>Mao claimed Kim, who “still does the Stalin thing,” appalled him. “He brooks no word of disagreement and kills all who tries to oppose him,” Mao said.
That's rich.
EDIT: For the assholes who put this comment at -2, have a history lesson: Mao Zedong was responsible for approximately 40 million deaths.[0][1][2]
It is even richer considering Mao was an ardent follower of Stalin, and hated Khrushchev for disavowing Stalin's legacy (which, of course, would later lead to the Sino-soviet split).
As a Korean American, this conflict has always been so strange to me.
My family members fought in this war, my grandfather ran from his village, in the middle of the night, to join the US-led Korean Army so that he wouldn't be conscripted by NK as they moved south. My mom's father joined as an intelligence officer and later continued on to work in the middle east for the US gov. That left his wife (my grandmother) to raise a family of 4 by herself in a war torn country. My entire cultural experience has been defined by this "police action". My grandfather who fled would later be awarded the Korean equivalent of a bronze star and would suffer from PTSD for the rest of his life. He was violent towards his children (including my father) often, but was able to raise a future for my family nonetheless.
Now as a native-born US citizen, the narrative I hear is of doom and gloom, NK is just weeks, if not hours, away from nuking me in SF. China is the only way to get them to stop and they aren't helping.
What I hear from my Native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen. They are going to threaten, maybe shoot some artillery, but no major offensive ever happens.
All of this makes for an incredibly confusing experience. I feel like we are approaching a historical precipice, but my two cultures respond with either panic or apathy.
I wonder if they'd be as nonchalant if US military support were withdrawn. It's like a school boy being nonchalant about bullies because he's friends with Conor McGregor.
Going from the similar Israeli experience (back in the bad old days of conventional state-to-state confrontation) - it's all bluster, it's never going to happen, until suddenly it does. Usually when the bluster (as in 1967) leads to an unexpected commitment to action.
> What I hear from my Native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen. They are going to threaten, maybe shoot some artillery, but no major offensive ever happens.
I bet that since they live it, if they freaked out they would have no chance of having normal lives, so they just blow it off as a form of cognitive dissonance. If that is the case, I really wouldn't blame them.
Hah, I wonder if you're my coworker, we just had this argument during lunch today (about whether NK missiles are a threat to us in Mountain View).
>What I hear from my native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The NK threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen.
I remember this from my time living in Japan and Taiwan - everyone was convinced NK was not a threat because it hadn't been... in their lifetimes.
I see it here in the States too - "The USA is immune to revolution / constitutional crisis / splitting into a confederacy / totalitarianism." Intelligent people can read history books and know these things happened in the past, but these things can then seem like "the stuff that happens in history book." They're not real, that's not real life stuff.
I heard it from a close family friend about heart attacks, and then he had one, and then it became real. For him. And his family. But they remain unreal to the other morbidly obese people I know. Car crashes, heat stroke, being sued to bankruptcy, etc. Anything even slightly outside the norm, we're generally incapable of internalizing and planning for. It's just too "unreal."
I don't know how to solve this, I just observe it and do my best to adopt a mindset for myself that nothing is too "unreal" to happen, especially if it has happened before or to other people.
Sometimes a turning point happens and something that looked unreal becomes real. Look at Libya and Syria from 10 years ago and today. Most people there probably didn't see it coming, and most still don't understand why did it happened.
A big reason for the doom and gloom narrative that you constantly hear in the US is government-media propaganda efforts to manufacture citizens' consent for constant war in order to fuel the military-industrial complex. This has been happening since at least the 50s.
The North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen.
All that bluster is a very dangerous game and I don't understand why Kim plays it. It would be Mutually Assured Destruction without the Mutually, unless China joined in.
My thought is he wants The Bomb so he doesn't go the way of Sadam, Gaddafi, or Noriega if he's considered "no longer useful."
I think we're on a very short path to a nuclear armed South Korea. But that's like putting missiles in Cuba. D=
> All that bluster is a very dangerous game and I don't understand why Kim plays it.
It is not difficult to understand. They consider the US and South Korea a threat to their existence and, as you pointed out, he doesn't want to finish like Saddam and Gaddafi and NK the new Iraq or Libya.
The Chinese and South Korean systems both base their legitimacy on economic success (to the extent that people are seriously worried about China's political stability if growth slows down too much), and the American one is based on an interesting self-righteous moralism.
As a South Korean currently living in the US, let me add my perspective:
1. North Korea ceased to be an "existential threat" to South Korea a very long time ago. According to Wikipedia, South Korea's GDP is 1.4466 trillion USD; North Korea's is estimated to be 25 billion USD. That's a factor of 58.
For comparison, USA's GDP is 17.95 trillion USD. Cuba's is 77.15 billion USD. That's a factor of 233.
So, see how much Americans feel threatened by Castro these days, and multiply that by four.
2. The only way they could be a major threat is if they go suicidal. However, they are not ISIS: Kim Jong Un has no intention of becoming a martyr. (Of course, he has a lot to gain by looking like a crazy, unstable dictator who could start a war any day: North Korea is the master of this mode of "crazy diplomacy".)
However, in the extremely unlikely case that Kim decides to go full nuclear, ironically, all these nuclear missiles would make little difference to South Korea. North Korea has millions of soldiers and enough conventional weapons to burn Seoul down to ground. Adding one Hiroshima-size nuke or two will be... well, like adding one Hiroshima to the whole Pacific War, I guess.
This makes about half of South Koreans go "meh" at the news of yet another nuclear test. They can already kill us, and if they do, they will be killed, too. Everybody knows that. Nothing has changed.
Of course, America does not like having such a "rogue" nation with a nuclear missile that can hit San Francisco, so all this posturing is basically targeted advertisement for the US. I think they are saying, "Look at me, we have nukes now, so you will be sorry if you attack us!" They're trying to cut some kind of deal with the US. (Of course it may actually provoke US into some "preemptive strike," so it's a very risky gambit, for them and also for the whole East Asia. But when did they ever care for human lives anyway?)
> he has a lot to gain by looking like a crazy, unstable dictator who could start a war any day: North Korea is the master of this mode of "crazy diplomacy".
I agree that KJU is acting and he is doing it for self-preservation reasons, but we also have a president that seems to want to try and play the same "unstable, wildcard" foreign policy.
> America does not like having such a "rogue" nation with a nuclear missile that can hit San Francisco
I'm not sure red states would mind that much if San Francisco were gone.
The observation that native S Koreans are unaffected by the threat and US S Koreans are stimulated by it is interesting.
My observation is that we tend to remember the oversimplified ends of the spectrum and that almost everyone exists more in the gray area between the poles.
It's likely that those who live in S Korea are used to hearing many small nuggets of news about the N Korean conflict, so they are desensitized by it. The US news gives N Korea very little time in the headlines except during the occasional announcement when they did something dramatic, which trains Americans to think that everything N Korea does is dramatic. Also, the US doesn't have television shows that treat N Koreans (defectors) as humans -- we only have shows that talk about N Korea in the context of spies, military, or some other aggressive/nefarious way.
> the narrative I hear is of doom and gloom, NK is just weeks, if not hours, away from nuking me in SF
Where do you think this narrative comes from? The US corporate media companies push that because it's a juicy news story (even if there's nothing "new" about it). The DoD and State Department also manage to coordinate their their message when appearing on news shows -- through current and former military / intelligence leaders. It's not something I interpret as an organic feeling that the average person has. People on the street still talk about Trump, the economy / stock market -- not so much about NKorea or KJU.
> It was in 1956 that Beijing realized it had to go easy on Pyongyang, despite Kim’s maddening obstinacy, because the alternative was to surrender the country to the Soviet influence.
Well there is no Soviet influence anymore, so how does that have relevance today?
> Like Mao in 1956, Xi is tired of North Korea, but he is keen to emphasize that China won’t crack the whip on anyone’s behalf.
So they would prefer the US go in directly? How does that benefit them? China could probably get rid of Kim and install a friendlier government and be the hero of the world.
The US can't go in without either a direct act of war by North Korea or a UN resolution, anything else would allow China to declare war and that would be the US start of WWIII.
Removing Kim would just provoke a new round of discussion about a unified Korea an China loosening control over Burma and other areas. They would be a five minute hero with negative long term results.
This is a pretty big misunderstanding of the situation imo. The reason the US won't directly strike NK is because of the risk to Seoul. It has nothing to do the UN (which is essentially a useless and meaningless body at this point, as Russia and China don't agree with the West on almost literally anything). Moreover, China isn't going to risk a war with the US over NK.
The US was facing a direct nuclear threat. Risking nuclear war with the USSR was hardly an escalation. Also, there's a large difference between "risking"and "acting."
China has much more to lose than gain (economically and militarily) by warring with the US over NK.
Serious wars between evenly-matched participants always result in said participants losing more then they gain. Somehow, though, we never learn from history.
If the US invaded North Korea, and China did nothing, it would be the equivalent of China invading Canada and Mexico, and the United States doing nothing but issuing nasty diplomatic protests. Even if it did not threaten its interests directly, the loss of face would be immense. Wars have been started over far less.
Have you forgotten how half of the US government wanted war with Russia over Crimea? A little Ukranian province, on the other side of the world? Completely insignificant to US interests?
Compared to the Crimean war, unilaterally invading North Korea is like striking a match in a gunpowder factory. I'm sure that the fools who will authorize and cheerlead it will not for one moment think that it will turn nuclear.
Crimea isn't really Ukrainian, either, it is historically and ethnically Russian (and Tatar), it was an accident of Soviet history that it ended up in the country of Ukraine.
Comparing NK to Canada and Mexico is pretty silly. Neither of them threaten China with nuclear weapons, China doesn't have the capability to project military power across the Pacific and challenge the US, and the US is very friendly with both of them. I'd also argue China is more dependent economically on the US than vice versa, though that's admittedly debatable.
While China ostensibly supports NK because it's preferable to the US, the relationship isn't nearly as close as US with other NAFTA nations. This is supported by the original article. It isn't as much of a face loss as you're supposing.
China has went to war with the US over North Korea before, at a time where they didn't even have a nuclear option. Saying things won't happen due to economic and military losses is the exact rhetoric you heard before WWI and a WWII.
China very nearly didn't go into the Korean war, and was betting on getting support from the Soviets when they did. Furthermore, the US wasn't under direct threat in the Korean war and was war weary from WW2. A new Korean war would likely have a more invested US, no outside help (except potentially on the US side), and a China with worse relations with NK.
In addition, the primary fear for the CCP was that the US would try to march all the way to Beijing. There's no way that would happen today, so China has much less to fear from a modern Korean War than it did in the first.
You are much more confident than I that no one would help an attacked China via North Korea and that the US would never march on Beijing for a third (fourth? Not sure how many US troops were involved in the Opium Wars) time. Both things seem very possible in a world where the US invades an ally of China.
Yes, China would take an invasion of a bordering ally as an act of war on them. It wouldn't be a risk of war, it would be the US declaring war on China, and much of the world's favor would go to the defender.
And yeah, the UN resolution is incredibly unlikely. That's why it would work, if China consented to the move it wouldn't trigger WWIII.
I'm not going to take the time to find the link, but it's been reported in the WSJ that even Obama (who is presumably more dovish than Trump) said he would order strikes on NK if it was possible to do so without risk to Seoul. It seems unlikely Obama was willing to risk war with China over NK during his term
That's likely true for some sort of missile strike, but a missile strike also doesn't remove the problem. Even in the event we killed Kim in a strike, the replacement would be unlikely to be western friendly.
This discussion is about "going in," which I take to mean an invasion. Any invasion attempt would start with the understanding that Seoul is going to look like London after the blitz at best.
The point of the strike would be to destroy threats to Seoul prior to an invasion (i.e. removing the obstacle). As even you noted, the US wouldn't strike and wait as that creates more problems than it solves.
The threat to Seoul is mobile artillery near the border. It doesn't even have to be cruise missiles on anything like that; Seoul is close enough to the border that indiscriminate shelling at the city is probable
Mobile artillery is a very difficult problem to remove all with one strike, because it is mobile for the precise reason that its difficult to know where they all are. That's why many nuclear missiles have been deployed on trucks, so that they can be stationed in remote areas and moved at a moments notice, similarly to submarines
No it wouldn't, because China doesn't really consider NK an ally worth fighting over, especially against USA, because unlike with NK China and USA are very strong trading partners. Of course China strongly prefers a buffer between South Korea and itself, but if some action did happen, likely China would just not participate in the war and then help with the cleanup and new government since they are a border state and would require any UN resolution to have compromises. The only way China would get involved is if it involved or risked their land or people, not NK.
Losing the buffer state would be seen as a direct threat on their land and people, and the UN would be powerless in a conflict between two security council members.
Strong trading ties doesn't stop war. This is one of the largest lessons of WWI, and why an isolationist leader of the US is terrifying. It's sold as putting America first, but its scarily similar to the mad dash for guaranteed access to necessary resources before WWII.
Are you joking? I know that China and USA do not have one, but there hasn't been a single conflict with any country that has a free trade agreement since WW2.
Also, understand that the US has the backing (and mutual defect agreements) of South Korea, Japan, and NATO, and India would possibly join in a conflict against China as well. China wouldn't want a US backed state on its doorstep, but it would not want war against the US significantly more.
There hasn't been a true war between great powers since WWII, and that's more likely due to nuclear bombs than free trade agreements.
Mutual defense agreements don't matter if the US invades North Korea, the US is not the defensive party in the war. And it's easy to say that all of these sides would back the US now, an aggressive war in the region could change a lot of alliances.
Invading North Korea is not a sane option for the US unless China consents. The best case scenario sees China allowing it while preparing for a future conflict, and all out war is very possible.
Total control gives North Korea all of the leverage. This is the part that the current administration doesn't understand. Tweeting about your policy goals undermines the US position.
Why should China give a hoot about intervening and giving Trump a win?
North Korea is a total dictatorship -- they have all of the time in the world. China wants to be a recognized global power. They won't take any action until they can do so while undermining the United States (not Trump, which is child's play). Our loss is their gain.
all NK wants, according to what I've read so far, is a 'normal' relationship with US, a promise not to overthrow the leadership/govt. is it a ridiculous request given US happily has Saudi as an important ally?
NK (and every other autocratic regime in history) has a history of not being true to their word. We've played the appeasement game with them before and it failed.
It is all about national security for China. China will not tolerate a unified Korea that is friendly to America. It is in China's interest to keep the Koreas divided and have influence over NK. NK not only provides a buffer from the US army but serves as a threat that ties up the military of USA, Japan and SK. Kind of like the way they use Pakistan to tie down India. Why would China help out and do a real sanction of NK. A real sanction of NK by cutting off food and fuel would collapse the regime. Followed by a unification under South Korean leadership. The last thing they want. China will continue to pretend to sanction NK or say that they have no influence over NK. Always ask what is in it for China to figure out what is going on.
I agree with your comments. But who knows, maybe one day China will decide that it should be a force for good in the world rather than a regional bully. Thankfully, the one-party-one-leader system of China allows for quick change in its policies. And regarding what is in it for China? A peaceful, democratic, free country is in the interest of every person in the world.
China tolerates North Korea because NK acknowledges that China's the big boss in the region, and restricts most of its bad behavior to places where China doesn't have to care.
If the US seeks to "pressure" China into reigning in North Korea, it'll backfire, because that threatens the air of authority that China was trying to get in the first place.
Lastly, China doesn't want a unified Korea which is in the US' pocket.
51 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 98.8 ms ] threadThat's rich.
EDIT: For the assholes who put this comment at -2, have a history lesson: Mao Zedong was responsible for approximately 40 million deaths.[0][1][2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
[1] http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
At least, that's the justification that gets trotted out whenever an important politician gets caught in a lie.
My family members fought in this war, my grandfather ran from his village, in the middle of the night, to join the US-led Korean Army so that he wouldn't be conscripted by NK as they moved south. My mom's father joined as an intelligence officer and later continued on to work in the middle east for the US gov. That left his wife (my grandmother) to raise a family of 4 by herself in a war torn country. My entire cultural experience has been defined by this "police action". My grandfather who fled would later be awarded the Korean equivalent of a bronze star and would suffer from PTSD for the rest of his life. He was violent towards his children (including my father) often, but was able to raise a future for my family nonetheless.
Now as a native-born US citizen, the narrative I hear is of doom and gloom, NK is just weeks, if not hours, away from nuking me in SF. China is the only way to get them to stop and they aren't helping.
What I hear from my Native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen. They are going to threaten, maybe shoot some artillery, but no major offensive ever happens.
All of this makes for an incredibly confusing experience. I feel like we are approaching a historical precipice, but my two cultures respond with either panic or apathy.
I bet that since they live it, if they freaked out they would have no chance of having normal lives, so they just blow it off as a form of cognitive dissonance. If that is the case, I really wouldn't blame them.
>What I hear from my native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The NK threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to happen.
I remember this from my time living in Japan and Taiwan - everyone was convinced NK was not a threat because it hadn't been... in their lifetimes.
I see it here in the States too - "The USA is immune to revolution / constitutional crisis / splitting into a confederacy / totalitarianism." Intelligent people can read history books and know these things happened in the past, but these things can then seem like "the stuff that happens in history book." They're not real, that's not real life stuff.
I heard it from a close family friend about heart attacks, and then he had one, and then it became real. For him. And his family. But they remain unreal to the other morbidly obese people I know. Car crashes, heat stroke, being sued to bankruptcy, etc. Anything even slightly outside the norm, we're generally incapable of internalizing and planning for. It's just too "unreal."
I don't know how to solve this, I just observe it and do my best to adopt a mindset for myself that nothing is too "unreal" to happen, especially if it has happened before or to other people.
All that bluster is a very dangerous game and I don't understand why Kim plays it. It would be Mutually Assured Destruction without the Mutually, unless China joined in.
My thought is he wants The Bomb so he doesn't go the way of Sadam, Gaddafi, or Noriega if he's considered "no longer useful."
I think we're on a very short path to a nuclear armed South Korea. But that's like putting missiles in Cuba. D=
It is not difficult to understand. They consider the US and South Korea a threat to their existence and, as you pointed out, he doesn't want to finish like Saddam and Gaddafi and NK the new Iraq or Libya.
1. The United States and South Korea are indeed an existential threat to Kim's government.
2. Nuclear weapons will guarantee that North Korea won't see a regime change anytime soon.
The Chinese and South Korean systems both base their legitimacy on economic success (to the extent that people are seriously worried about China's political stability if growth slows down too much), and the American one is based on an interesting self-righteous moralism.
1. North Korea ceased to be an "existential threat" to South Korea a very long time ago. According to Wikipedia, South Korea's GDP is 1.4466 trillion USD; North Korea's is estimated to be 25 billion USD. That's a factor of 58.
For comparison, USA's GDP is 17.95 trillion USD. Cuba's is 77.15 billion USD. That's a factor of 233.
So, see how much Americans feel threatened by Castro these days, and multiply that by four.
2. The only way they could be a major threat is if they go suicidal. However, they are not ISIS: Kim Jong Un has no intention of becoming a martyr. (Of course, he has a lot to gain by looking like a crazy, unstable dictator who could start a war any day: North Korea is the master of this mode of "crazy diplomacy".)
However, in the extremely unlikely case that Kim decides to go full nuclear, ironically, all these nuclear missiles would make little difference to South Korea. North Korea has millions of soldiers and enough conventional weapons to burn Seoul down to ground. Adding one Hiroshima-size nuke or two will be... well, like adding one Hiroshima to the whole Pacific War, I guess.
This makes about half of South Koreans go "meh" at the news of yet another nuclear test. They can already kill us, and if they do, they will be killed, too. Everybody knows that. Nothing has changed.
Of course, America does not like having such a "rogue" nation with a nuclear missile that can hit San Francisco, so all this posturing is basically targeted advertisement for the US. I think they are saying, "Look at me, we have nukes now, so you will be sorry if you attack us!" They're trying to cut some kind of deal with the US. (Of course it may actually provoke US into some "preemptive strike," so it's a very risky gambit, for them and also for the whole East Asia. But when did they ever care for human lives anyway?)
> he has a lot to gain by looking like a crazy, unstable dictator who could start a war any day: North Korea is the master of this mode of "crazy diplomacy".
I agree that KJU is acting and he is doing it for self-preservation reasons, but we also have a president that seems to want to try and play the same "unstable, wildcard" foreign policy.
> America does not like having such a "rogue" nation with a nuclear missile that can hit San Francisco
I'm not sure red states would mind that much if San Francisco were gone.
My observation is that we tend to remember the oversimplified ends of the spectrum and that almost everyone exists more in the gray area between the poles.
It's likely that those who live in S Korea are used to hearing many small nuggets of news about the N Korean conflict, so they are desensitized by it. The US news gives N Korea very little time in the headlines except during the occasional announcement when they did something dramatic, which trains Americans to think that everything N Korea does is dramatic. Also, the US doesn't have television shows that treat N Koreans (defectors) as humans -- we only have shows that talk about N Korea in the context of spies, military, or some other aggressive/nefarious way.
> the narrative I hear is of doom and gloom, NK is just weeks, if not hours, away from nuking me in SF
Where do you think this narrative comes from? The US corporate media companies push that because it's a juicy news story (even if there's nothing "new" about it). The DoD and State Department also manage to coordinate their their message when appearing on news shows -- through current and former military / intelligence leaders. It's not something I interpret as an organic feeling that the average person has. People on the street still talk about Trump, the economy / stock market -- not so much about NKorea or KJU.
Well there is no Soviet influence anymore, so how does that have relevance today?
> Like Mao in 1956, Xi is tired of North Korea, but he is keen to emphasize that China won’t crack the whip on anyone’s behalf.
So they would prefer the US go in directly? How does that benefit them? China could probably get rid of Kim and install a friendlier government and be the hero of the world.
Removing Kim would just provoke a new round of discussion about a unified Korea an China loosening control over Burma and other areas. They would be a five minute hero with negative long term results.
North Korea is an important buffer state for China.
China has much more to lose than gain (economically and militarily) by warring with the US over NK.
If the US invaded North Korea, and China did nothing, it would be the equivalent of China invading Canada and Mexico, and the United States doing nothing but issuing nasty diplomatic protests. Even if it did not threaten its interests directly, the loss of face would be immense. Wars have been started over far less.
Have you forgotten how half of the US government wanted war with Russia over Crimea? A little Ukranian province, on the other side of the world? Completely insignificant to US interests?
Compared to the Crimean war, unilaterally invading North Korea is like striking a match in a gunpowder factory. I'm sure that the fools who will authorize and cheerlead it will not for one moment think that it will turn nuclear.
While China ostensibly supports NK because it's preferable to the US, the relationship isn't nearly as close as US with other NAFTA nations. This is supported by the original article. It isn't as much of a face loss as you're supposing.
In addition, the primary fear for the CCP was that the US would try to march all the way to Beijing. There's no way that would happen today, so China has much less to fear from a modern Korean War than it did in the first.
And yeah, the UN resolution is incredibly unlikely. That's why it would work, if China consented to the move it wouldn't trigger WWIII.
This discussion is about "going in," which I take to mean an invasion. Any invasion attempt would start with the understanding that Seoul is going to look like London after the blitz at best.
Mobile artillery is a very difficult problem to remove all with one strike, because it is mobile for the precise reason that its difficult to know where they all are. That's why many nuclear missiles have been deployed on trucks, so that they can be stationed in remote areas and moved at a moments notice, similarly to submarines
Strong trading ties doesn't stop war. This is one of the largest lessons of WWI, and why an isolationist leader of the US is terrifying. It's sold as putting America first, but its scarily similar to the mad dash for guaranteed access to necessary resources before WWII.
Also, understand that the US has the backing (and mutual defect agreements) of South Korea, Japan, and NATO, and India would possibly join in a conflict against China as well. China wouldn't want a US backed state on its doorstep, but it would not want war against the US significantly more.
Mutual defense agreements don't matter if the US invades North Korea, the US is not the defensive party in the war. And it's easy to say that all of these sides would back the US now, an aggressive war in the region could change a lot of alliances.
Invading North Korea is not a sane option for the US unless China consents. The best case scenario sees China allowing it while preparing for a future conflict, and all out war is very possible.
Why should China give a hoot about intervening and giving Trump a win?
North Korea is a total dictatorship -- they have all of the time in the world. China wants to be a recognized global power. They won't take any action until they can do so while undermining the United States (not Trump, which is child's play). Our loss is their gain.
here is an interesting review by former Deputy of Chinese Foreign Affair Minister: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-korean-nuclear-issue-...
If there really were "good countries," then Saudi Arabia would not be getting any support.
China tolerates North Korea because NK acknowledges that China's the big boss in the region, and restricts most of its bad behavior to places where China doesn't have to care.
If the US seeks to "pressure" China into reigning in North Korea, it'll backfire, because that threatens the air of authority that China was trying to get in the first place.
Lastly, China doesn't want a unified Korea which is in the US' pocket.