Who do you think is the biggest threat to peace and regional security in Northeast Asia?

1.) North Korea (Most likely to do something irrational. Collapse would be geopolitically complicated)

2.) China (Very likely to cross the line while provoking neighbors)

3.) Japan (High possibility of overreacting to China's provocation)

4.) US (Could take pre-emptive action against North Korea if it threatens the South, especially post 2016)

5.) Russia (Not on the list but always lurking in the background. Likely to come to the aid of North Korea if it starts to collapse to avoid US troops on its border)

6.) South Korea (Most interested in maintaining the status quo, least threatening to peace)

4.) US (Could take pre-emptive action against North Korea if it threatens the South, especially post 2016)

6.) South Korea (Most interested in maintaining the status quo, least threatening to peace)

Aren't US forces supposed to go under ROK command in South Korea, soon or already? Switch 4 and 6?

The USA and its puppet government in Japan are the biggest threat to peace in the area, followed a close second by China.

1) North Korea 2) and USA

At the moment US is ranked #3. What if US were removed from the region? Do you think China would cause even more provocation? And the KJU punk in N. Korea would continue and more? Japan wants

China--specifically the continuing rapid growth of its economy under a single-party, authoritarian government. Dictatorial leaders always like to spout nonsense about liberal democracy being a sham--but things get really dangerous when they come to genuinely believe in their own nonsense and act upon it. China's leaders have reached or are close to reaching that point--writing off India as hopeless, Taiwan as ripe for forced incorporation into the PRC, Japan as a pest and nuisance, and the USA as a militaristic bully.

How China's leaders see the world is actually starting to resemble how Japan's frustrated, revisionist, status quo-hating leaders in the 1930s came to view the world--as an unfair place that had to be destroyed and then reformed according to the preferences of the "morally superior" country.

My vote is Russia

Which of these countries has been the biggest threat to peace in the post WWII era?

China would be the least threat. The CCP knows that if ever there was a war, the CCP is finished. Tibet would break loose and Taiwan and HK would want even greater autonomy. Even if you give them half of Japan, if the CCP cannot solve the corruption, the pollution and the social ills, then the CCP is doomed for the grave. The CCP knows the issues at hand that they have to solve first. They are not stupid!

Asian2014,

Exactly. It is not China who is stupid.

South Korea (Most interested in maintaining the status quo, least threatening to peace)

SK is frantically intensifying it's anti-Japan bashing, and dragging China and US in their cause. I don't rule out a war with SK.

Let's not forget that it is not the average person in any country who is against any other. People just want to get on with their lives.

The very few are trying to stir up people and turn them against the other.

We don't need "defence" against the Chinese or North Koreans. We need defence against those who would gain from war, who would suffer nothing and sit out any altercation in complete safety, counting their profits while we average people get blown up, shot, maimed and psychologically ruined.

The U.S. undoubtedly. They're losing their economic war to China and their only recourse now is physical war, but China has nukes so the U.S. can't risk it themselves, so they'll try and escalate tensions in the region until there's an "accident" and the U.S. can make one of their "allies" (i.e. suckers/dupes/people stupid enough to trust the U.S.) go to war with China.

Doesn't matter if their "ally" wins or loses, the key is setting back China's economy, which will happen the moment a war polarises the region.

just two forces exist here US and China, the rest are just-------

BertieWooster

we need defence against those who would gain from war, who would suffer nothing and sit out any altercation in complete safety, counting their profits while we average people get blown up, shot, maimed and psychologically ruined.

This applies to the leaders of China and North Korea, too. I don't think those who voted China or North Korea had 'average people' of said countries as a dangerous threat.

Anyone who salutes a star is a threat in this region, that goes for china, north korea and US.

Frungy,

Exactly! Well said.

War is about economics. Nothing else.

NYtoday,

Of course this applies to the people of China and NK too. I don't know about the "leaders," though. These days very rarely is a PM, President, etc., the person who is actually controlling the country. Those people would rather not be in the limelight.

I don't think Russia would be at the top of the list, but nonetheless it should have been included. And I noticed USA was in the list - despite it being located nowhere near East Asia. That says a lot!

It's hilarious that Japan and the U.S. are even choices here whilst Russia isn't. lol

Doesn't matter if their "ally" wins or loses, the key is setting back China's economy, which will happen the moment a war polarises the region.

Soo... US economy is nearing collapse according to you but China can be knocked over as well without even direct intervention from the US. lmao. Doesn't sound like a very stable region.

Oh come on? When was the last time China invaded a country in the middle east under false pretenses of WMDs and then totally destroyed the stability of the middle east? From Vietnam to Iraq, America is much more dangerous than China, China does not act like the policeman of the world

That's the problem, drakedogma, China will do business with everyone no matter how high the bodies are stacked up. We have to have some sort of world standard for human rights.

"When was the last time China invaded a country in the middle east under false pretenses of WMDs and then totally destroyed the stability of the middle east?"

I'm not really sure it matters the last time China did this or that. Today's China is home to a $10 trillion economy controlled with absolute power by an autocratic government. No dictatorial government in history has ever wielded control over so large an economy.

People tend to underestimate the importance of respect in interstate relations. Presiding over massive wealth creation is causing CCP leaders in China to rapidly lose whatever respect they once had for Japan, and this is frankly dangerous. It's not really anger over wartime atrocities committed by the Japanese that makes me worried about China's leaders; it's their growing conviction that rapid economic development is an easy thing to achieve (it's not, of course), and therefore nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others don't deserve much respect for what they've achieved. Feeling contempt for others makes it easier to rationalize doing harmful things to them. Just look at the Arab nations vis-a-vis Israel.

This is the reason the war happended in history, each one consider the others as the threat to peace.

1.For Japan and nations arround South China sea, China is keep provoking neighbors, China is the biggest threaten.

2.For China, Japan bought the islets cause the tension and provoke the peace. and For South China sea, there are no conflict before 1950, and China claimed them all before that time and last for handurds years . But after that, the South China sea nations begain to occupy the islands there, so it is the South China sea nations are keep provoking.

See, every one thinks he is correct and for the sack of peace!

That's the problem, drakedogma, China will do business with everyone no matter how high the bodies are stacked up. We have to have some sort of world standard for human rights.

Have you seen the countries the US have been shaking hands with that have committed such horrible crimes? America has no standards, they will betray you if you're a threat, but be friends with you if you're an ally, and the amount of people you kill in your home country has no effect on them, just remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. America has made deals with various evil countries in the past for their own benefit

I'm not taking a pro-china stance, I'm just saying that MOST countries have a better foreign policy than America, which by the way is using drones to bomb innocent people, calling the women and children collateral damage, in the name of fighting terrorism, yet all that does it intensify hatred and keep the war on terror going because we kill innocent people, I can't remember a time China was using drones to blow up innocent kids abroad.

drakedogma,

WELL SAID!

MOST countries have a better foreign policy than America, which by the way is using drones to bomb innocent people, calling the women and children collateral damage, in the name of fighting terrorism, yet all that does it intensify hatred and keep the war on terror going because we kill innocent people, I can't remember a time China was using drones to blow up innocent kids abroad.

drakedogma, china hasn't been killing people with drones because it couldn't build them reliable enough, and now they have technology who they going to bomb? Their own people maybe?

If it wasn't for the US keeping the terroists under threat of drone strike do you think the terrorism would stop?

Of course not, some one has to keep these terroists busy while the rest of us get on with our lives, thankfully there is someone to do it for us otherwise you'd be under sharia law.

china... china invaded the same communist nation veitnam and had territorial conflict with the same communist nation USSR. china is the only existing nation that expanded its territory after ww2.

Drakedogma - Bravo!

StormRAug. 19, 2014 - 07:48PM JST drakedogma, china hasn't been killing people with drones because it couldn't build them reliable enough, and now they have technology who they going to bomb? Their own people maybe?

So let me get this straight. In your opinion China can't produce reliable drones, despite it mass-producing most electronics you use every day, like your iPhone, and a large number of parts used in weapons systems INTERNATIONALLY (including the U.S.) being made in China.

Yes, Chinese parts are less reliable than those produced in some other parts of the world, but the Chinese can produce them for pennies on the dollar, and they could produce a dozen drones for what the U.S. military is charged for a single drone. Who cares if 2 out of 2 dozen drones fall out of the sky because they're less reliable (and that's a massive exaggeration - the worst figures I've seen for defect rates that the Chinese parts have a 3x higher defect rate... that's 3x higher than the insanely high standards militaries set for defects.

If it wasn't for the US keeping the terroists under threat of drone strike do you think the terrorism would stop?

Umm.. Yes, definitely. You see every drone strike kills maybe one real terrorist and about a dozen innocent people. If, out of that dozen, even two kids grow up angry with the U.S. for killing their mom and dad then in the long-run the U.S. is doubling the world's supply of terrorists.

In the short-term their friends, cousins, uncles, etc. can see that the U.S. is prepared to kill innocent civilians in their country, so it becomes MUCH easier to justify killing a bunch of innocent U.S. citizens.

It is a stupid policy designed by stupid people and it only aggravates the situation. But this is the U.S. all over. The U.S. government is bought and paid for by the U.S. arms industry and has been pretty much constantly at war for the last 70 years. You'd think that after 70 years the American people would have woken up by now, but hats off to the American propaganda machine, it clearly has the majority of U.S. citizens hopelessly brainwashed into thinking it is NORMAL to be at war for 70 years.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

I actually agree with the exact order you guys picked in the poll. China > NK > US > Japan > SK

To those of you saying "China is too smart to attack", you should realize that "biggest threat" does NOT mean most likely to attack. Although that is PART of the factor, there are many other factors you should consider when assessing a threat.

A show of military might does NOT deter terrorism.

It CREATES it.

How much peace, democracy and freedom has the U.S.A. created in the Middle East?

They have started Iraq all over again.

And now the U.S.A. is trying to do the same in Asia.

I agree with Frungy,

the U.S. is doubling the world's supply of terrorists

Ignorance is strength.

I think you summed up your philosophy right there. I am concerned about China's strength.

@bertie

The USA and its puppet government in Japan are the biggest threat to peace in the area, followed a close second by China.

Bertie, once again, you are way off.

Oh come on? When was the last time China invaded a country in the middle east under false pretenses of WMDs and then totally destroyed the stability of the middle east? From Vietnam to Iraq, America is much more dangerous than China, China does not act like the policeman of the world

Seriously, that's it? The WMD debacle again. Because the intel was bungled by multiple sources and a dictator was removed, which was a good thing, the instability of the ME is due to the sectarian violence! Not the US. Japan and South Korea and Germany turned out fine. You are welcome. As for China, there are a lot of things to be worried about with China, from the manipulation of their currency to focus on building a ONE PARTY system and if if you think China can even fill the US shoes on anything, think again, like it or not, Obama is a president that doesn't want to get involved in anything and look what is happening around the world. Russia, the Middle East, ISIS, the Mexican border, Israel and the Palestianian conflict, NO one else has the power, means or the will to confront any of these problems and the sad thing is, it's NOT going away. You can bash the US all you want, but there is nobody that could even come close to fixing these problems and I like many, many Americans don't like it either to be the worlds police, because I think we should just worry about ourselves and if Europe and the other countries fall apart, that's on them, the world needs us more than we need it. So there are a lot of countries out there that are dangerous and if you think China and Russia are not, I don't know what to tell you. But I will say this with certainty, once Obama is out of office, I assure you, there will be monumental changes especially in foreign policy, these 6 years of being a pacifist country has screwed up and polarized the entire world and you have Russia, China and these crazy jihadists running around off the charts. So there are many countries, rouge, jihadist, extremists and other radicals that see this vacuum that Obama created and now want to partake in its weakness. 2 more years until the madness ends and we can get back on track.

If you go by body count the U.S.A. is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world right now. Stopping drone strikes would cut the number of global deaths from terrorist by a MASSIVE amount.

Then that would mean, the US intentionally killed and amassed these people for the sake of just doing it, because it's in the US blood to kill anyone or anything for no reason, how absurd.

But a lot of right-wingers from the U.S. can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the U.S. government's refusal to declare war (thereby bypassing the Geneva convention), the tortures and abductions of hundreds of innocent people conducted by the U.S. government, the bombing of innocent civilians, the intrusions into global citizens' privacy (including U.S. citizens) through the illegal monitoring of electronic communications... all these things make the U.S.A. a rogue nation. One worthy of condemnation.

More like that many conservatives and some, some liberals DO get their head around and see that there is definitely a distinction between good and evil and the people that do want to wreck havoc, hurt us or our friends and ally and the best thing we do for our friends is being there for them, to give them aid, either financially or military is a good thing. There is no torture and what do you think the jihadists would do if they got their hands on you? You're not a Muslim, therefore, your head would be cut off and no one will address that except for the US. When you bomb or attack suspected targets in reaching your objective, you will have casualties of innocence that can't be helped. As for the spying program, every courty does it, EVERY ONE and if they don't. It's probably because they don't have the money to do it, but EVERY country eaves drops on its citizens! the only difference is! the US is much better and has better equipment for doing it.

And as U.S. citizens who elected the U.S. government you all share in that long laundry-list of crimes. You have the right to vote, but are thereby responsible for what your government does.

I don't. The NSA and the CIA does what it wants, even the president doesn't know everything. Every few years there is a new president and therefore, the president might get limited information, but these organizations will not divulge all of their information unless they deem it necessary.

So before you start the inevitable "Waah, waah, everyone hates America for no reason, waah, waah" nonsense, take a step back and look at your government's activities for the last decade. They make Stalin look like a saint.

I think it's more jealousy on the part of many governments truth be told and now while America is on the beach taking a break, the kids are fighting with each other and daddy will have to go in sooner or later and sort it all out, eventually whether the kids like it or not.

The answer is China, followed by North Korea. Very, very obviously.

Hmm, seems a lot of folks didn't notice the "threat to peace and regional security"

I'm sure many have at least had the brains to understand what the Chinese government's long term plan is right? I'd love it if just suddenly out of the blue the US just packed up and left. Then these ridiculously optimistic guys would really figure out what the lack of peace and regional security is really about for the region.

@drakedogmaAUG. 19, 2014 - 02:29PM JST

Have you seen the countries the US have been shaking hands with that have committed such horrible crimes? America has no standards, they will betray you if you're a threat, but be friends with you if you're an ally, and the amount of people you kill in your home country has no effect on them, just remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

You are absolutely right !

In response to night knight, I have two words: North Korea

China., but the behavior of every single country on the list certainly can't be held up as a shinig example of pacificism. Just as there is more than one way to start a jigsaw puzzle there are many ways to start a conflict.

Anyone who voted the US needs to leave their baggage at the door after pulling their head out of the sand. Sure, their presence creates tensions for some (mostly Okinawans, though), but their presence here guarantees China at the very least keeps at bay. My ranking is the same at M3M3M3's: 1) SK, China, Japan, although I would put Russia before the US as #4.

Hmm, overwhelmingly China scored No. 1 at this time of writing. (Congratulations to Bertie on a new low score? All time on JT?)

Agree, Russia is not trustworthy but what's the gain for them around these parts right now?

NK, you never know. For now. One way or another, something's gotta give sometime.

Japan can't successfully invade any of it's neighbours with it's current weaponry. Nor would it be allowed to ever get that far. Sorry wearers of tin hats. You funny. Feel free to provide a list of countries and realistic invasion scenarios if you disagree. No all capitals or paragraphs that exceed more than a few sentences, thanks.

South Korea a threat? Not directly. But they are a potential problem with the US/Japan/SK alliance in the fact they are not 100% reliable. I doubt they'll ever side with China militarily but their political posturing makes me, and probably others, wonder just how professional they'd be if hostilities broke out. I'm guessing and hoping they won't be silly.

Oh, the US? Should pick it's battles a little more wisely in the ME. But in this neck of the woods, they're "generally" welcome.

China, duh

@bertie

A show of military might does NOT deter terrorism.

Not necessarily, but it can crush the spirit and will and determination, not to mention give pause and thought, just like the surge did in Iraq p, which turned the tide and helped us win the war.

It CREATES it.

Wrong again, the sectarian violence is overwhelmingly responsible for virtually everything you happening in Iraq.

How much peace, democracy and freedom has the U.S.A. created in the Middle East?

Again, you're talking about the sectarian conflict.

They have started Iraq all over again.

Seriously? Jeez! If you want to blame the real culprit and divide in Iraq, blame Maliki! His oppression of the Sunnis and cutting them out of almost everything to basic jobs even in the military, socially. He was a Saddam in reverse, that's. He was the catalyst that sparked the birth of ISIS. Of course, if you really want to micro analyze, you could blame the British for even dividing these people, but then that would sound like the constant blame came some people do when they talk about Bush.

And now the U.S.A. is trying to do the same in Asia.

No, the US is not. You mean China, that's what you really meant.

the U.S. is doubling the world's supply of terrorists

No, Obama being the pacifist man that he is is allowing many of these terrorists to grow and think now there is a power vacuum and the US left it, so now you have Russia, China and every other terrorist nation thinks they can go around and cause mayhem and unless steps up, it'll get worse, definitely!

Just so you know that I'm right, read this painful (lol and I know it was painful to admit) admission of how reality is setting in all over the world and to every anti-American hating liberal, Europeans and in between. The chickens are coming home to roost as Rev. Wright would say.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100282799/we-may-not-like-it-but-we-need-america-to-be-the-worlds-policeman/

"South Korea a threat? Not directly. But they are a potential problem with the US/Japan/SK alliance in the fact they are not 100% reliable."

There is no "US/Japan/SK" alliance. There is the US-Japan alliance and the US-South Korea alliance, and that's it. There is no formal alliance between Japan and South Korea. The USA decided decades ago that it would have to construct a kind of "hub-and-spoke" series of anti-communist, bilateral alliances in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines initially) rather than the kind of multilateral arrangement that took root in Europe. Was this the fault of other Asian countries reluctant to formally ally with Japan (their former invader/occupier), or were Japanese politicians at fault for their refusal to subsume their country's autonomy within a supranational organization as the Germans did in Europe? Or were Americans at fault for believing that Asians were immature people who couldn't work together in an EU-style group?

Maybe everybody was at fault at least a little bit.

There is no "US/Japan/SK" alliance.

Japan goes to war, US goes to war. SK will just watch?

"Japan goes to war, US goes to war. SK will just watch?"

I'm not sure how Japan can even go to war, other than serving as a base for deployment of American soldiers as it did during the Vietnam War (while Americans, South Koreans, and Australians did the fighting and dying against North Vietnamese). Despite all the hoopla over the "collective defense" changes in Japan, it's almost impossible to imagine that Japanese soldiers would actually be allowed to take part in any operations against North Korea or China, the two likely adversaries. The involvement of Japanese would enrage North Korea and China to such a degree that the latter would probably threaten to use nuclear weapons against Japan. Try to imagine a scenario of Japanese soldiers getting involved in a multilateral effort to prevent China from formally taking over Taiwan, the island that China lost to Japan in the Sino-Japanese War of 120 years ago. Won't happen, no way no how. The USA would have to handle that one (with maybe a minor contingent of forces from pro-democracy Asian and Oceanic countries other than Japan taking part).

And as for beating back a North Korean move against the South (unlikely, given how weak the North is relative to the South now, compared to 1950 when the two were at near-parity and the North was arguably stronger), my guess is the government in Seoul would absolutely refuse to allow Japanese soldiers to take part in the counter-operation. Neither North nor South Koreans are ready to see Japanese soldiers back on the peninsula after 69 years.

Seoul would absolutely refuse to allow Japanese soldiers to take part in the counter-operation

SK's extreme anti-Japan education is gradually destroying SK.

Seoul would absolutely refuse to allow Japanese soldiers to take part in the counter-operation

And of course, Japan will not allow U.S. force stationed in Japan to deploy in Korea when $hit hits the fan.

http://www.j-cast.com/2014/07/17210825.html

When is OPCON?

Why isn't Russia mentioned? They care less about the geopolitical situation as North Korean and have the economy and resources to destabilize the region, but why would they want to? It would only put China on edge, and the US would back up China to prevent the spread of Russian influence. North Korea is out because China will stop any major NK aggressions. Japan is out because if Abe and the boys do anything, the Japanese will complain too loud and Japan is just trying to maintain its diminishing status quo. China and the US are not threats, they work too well together to start a war and lose their standing to Russia. That leaves South Korea, who is loving the tension between Japan and China, because China looks to SK for political backing and in return gets cheaper resources. US and Europe are also enjoying the Korean boom, and Russia is pretty neutral on the whole SK thing. Why would Seoul give any of that up for a war?

WAR and security threats are about the acquisition and redistribution of resources by betting your resources are greater than your opponents. At this time, nobody has enough of an edge to do anything.

"And of course, Japan will not allow U.S. force stationed in Japan to deploy in Korea when $hit hits the fan."

And when will that happen? Such thinking suggests a mind frozen in time in the year 1950. In the year 2014, economically crippled North Korea cannot invade South Korea by conventional means and hope to gain or hold any territory. And in fact, the ROK-PRC rapprochement that people like you write about in such bitter, angry, and disdainful terms makes it likely that North Korea will be deterred from attacking the South not by the threat of US retaliation, but rather by China's preference for keeping the status quo at the 38th parallel. RE Korea, China is now a status quo player rather than one dedicated to destroying the "pro-American capitalist dog" or whatever term they used to employ in Beijing when describing the ROK.

Regarding potential Japanese military activity in Korea, the major concern now perhaps is that PM Abe will unilaterally decide to exercise "collective defense" by dispatching Japanese SDF soldiers to North Korea to rescue kidnapped Japanese citizens (the "abductees"), but even that appears to be a far-fetched scenario as of right now, given the kind of angry response such action would surely trigger in North Korea, China, AND South Korea.

And when will that happen? Such thinking suggests a mind frozen in time in the year 1950. In the year 2014, economically crippled North Korea cannot invade South Korea by conventional means and hope to gain or hold any territory. And in fact, the ROK-PRC rapprochement that people like you write about in such bitter, angry, and disdainful terms makes it likely that North Korea will be deterred from attacking the South not by the threat of US retaliation, but rather by China's preference for keeping the status quo at the 38th parallel. RE Korea, China is now a status quo player rather than one dedicated to destroying the "pro-American capitalist dog" or whatever term they used to employ in Beijing when describing the ROK.

After OPCON. How long, it's anybody's guess. In the meantime, Japan should be prepared to rescue Japanese citizens in Korea which means assisting U,S. Forces in evacuation both air and sea. (a scenario explained in Abe's collective Self defense) As Nixon stated in 1970, the decision to enter Korean War was strictly for protection of Japan. How this position has not changed saids a lot about Japan's importance to U.S. and the insignificance of Korea.

Dispatch JSDF to NK? Huuuuh????

"After OPCON. How long, it's anybody's guess."

So let me get this straight: The changeover in OPCON status is so important that it will override the fact that North Korea has a GDP of only about $12 billion compared to one of more than $1.2 trillion for South Korea? At that point, Kim Jong Il & Co. will think it's safe to carry out a conventional military attack on a country that has an economy 100 times the size of the DPRK? Why would they suddenly believe that? And why totally ignore the reality that China, from now on, is likely to oppose any move by the North to attack the South and will probably intervene to prevent Pyongyang from going forward with such plans? Again, your mind seems stuck in the year 1950.

So despite your nonstop bitter ranting about the USA and the role it played in stopping Japanese territorial expansion in the 1930s and 1940s, you need to believe the Americans care way more about Japan than they do about South Korea? Why is that? And yeah, one big worry about Abe is that he wishes to undermine Article 9 so that JSDF forces can be dispatched and rescue Japanese citizens being held in places around the world, e.g. Syria, North Korea, wherever. The In Amenas hostage crisis in Algeria in early 2013, which ended with the deaths of 10 Japanese among the 39 foreign hostages, was a shock that reportedly pushed Abe's thinking in such a direction.

Nigelboy's comment is interesting. If US had not stopped the Korean domino halfway down the peninsula, North Korea would be looking at Japan across the Korean Strait now. Thunderclouds coming from North Korea that look tiny now (as seen across South Korea serving as buffer zone) would look a lot bigger. North Korea may even have tried crossing the strait, after a decade or two to rearm.

nigelboy: As Nixon stated in 1970, the decision to enter Korean War was strictly for protection of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Baekdusan_%28PC_701%29

USS PC-823 ... ROKS Baekdusan (PC-701) ... (submarine chase) ... Except for the fortuitous position of the PC-701 and the fighting qualities of the craft's crew, the North Korean soldiers might have successfully landed at the vital Busan. The poor state of combat readiness at the port could easily have led to its loss. In such an event, not even the small Allied toehold on the peninsula would have remained to support the U.S. counteroffensive in Korea. This single naval action may well have prevented the fall of South Korea.

So let me get this straight: The changeover in OPCON status is so important that it will override the fact that North Korea has a GDP of only about $12 billion compared to one of more than $1.2 trillion for South Korea? At that point, Kim Jong Il & Co. will think it's safe to carry out a conventional military attack on a country that has an economy 100 times the size of the DPRK? Why would they suddenly believe that? And why totally ignore the reality that China, from now on, is likely to oppose any move by the North to attack the South and will probably intervene to prevent Pyongyang from going forward with such plans? Again, your mind seems stuck in the year 1950.

What does GDP has to do with the strengths?

So despite your nonstop bitter ranting about the USA and the role it played in stopping Japanese territorial expansion in the 1930s and 1940s, you need to believe the Americans care way more about Japan than they do about South Korea? Why is that? And yeah, one big worry about Abe is that he wishes to undermine Article 9 so that JSDF forces can be dispatched and rescue Japanese citizens being held in places around the world, e.g. Syria, North Korea, wherever. The In Amenas hostage crisis in Algeria in early 2013, which ended with the deaths of 10 Japanese among the 39 foreign hostages, was a shock that reportedly pushed Abe's thinking in such a direction.

To your first question, of course U.S. cares way more about Japan than they do about South Korea. Why? Reliable, trustworthy, something along those lines.

The question itself, is designed to inflame and point all the blame toward someone else, while defending whatever country you believe is in the right. Looks to be quite popular with the usuall blind Nationalist and pro military crowd though.

"What does GDP has to do with the strengths?"

Seriously, you're a nonstop cheerleader for a country (Japan) that adopted "GNPism" as a virtual national ideology in the 1960s and you are asking this question? Uh, the size of GDP pretty much has everything to do with national strength. The source of military capacity is economic capacity. Anybody who studies this kind of stuff will tell you that.

"To your first question, of course U.S. cares way more about Japan than they do about South Korea."

That's actually not an answer to the question I posed (and such an assertion is highly debatable), but since I doubt you'd like to actually answer the question I asked, never mind.

Seriously, you're a nonstop cheerleader for a country (Japan) that adopted "GNPism" as a virtual national ideology in the 1960s and you are asking this question? Uh, the size of GDP pretty much has everything to do with national strength. The source of military capacity is economic capacity. Anybody who studies this kind of stuff will tell you that.

But I never associated with the strengths of the military. You must be confused with someone else.

That's actually not an answer to the question I posed (and such an assertion is highly debatable), but since I doubt you'd like to actually answer the question I asked, never mind

Your wish.

zichi: The Korean War was nothing to do with protecting Japan, and America wasn't the only country to fight in it too and Britain was also part of it. It was about American fear of communism and its spread eastward and westward.

"its spread eastward?" Isn't Japan east of Korea? About 120 mile / 200 km across the strait (or 30 mile / 50 km from Korea to Tsushima Island)?

If ROKS Baekdusan hadn't been in place, Japan might have spent the last 60 years staring across the strait at the DPRK, 30 miles away.

War is about economics. Nothing else.

Absurd, stupid, ignorant, hopelessly foolish, utter rubbish, spoken like a true fool whose lack of understanding about the world is all too common, and why the world is as bad off as it is.

Economics is the anti-war, it is the process of people working to satisfy and provide for each others wants and needs simultaneously. Economics works at it's most efficient level when there is no govermment, no regulation, and no conflict. It is the natural process of human work and interaction. Everything you own, eat, or use is the result of economics.

War is the desire for power and control, which is a natural trait. It has nothing to do with economics outside the desire to control the output of the economy. War is not the fault of the leaders who create the conflicts, it is the fault of the people who give their leaders too much control over the people and their economy.

The list is nonsense, all countries are equally dangerous, because despite their supposed political differences, they are all led by the same type and class of people, who of course all have the same goals. But this is how it has always been, "there is nothing new under the sun", as Solomon said.

@sangetsu03

Yeah, economics is the anti-war... until you realize economics gets you fighter jets, aircraft carriers, etc. etc. Oh and your citizens need fossil fuels from terrorist countries in order to have their comfortable lives. And if you are lucky enough to be separated from your adversary by water you can bomb them til kingdom come and not take any damage to your precious economy. Economics may be power, but it is hardly ethical or peace-promoting.

The Korean War was nothing to do with protecting Japan, and America wasn't the only country to fight in it too and Britain was also part of it. It was about American fear of communism and its spread eastward and westward.

Well. It had to do with Japan to protect them from spread of communism.

"....Many years ago, at the time of the Korean War, when it was a great debate as to whether Truman should or should not have gone into Korea, I was talking to a man who is a great expert on the World Communist Movement. He said something that stuck in my mind ever since that time. He said, “Truman had to go into Korea. We had to go into Korea, because what we must remember is that the war in Korea for the Communists is not about Korea. It is about Japan.” Of course, it was..."

If Korea is insignificant why today are there so many American troops stationed there?

It's "insignificant" compared to the importance of Japan.

I voted China because i see China as a great threat to the lasting peace in east Asia. I think that it is the powerful communism in the country that is the main reason for the countrys act of agression against Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan. We all remember the cold war between the two main powers in the world USA and the Soviet Union, and we all remember the big threat that the Soviet Union accounted!! I believe that communism is the way of thinking extremely big indeed, increased manpower in their army and bigger areas and more power! Of course North Korea is also a big threat but not necceserily as big as China because China have bigger army and more and modern military equipment, something that North Korea doesnt really have! A new cold war can erupt at any time bewteen NK,China,Russia and The U.S and NATO!!!

"To your first question, of course U.S. cares way more about Japan than they do about South Korea. Why? Reliable, trustworthy, something along those lines."

This is totally subjective. A bunch of State Dept. and Defense Dept. bureaucrats in Washington conclude that Japan is more "reliable" than South Korea. So what? In your mind, do they get the last word on deciding what reliable and trustworthy mean? Foreign policy planners and analysts in America have been proven so totally wrong about so many things over the decades that I really can't understand why you, of all people, choose to put so much stock in what you think they believe about Japan vs. Korea.

"But I never associated with the strengths of the military."--Uh yes, I know, which is why you asked what GDP had to do with military strength, and that was a very weird question since the answer is "everything." If you really think that North Korea, with its broken-down pathetic $12 billion economy, can actually mount a conventional attack (like in 1950) on South Korea's modern industrialized $1.2 trillion economy (and this seems to be what you believe), you are totally mistaken.

The obvious answer to the question - which btw doesn't ask "who is most likely to go to war, but rather who is a threat to peace and stability - is PRC. Following behind closely in second and third place would be DPRK and ROK since they jump when their master tells them to.

You see every drone strike kills maybe one real terrorist and about a dozen innocent people.

Stats to prove your fantasies? Links? Any evidence whatsoever?

Or were Americans at fault for believing that Asians were immature people who couldn't work together in an EU-style group?

I'm no great fan of US foreign policy, but are you serious with this comment? If anything, "Asians" have proven themselves to be even more "immature" and incapable of "working together in an EU style group" than even the most pessimistic American strategists could have foreseen. The whole region is pretty much the definition of immaturity, led of course by the communists who act like they are kids in a sandbox.

If you doubt this, have a look at the news today regarding a communist fighter engaging in dangerous maneuvers against an AMerican P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine and reconnaissance plane over international waters. Here are some relevant comments.

The Chinese plane had been tailing the American jet, a practice Beijing’s military has increasingly adopted. “It’s not a normal practice to play bumper cars in the air,” Admiral Blair said.

One American defense official lamented the episode as “so totally high school.”

Immaturity and stunted mental development are great threats to regional peace and security. PRC exhibits both in spades.

This is totally subjective. A bunch of State Dept. and Defense Dept. bureaucrats in Washington conclude that Japan is more "reliable" than South Korea. So what? In your mind, do they get the last word on deciding what reliable and trustworthy mean? Foreign policy planners and analysts in America have been proven so totally wrong about so many things over the decades that I really can't understand why you, of all people, choose to put so much stock in what you think they believe about Japan vs. Korea.

It's been that way for god knows how long. And it's proven right. What kind of deranged mentality can someone have to claim the opposite???

Uh yes, I know, which is why you asked what GDP had to do with military strength, and that was a very weird question since the answer is "everything." If you really think that North Korea, with its broken-down pathetic $12 billion economy, can actually mount a conventional attack (like in 1950) on South Korea's modern industrialized $1.2 trillion economy (and this seems to be what you believe), you are totally mistaken.

So why the recent hesitancy by Korean government to comply with the 2015 deadline?

"What kind of deranged mentality can someone have to claim the opposite???"

I'm not claiming the opposite. What I am wondering is this--Why do you believe that American perceptions of who is reliable and trustworthy in East Asia are the correct perceptions? Are you really that adamantly pro-American now, despite your constant bitter ranting about American decision-making vis-a-vis Japan in the past (such as their role of judge, jury, and executioner during the post-World War II war crimes trials in Tokyo)? Why are you now so totally willing to accept American judgement at face value on who you believe they deem reliable and trustworthy?

Is it just, in the end, a case of your unconditionally accepting the judgement of people who may agree with whatever you believe? Sounds that way.

South Korea is first crumple zone. Japan is second crumple zone. Pacific Ocean is third. Like the trunk or boot on a car, protect passengers from crash.

I don't see why US should care which is more reliable or friendly. If any impact, everyone on this side of the line will find themselves really friendly to each other.

FYI crumple zone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone

The crumple zone (also called crush space) is a structural feature mainly used in automobiles ... designed to absorb the energy from the impact during a traffic collision by controlled deformation.

I'm not claiming the opposite.

Then what are arguing about? This isn't about pro or anti America. Read my post again.

I really don't think China can afford to irritate trade relations between China and the rest of the free world, which is what would happen if she started flexing her muscles. China needs the free market economies of the West more than the West needs her, though neither can afford to loose the other as trading partners. North Korea, on the other hand, is the rogue nation in this mix. Kim jun ill is more likely to do something stupid than any other player. He's limping now from a physical problem, if China decided to spank him, he could be comatose in no time. He's dangerous, but vulnerable. As long as China plays the diplomat role, all will remain calm. I think