies, prior actions, their stated desires and goals leads me to believe so.
