# What exactly does China get out of supporting North Korea **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589 "2017-09-17T22:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/21 "2017-09-18T16:47:29Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > China is not a friend to the US. To the extent that NK continues to be a thorn in America’s back side, China will continue to support NK. I don’t know if they absolutely will continue to support the current NK regime (though no real evidence they won’t). But I agree this is a relatively major additional answer to the question what does China get? They get situation which creates more trouble for their main rival and potential enemy, the US, than it does for them, so far. OTOH even without any really bad messiness in replacing the NK regime, the default case of a reunified country basically under the ROK is a potential increase to US prestige and decrease to China’s. Only a particular final outcome could result in _just_ an elimination of a thorn in the US side, rather than something of a creation of one in China’s. Then there’s the potential for messiness in the process, though that aspect probably tends to get overblown as a real reason China wouldn’t cooperate more. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/22 "2017-09-18T16:59:50Z")
I don’t really agree with any of the analysis thus far presented. For a quick history lesson, China intervened on the side of North Korea for a few reasons in the Korean War: 1. They were ideologically predisposed to the Kim regime, as it was a brothers-in-arms Communist regime. 2. They did not want America to conquer North Korea, when MacArthur crossed the 38th parallel (against orders), many view that as the single biggest reason for Chinese intervention. 3. The CCP’s control of China in 1950 was shaky, and the country was in tatters. It was a much less well run country in 1950 than it is today, with much less professional decision making involved. Many people believe Mao was paranoid that if North Korea fell American forces would just keep going north to try and reinstate Chain Kai-shek’s government. This one is sort of due to the weak state of Chinese decision making and intelligence at the time, again, the state was in chaos. With better intelligence Mao would have known that the realistic chance of America pushing into China was simply non-existent. The American public was deeply unhappy we lifted a finger to save South Korea, it was a deeply unpopular war that gave Harry Truman almost unprecedentedly low approval ratings. The idea that the public would stand for an aggressive invasion of China was laughable, or that the U.S. leadership was even willing to commit resources to such a thing. There was never actually a deep and abiding friendship between Mao and Kim. They were ideological fellow travelers, but China intervened in the Korean War due to bad decision making and paranoia. The Communist brothers-in-arm thing was a very small piece of the puzzle, and one that by itself probably wouldn’t have lead to a Chinese intervention. The idea that China then spent most of the 20th century backing North Korea isn’t accurate. The Kim regime has never been a particularly good ally, China was rewarded with the million or so men it lost fighting to keep America from conquering North Korea with a regime that largely sided with the USSR in the long, 20th century Cold War. In the Communist side of the Cold War by the 1960s the Soviets and China weren’t best buds anymore, both were Communists but neither was interested in any sort of globalist Communist philosophy that _didn’t_ have themselves at the apex, since the Soviets envisioned global Communism with them as the preeminent country this caused an intractable break with China. Squirrely Kim il Sung in North Korea largely sided with Stalin and the Soviet Union. There also was more historical association between Stalin and Kim, for a few years after WWII North Korea was ruled as as a Soviet protectorate and Stalin then set up the DPRK with Kim at its head. DPRK and China didn’t have “terrible” relations during the Cold War, but they were kind of akin to say, our current relationship with Russia. We have formal diplomatic ties, we say things in public that suggest hey “we don’t hate each other and find things of mutual benefit in our relationship” and etc, but not very far below the surface and very publicly we don’t really like each other at all. Once the Soviet Union fell, and the early North Korean nuclear weapons program was discovered China kind of stepped up to quietly support North Korea’s regime. They didn’t want North Korea to have nuclear weapons, but they were wary of any attempt by the United States of regime change. That’s actually something that I don’t think American policymakers understood for a long time, probably until the last couple of years–China **hates** the thought of America forcing a regime change in North Korea. China doesn’t like at all the concept of forcing a country to change its ruling regime because that regime’s internal behaviors don’t meet some Western-oriented ideal. China has a very consistent record in UNSC decisions and in public statements of being very much against Western-led efforts to destabilize or remove from power authoritarians or dictators anywhere in the world. When it’s a country right on their border they are far more vehement on the matter. With hindsight being 20/20, going back the the early 1990s there was probably an alternative path for dealing with North Korea. One in which the United States worked with China, **formally guaranteed to respect North Korea’s territorial sovereignty** , and in exchange there was an agreement for a serious and hardcore enforcement of an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In a sense think of a similar deal to what we had with Ukraine after the Soviet Union fell apart. Neither the US or Russia wanted Ukraine holding a bunch of nuclear weapons, so we were able to convince Ukraine if they gave up their weapons neither superpower would threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty (that hasn’t worked out for them at least in part because there was no agreement that one power would protect Ukraine from the other–such a deal with North Korea likely wouldn’t have faced this issue because China would still have its defense pact with North Korea.) If we had been willing to give Kim Jong-il this agreement back in the early 90s it’s highly likely he’d have taken it. There were a lot of good reasons we didn’t go down this path, and some not good ones. One of the good ones is, it’d have outraged South Korea, which back then was a lot more hardline on the North. One of the bad reasons for not having gone down that path is we still had a Cold War mentality in which our ultimate goal was to topple the Kim regime, not work with it. Another bad reason is “treating with Communists” would be seen as weak and political unpopular. A major roadblock to serious Chinese help on North Korea for the past 20 years has historically been we have a very obvious desire/policy of regime change as a stated goal. We did start saying under the Trump Administration that we aren’t interested in seeing regime change, but by then it was obviously too late. Now a good question is, if we have started openly saying we aren’t interested in regime change, why is China still hesitant to fully pull the plug? I think largely because the time for them to do much has passed. Back in the early 1990s if we had worked out an agreement like I said, and Kim refused, it wouldn’t have been very hard for China to punish him–likely by removing him from power and installing a puppet. The reality is in the 20 years since, DPRK has fortified itself pretty damn well, it’s not reliant on China or Russia for its security. Neither country can just wave a wand and remove Kim (now Kim the 3rd) from power. Moreover, North Korea has had nuclear weapons since the GWB administration. So any calculation about dealing with DPRK for China has to include the fact it is dealing with a country that has nuclear weapons. China would like to see DPRK “behave” better, and dislikes the way they act, so that’s why they have been willing to engage in some level of punitive sanctioning. But the way China sees it, if the sanctions get so bad the regime collapses, how is that better for not just China, but anyone in the region? We have no clue what DPRK might do with its nuclear weapons in a scenario where the regime is collapsing. Something to recognize from China’s perspective is nothing has changed for it vis-a-vis North Korea in years. All that’s changed is North Korea is now obviously very close to having a small fleet of ICBMs that can reach the U.S. mainland. But China has had ICBMs pointed at it from Russia, America, India, for years now (and in fact America has had ICBMs pointed at it from China/Russia for years as well), China likely doesn’t see DPRK now being able to target America as a reason to suddenly change its stance, particularly when I think its stance is basically boiled down to “there isn’t much we can do here that won’t make things worse.” FWIW China has been in range of North Korea’s nuclear weapons since the GWB administration. China probably knows if DPRK wants to go out in a blaze of glory, it is much less likely to be a target than South Korea or Japan, but it’s not unlikely that such a scenario might involve Chinese troops having to get involved, and they could absolutely be at risk of a tactical nuclear detonation. So the short of it is–historically China hasn’t worked well with us on North Korea because it fundamentally disagrees with the goal of regime change. It doesn’t fundamentally disagree with nuclear non-proliferation on the Korean peninsula, but at this point in time it has no real cards to play on the matter. It isn’t really in any magically different situation than we are. China has political options of pressuring Kim–which it has tried, Kim has basically told China to fuck off. It has military options to topple Kim–same as America, but China doesn’t want to eat a couple nukes as a cost for toppling Kim, and America doesn’t want South Korea or Japan to eat a couple nukes and a bunch of other shit as a cost for toppling Kim. China’s final option is economic, but the simple reality is while the Chinese border trade is good for the regime, it just isn’t vital any more. We actually had North Korea really locked down for a large part of the 90s and the regime survived. China recognizes North Korea is just too self-reliant and stable for closing off the last of its economic relationship to have much impact. With ever-increasing American pressure China may end up doing just that, but it’s not likely to change anything on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/23 "2017-09-18T17:02:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think the answer to the first is fairly obvious: it kept the U.S. off of its borders, it was probably a fairly beneficial relationship for the first 30-something years after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, and the relationship basically conformed to China’s desire to have very serious influence on the policies of its closest neighbors. > > Now, however, things are waaaaay different than they were for many decades. I think everyone is right that the benefits of North Korea to China are starting to fade in light of the very serious headaches that KJU is causing. Agree and agree. I think \*previously \*there was some strategic value in assisting NK somewhat, but the answer to the thread title is basically “Nothing, and they don’t”. > [@](#): > > I think China is slowly, slowly starting to reevaluate its view of North Korea, but who knows where that is leading? China sure isn’t the greatest partner for anyone is diplomatic matters, so I’m not holding my breath that China is going to be the white knight who rides in to rescue everyone. And what I’ve been trying to say is China has far less leverage than some assume. The amount of trade is already piddling, and China’s just pledged to completely stop the taps. They are _already doing the thing_ that people here seem to believe will solve the problem. My prediction is that this will cause life in NK to get that bit worse, but the regime will not be wobbled at all. KJU will behave _more_ aggressively because that seems to be his go to behaviour for any unwelcome change in circumstances. What’s the gameplan after that? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/24 "2017-09-18T17:16:36Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > The amount of trade is already piddling, and China’s just pledged to completely stop the taps. They are _already doing the thing_ that people here seem to believe will solve the problem. My understanding is that China has been reluctant to cut off oil for fears that it would completely wreck North Korea, with unpredictable results. And I believe the UN resolution that recently passed was originally intended to cut off oil supplies, but that was removed in the final version. But I agree with your point: we’ve sanctioned the hell out of everything except that which, if cut off, could cause an implosion that nobody wants. I really do think that the idea that China is going to solve North Korea for the sake of the US is a silly outsourcing of our problems. Unhappy with Afghanistan? Blame Pakistan for not fixing it. Unhappy with Mexican immigrants? Blame the EU for not solving it. Unhappy with your steak? Blame the sommelier for not intervening with the kitchen. This is the real Trump Doctrine: whine that someone else isn’t doing your job for you. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/25 "2017-09-18T17:26:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > My understanding is that China has been reluctant to cut off oil for fears that it would completely wreck North Korea, with unpredictable results. And I believe the UN resolution that recently passed was originally intended to cut off oil supplies, but that was removed in the final version. > > But I agree with your point: we’ve sanctioned the hell out of everything except that which, if cut off, could cause an implosion that nobody wants. I really do think that the idea that China is going to solve North Korea for the sake of the US is a silly outsourcing of our problems. > > Unhappy with Afghanistan? Blame Pakistan for not fixing it. Unhappy with Mexican immigrants? Blame the EU for not solving it. Unhappy with your steak? Blame the sommelier for not intervening with the kitchen. This is the real Trump Doctrine: whine that someone else isn’t doing your job for you. Well, except that in the case of ‘China’, it has done a lot to enable the Kim dynasty and, more specifically, both their nuclear and missile programs. So, it’s not exactly the same sort of ‘outsourcing’ as your other examples (Trump is an idiot though and has definitely pushed things on this). While part of the reasons China hasn’t wanted to go extreme with the sanctions is as you say, part of it is basically factions in China who get a lot, personally, out of the trade between China and North Korea. Also, you have a lot of the old guard who is in the North Korean camp, so to speak, and a lot of those who have ties to the military or military industrial complex in China who have a stake in the relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/26 "2017-09-18T17:36:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, except that in the case of ‘China’, it has done a lot to enable the Kim dynasty and, more specifically, both their nuclear and missile programs. What is it that China did to help North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs? You said it’s a lot, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/27 "2017-09-18T18:37:49Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The US has had a more difficult time with occupations since our standards of morality are a lot more hippie-tastic than China’s. I don’t know that they would have such a difficult time suppressing the people of North Korea. The people are already suppressed. The Army - in better shape than Saddam’s army - is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/28 "2017-09-18T19:13:27Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 1. They have fought a major war with India and nearly came to blows last month as **Lord Feldon** pointed out. > > 2. Big fucking mountains > > 3. See No 2 > > And did you just call India “a western capitalist state”? Nehru is going to rise up from[del] his grave [/del], whatever gutter they threw his ashes in and bitchslap you.😛 India arguably wasn’t a capitalist country in Nehru’s time (though I’d hesitate to call them a socialist country either, especially in the agricultural sector), but I think it’s fair to call them a capitalist country today. “Western” is obviously a subjective term, who knows what it means, so you could call them one if you wanted, or not. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/29 "2017-09-18T19:19:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > In the Communist side of the Cold War by the 1960s the Soviets and China weren’t best buds anymore, both were Communists but neither was interested in any sort of globalist Communist philosophy that _didn’t_ have themselves at the apex, since the Soviets envisioned global Communism with them as the preeminent country this caused an intractable break with China. Squirrely Kim il Sung in North Korea largely sided with Stalin and the Soviet Union. pressure China may end up doing just that, but it’s not likely to change anything on the ground. Well, it was partly about “who should be at the apex”, but there were also major ideological differences between China and the Soviets that led to the split. By the early 1960s at least, the Chinese version of communism was much more radical than the Soviet/Warsaw pact version (e.g. they took a much more dim view of monetary incentives, increasing consumer standards of living, peaceful coexistence with capitalism, etc. than the Soviets and the Eastern Europeans). That’s one reason that the more radical European leftists (like the Albanians) ended up preferring the Chinese to the Soviets. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/30 "2017-09-18T19:30:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What is it that China did to help North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs? You said it’s a lot, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to. What did it (or Russia) do as an official policy is a good question. But lots of the expertise and components of the NK weapons programs come from those two countries. There was an article in an edition of the WSJ last week about NK physicists trained in China. All the components of their missiles and bombs obviously aren’t completely indigenous either. And that stuff isn’t by and large coming from the US and Europe, though other countries (Iran, Iraq in its time) were getting components for ‘illicit’ (as far as international agreements were concerned) weapons programs from those places, particularly Europe. So I’m not sure a number of last several posts about NK’s complete self sufficiency, or anything near it, are correct. Whereas there isn’t really a fundamental difference on the reason China doesn’t entirely cut off NK. They don’t view it as sufficiently in their interest 1. to remove a problem that’s worse for adversaries (the US, Japan) than for them 2. don’t like even the successful replacement of dictatorships of questionable legitimacy for a couple of practical reasons, not just some ‘moral’ principle a) it tends to increase US prestige b) they are one themselves Anyway you can phrase the difference in China’s and US interest different ways that sounds more or less favorable to the US or China. But it comes down to the same thing: not in the perceived interest of the PRC govt to risk much trouble to put severe pressure on the Kim dynasty. The idea they really couldn’t is more questionable IMO. There would almost never be a situation where you could say for sure total economic isolation would lead to collapse of a govt. But NK is not self sufficient. Not in oil, not in the weapons programs. This is assuming, obviously, that it would be a cut off by China not simply circumvented by some other country taking up the same trade. No China isn’t in a ‘magically’ different situation than the US to put more pressure on NK. Just a practically much stronger position. But up to now it hasn’t seen it as in its interest to do any more than slightly sting the Kims, and an argument could be made that that won’t change. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/31 "2017-09-18T19:43:13Z")
Edit to add on ‘piddling’ trade. It’s piddling compared to China’s GDP. It’s not at all piddling at all compared to the DPRK’s GDP. The total two way trade is around $6bil. The DPRK’s GDP is in the teens to high $20’s bil per varying estimates. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/32 "2017-09-18T19:50:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What is it that China did to help North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs? You said it’s a lot, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to. You can do a search on this and get a ton of links, but I’ll link to [few](https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/07/05/chinese-involvement-in-north-koreas-nuclear-missile-program-from-warheads-to-trucks/#63b2447b6f2f) that [jumped](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/north-koreas-been-building-missiles-little-help-their-20166) [out](http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/13/north-koreas-been-building-missiles-with-a-little-help-from-their-chinese-neighbors/) [at](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/29/china-and-russia-have-responsibility-for-north-korea-nuclear-threat-says-us) me (actually, in all honesty, the first few links since I’m just a lazy bastard): > [@](#): > > The distinctive biconic warhead design appears similar to a Pakistani design associated with China. China or its ally Pakistan likely provided the warhead design, or the warhead itself, to North Korea. Rick Fisher, a Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center said, “Indian sources credit China as the source of the new [Pakistani] ABABEEL warhead multiple reentry vehicle technology and it is indeed plausible Pakistan passed such Chinese-origin technology to North Korea.” According to Fisher, China may also have provided the warhead technology directly to North Korea. He said, “as the Hwasong program started during the rule of Kim Jong Il, it is also possible that Chinese technology was originally given to North Korea which fashioned the new warhead that was tested by Pakistan on ABABEEL.” > > China also contributed the TEL truck used to transport the missile. TEL stands for transporter-erector-launcher, 6 of which were likely exported by China to North Korea. China and North Korea claimed the truck’s use in North Korea is for timber transport, and therefore not subject to U.N. sanctions on exporting military equipment to North Korea. But experts are skeptical, and cite the truck as key evidence to justify a greater U.S., Japanese and South Korean military buildup, including tactical nuclear weapons useful for destroying North Korean tunnels, in the region. The trucks were first spotted in North Korea in 2011. In 2013, U.N. experts said the truck design exactly matched a Chinese version sold by state-owned China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), which makes the Shenzhou rocket and missiles. This year North Korea has used another Chinese truck model, made by Sinotruk, to tow a submarine launched intercontinental missile (SLBM). > > The proximity of the Hwasong-14 launch to Chinese territory is yet another indicator of Chinese involvement. The launch site’s proximity to China would ease the transport of equipment, as well as involvement or monitoring by Chinese officials and engineers. Michael Listner, a space policy expert at Space Law & Policy Solutions said, “the missile was launched near China’s border and the calculations for the ballistic reentry could have been obtained with help from the PLA.” > > Peter O’Brien, a space and missile consultant, said that “the real reason to loft [the missile on a high trajectory] - besides trying [to] establish you can use that tactic (so you could use a long-range weapon against a neighbor - the ROK, for example) is to fully test a reentry vehicle (can it take the loads from re-entry?).” > > O’Brien thinks it is possible that China is helping North Korea with sophisticated and critical heat and pressure testing of the warheads as they reenter the atmosphere. North Korea announced on July 5 that its warhead did successfully withstand the pressure and heat of reentry. O’Brien said that to measure such effects on the warhead, North Korea would need “the ability to collect any telemetry. I have no idea if they have that kind of collection platform, though I would suspect they had modified some fishing boats to carry such collection gear, nor would I be surprised to learn that the PRC is collecting for them.” > > China has a motive to assist North Korea’s nuclear missile development, which is to distract world attention from its own aggressive behavior in places like the South and East China Seas. China can also use North Korea’s nuclear weapons as leverage for any negotiations with the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. In the past few months these allies have indeed expressed openness to improved trade relations with China. Trump even took personal political risk by saying he would facilitate U.S.-China trade in exchange for China’s help with North Korean denuclearization. In addition to the above and in the other links (and, full disclosure, I didn’t read through them all), you also have the fact that China is responsible for most of the hard currency in North Korea (well, the legal hard currency I suppose), which is what allows North Korea the ability to buy any of the stuff they can’t get from China. All this said, though, understand I’m using ‘China’ very broadly here…a lot of this, especially the technology transfers being speculated on aren’t coming officially from the current faction in control of the CCP…they are coming from several other factions within China. But this is something that’s been happening for a LONG time. It’s what enabled North Korea to initial build the first weapons they tested, and what’s enabled them to build more and more sophisticated bombs and missiles. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/33 "2017-09-19T16:13:25Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > China is not a friend to the US. To the extent that NK continues to be a thorn in America’s back side, China will continue to support NK. This is basically all you need to know. North Korea is a useful distraction for both China and Russia as long as it doesn’t completely degrade into war. While the US is tied up dealing with NK, we have less resources to confront China’s man made islands in international waters, or Russia’s meddling in US politics. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/34 "2017-09-19T16:17:01Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You can do a search on this and get a ton of links, but I’ll link to [few](https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/07/05/chinese-involvement-in-north-koreas-nuclear-missile-program-from-warheads-to-trucks/#63b2447b6f2f) that [jumped](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/north-koreas-been-building-missiles-little-help-their-20166) [out](http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/13/north-koreas-been-building-missiles-with-a-little-help-from-their-chinese-neighbors/) [at](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/29/china-and-russia-have-responsibility-for-north-korea-nuclear-threat-says-us) me (actually, in all honesty, the first few links since I’m just a lazy bastard): > > In addition to the above and in the other links (and, full disclosure, I didn’t read through them all), you also have the fact that China is responsible for most of the hard currency in North Korea (well, the legal hard currency I suppose), which is what allows North Korea the ability to buy any of the stuff they can’t get from China. All this said, though, understand I’m using ‘China’ very broadly here…a lot of this, especially the technology transfers being speculated on aren’t coming officially from the current faction in control of the CCP…they are coming from several other factions within China. But this is something that’s been happening for a LONG time. It’s what enabled North Korea to initial build the first weapons they tested, and what’s enabled them to build more and more sophisticated bombs and missiles. I read what you provided, and it is frankly weaker than “Saddam has WMD and could pass them over to Al Qaeda.” ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/35 "2017-09-19T16:36:53Z")
China has often used North Korea in a kind of “Good Cop Bad Cop” game. Remember how Jimmy Smits could tell a suspect in the interrogation room, “You better tell me what you know now, because I don’t know if I can protect you from Sipowicz much longer. He’s liable to lose control and beat you to death…” China has benefitted from having a rogue, mad dog neighbor that (ostensiblky) ONLY they can control. “Better give us what we want on trade terms, because Kim Jong-Il might go nuts, and I’m not sure we can control him any longer…” ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/36 "2017-09-19T18:07:37Z")
O see it not as a land buffer but a political buffer. N. Korea can say and do things China can’t because N. Korea does not have the military might to enforce much, so it is saber rattling without backing it with the entire Chinese military. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/37 "2017-09-19T18:27:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I read what you provided, and it is frankly weaker than “Saddam has WMD and could pass them over to Al Qaeda.” Interesting. So, the fact that the designs are just like Chinese missile designs, they use actual Chinese missile vehicles, that the bombs are very similar to Chinese designs and the fact that, well, where did they get all the tech and parts to make BOMBS AND MISSILES THEY HAVE ACTUALLY SET OFF is, to you, the same level as the WMD that Saddam didn’t in fact have? Seriously? Well, I guess it was the tooth fairy then…or magic…or it’s just Juche in action, baby!! 😛 That is such a large disconnect that I don’t even know what to say. I mean, if you said something like ‘I’m a bit skeptical of some of this’ or ‘interesting but not enough of a smoking gun’ I’d say that’s reasonable and maybe look for some additional cites (there are, of course, tons of them), but to link this to the same level as Saddam and WMD, well, you can believe what you like in that case. Nothing I can provide is going to change that level of head in the sand. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/38 "2017-09-19T20:22:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Interesting. So, the fact that the designs are just like Chinese missile designs, they use actual Chinese missile vehicles, that the bombs are very similar to Chinese designs and the fact that, well, where did they get all the tech and parts to make BOMBS AND MISSILES THEY HAVE ACTUALLY SET OFF is, to you, the same level as the WMD that Saddam didn’t in fact have? Seriously? Well, I guess it was the tooth fairy then…or magic…or it’s just Juche in action, baby!! 😛 That is such a large disconnect that I don’t even know what to say. I mean, if you said something like ‘I’m a bit skeptical of some of this’ or ‘interesting but not enough of a smoking gun’ I’d say that’s reasonable and maybe look for some additional cites (there are, of course, tons of them), but to link this to the same level as Saddam and WMD, well, you can believe what you like in that case. Nothing I can provide is going to change that level of head in the sand. Oh, come on. The first article pertains to China providing designs to Pakistan, for which it is “plausible” that Pakistan passed the tech on to North Korea; the sale of commercial trucks to DPRK that were subsequently modified; and then quotes from various thinktank people saying that such-and-so might indicate China did something. In other words, only stuff that Dick Cheney would hang his hat on. The second link refers to components bought by the DPRK from Chinese companies, not that the Chinese government was assisting KJU’s missile program. The third link is the same as the second, I suppose thrown in there to foot-stomp your point. And when I say the same, I mean the words are literally the same, as in both written by Ryan Pickrell on April 13th. And the last link refers to Secretary Tillerson, who is now being described by a GWB-era State Department official as [the worst Secretary of State ever](http://www.npr.org/2017/09/19/552006618/secretary-of-state-rex-tillerson-faces-a-new-onslaught-of-criticism), saying that China and Russia are the “principal economic enablers of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development program.” As in, their business ties help fund weapons, not that they are contributing technology. You started off by asserting that China has “done a lot” to help North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and all you can provide is cites of innuendo and others that are duplicative duplicative. It is like if World Net Daily wrote Tony Blair’s WMD dossier. All you’re missing is an Ahmed Chalabi-type guy who says that Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Pyongyang. ---
**Author:** ![Kropotkin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kropotkin/32/18045_2.png) [@Kropotkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kropotkin)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/39 "2017-09-20T01:24:11Z")
Just a note to say Martin Hyde’s post is thoughtful and really worth reading carefully. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589/40 "2017-09-20T01:58:29Z")
> [@Kropotkin](#): > > Just a note to say Martin Hyde’s post is thoughtful and really worth reading carefully. Seconded, the most committed to the topic and makes some valid points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-china-get-out-of-supporting-north-korea/796589.md?page=3)