News North Korean Torpedo Sinks SK Naval Vessel

[IcedEcliptic]

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/deadly-bubble-jet.html

This is insane, and frightening.

The USA diplomatic response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H3TsUy1dEcY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H3TsUy1dEcY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[pallidin]

I just hope the incident and ensuing consequences don't escalate into war.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I just hope the incident and ensuing consequences don't escalate into war.

I doubt that it will, although technically the war never ended. A war in Korea would be ugly, with land forces from NK overwhelming, and a possible nuclear shelling of Seoul. Such a war would be unwise, but I guess that doesn't make it impossible.

 

[drankin]

So, can North Korea just sink South Korean ships whenever it wants to without consequence? 47 sailors, dead. All for nothing? Frustrating to me.

 

[Hurkyl]

I doubt that it will, although technically the war never ended. A war in Korea would be ugly, with land forces from NK overwhelming, and a possible nuclear shelling of Seoul. Such a war would be unwise, but I guess that doesn't make it impossible.

One cannot judge a war unwise without considering the consequences of not warring.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

So, can North Korea just sink South Korean ships whenever it wants to without consequence? 47 sailors, dead. All for nothing? Frustrating to me.

I wish I knew. This situation is maddening, and a perfect illustration of why Iran must NEVER be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

For NK, what can be done, when China has their own agenda, and Russia is... being Russia?

This is what starts wars however, such as Vietnam, and that was BS! I could just scream.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

One cannot judge a war unwise without considering the consequences of not warring.

I agree, but I am not in charge. Were it my choice, SK desires for reunification would be put aside, the US would not be in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and we would strike NK with TRUE overwhelming force, and take the risk. This "Sword of Damocles" we all live beneath as a result of current conditions is insane.

I should add, as with Iraq, sanctioning seems to kill as many, or more, than open conflict. I loathe this "sterile" view of warfare, which is inherently messy.

 

[pallidin]

So, can North Korea just sink South Korean ships whenever it wants to without consequence? 47 sailors, dead. All for nothing? Frustrating to me.

To be sure, there WILL be consequences. However, the diplomatic thrust is to make those consequences non-military in nature.
Unfortunately, NK considers any sanctions to be an act of war in itself.

This is why the greater diplomatic thrust is to get China(NK's friend) to agree supporting hard sanctions over this incident.

 

[Choronzon]

So, can North Korea just sink South Korean ships whenever it wants to without consequence? 47 sailors, dead. All for nothing? Frustrating to me.

Basically, Yes. There is essentially zero chance that anything meaningful will come out of this, and now the world knows that you can outright attack an American ally and the only thing President Obama will do is be sad.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why did they shoot the sub in the first place? Just to be mean?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Why did they shoot the sub in the first place? Just to be mean?

I've read what I can, but NK denies everything, and I can't even speculate as to why! To get attention, to attempt to "put others in their place", a mistake, or madness perhaps. Maybe we have some experts on the Korean conflict who have a real idea, to me it seems irrational.

 

[Choronzon]

I've read what I can, but NK denies everything, and I can't even speculate as to why! To get attention, to attempt to "put others in their place", a mistake, or madness perhaps. Maybe we have some experts on the Korean conflict who have a real idea, to me it seems irrational.

The first thing you have to consider when evaluating the PRK's actions is that their entire society basically exists to subsidize Kim Jung Il's lavish lifestyle. Essentially, this means the only important question is "How did Kim Jung Il benefit from this attack?"

It's actually pretty obvious from that point. He basically told us that we're more afraid of him than he's afraid of us, and that we might as well stop wasting our time objecting to his actions. We should just continue to send our annual tributes to the Great Leader and then retreat in humiliation.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The first thing you have to consider when evaluating the PRK's actions is that their entire society basically exists to subsidize Kim Jung Il's lavish lifestyle. Essentially, this means the only important question is "How did Kim Jung Il benefit from this attack?"

It's actually pretty obvious from that point. He basically told us that we're more afraid of him than he's afraid of us, and that we might as well stop wasting our time objecting to his actions. We should just continue to send our annual tributes to the Great Leader and then retreat in humiliation.

That is very disturbing, but I cannot gainsay it. He makes an internal political point, makes the US and SK look weak... damn.

 

[MATLABdude]

Why did they shoot the sub in the first place? Just to be mean?

Interestingly enough, North and South Korea have been fighting a little naval war near the Northern Line Limit over the past decade that flares up every few years, and which has sunk a ship or two and (now) cost the lives of around 70 or so sailors on either side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

The ROKS Cheonan (the ship which was just sunk) was actually damaged during the first engagement (link taken from the Wikipedia on the ship):
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=101528&code=Ne2&category=2

As to why? Mark Hosenball at Newsweek thinks it was evening up the balance sheet for the above two (and another skirmish mentioned in the third link):
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/05/21/why-did-north-korea-sink-the-south-korean-ship.aspx

Simon Tisdale at the Guardian thinks that, erratic though it may seem, it's the sign of Kim Jong-Il slowly losing his grip, and giving into the hawks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/kim-jong-il-weakening-grip-north-korea

Speculation aside, I remember reading a Dale Brown book years ago (Battle Born) where an emaciated North Korean pilots an old MiG across the DMZ, crashes, and is discovered to have been carrying a nuke. Which in turn sets off a military coup in the North (funded / organized by the South), Korean Unification, and ends up almost causing WWIII with the Chinese (where Kim flees). Granted, if the DPRK military ever face the deprivations (i.e. the starving pilot) that the civilians have, it's game over for the Kims.

EDIT: Unfortunately, I have no idea what sort of discipline they have in the North Korean armed forces. While I have no doubt that some unit commanders / commissars are 'enthusiastic', I don't know if this would actually translate into a submarine commander firing a torpedo at a South Korean 'target of opportunity'.

 

[pallidin]

Tit-for-tat naval warfare is a bad thing.
Perhaps they are comfortable with doing this on this level.

What bothers me is what could come next. Ground invasion, etc...

 

[pallidin]

Speaking of which, would those NK leaders/generals-in-charge please refrain from smoking opium.

Not realistic I guess.

 

[pallidin]

BTW, did you you know that a substantial amount of NK's income is via opium exports!

 

[magpies]

Isn't that any country that isn't allied with the USA?

 

[pallidin]

"us" meaning whom?

Edit: I understand. Much of he world is pissed-off at NK's actions and policies.

 

[pallidin]

On top of that, opium exports actually fuel their military.

 

[MATLABdude]

On top of that, opium exports actually fuel their military.

"Value-added" opium, heroin. Along with accusations of regular smuggling (large quantities) and having their diplomats (with non-searchable diplomatic pouches) doing the mule work.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030609/story.html

That and (meth)amphetamines for the Japanese market:
http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=663&catid=19&subcatid=125#21

I don't know if drug smuggling forms the majority of their cash flow, but overall illicit activities probably do.

 

[Choronzon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html?hp"

Something new, I think.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I just hope the incident and ensuing consequences don't escalate into war.

You have one navy's submarine sinking another navy's corvette with a torpedo. That looks a lot like "war" to me.

and now the world knows that you can outright attack an American ally and the only thing President Obama will do is be sad.

Mr. Obama must be a lot smarter than me. I would have thought a policy where you treat your allies better than your enemies would encourage people to be your allies. But it would appear that I am wrong here, and Mr. Obama has a better plan.

Why did they shoot the sub in the first place? Just to be mean?

It wasn't a sub that was sunk, it was a sub that did the sinking. The reasons are, like all reasons nations do things, complex. One reason is that the DPRK is not happy where the maritime boundary was set after the Korean War, and they have been making incursions south of the Northern Limit Line. In response, the South has been sending more patrols in this area, and it would appear that the North is unhappy that the South is resisting their attempt to...um...militarily renegotiate this boundary. There is speculation that there are also internal politics driving this at some level - a statement that is almost tautologically true once you add "at some level", but of course the details are more speculative.

It's worth pointing out that there are potential military responses other than an all out war, particularly when one side is a superpower. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to read someday soon that there had a terrible fire at a DPRK navy base, one that seemed to be triggered by a spontaneous explosion at an ammunition depot. I

 

[Phrak]

One reason is that the DPRK...

As much as I appreciate your insites, to call this place the "DPRK" makes me cringe. That may be your intent, but I don't know if it plays the same with most. So let's talk about the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They listened to the communist tune and brought down the hell. If they have one thing to say it's "Save us from Il, save us from ourselves and save us from the things we train to think and believe just to stay alive."

I don't know how to stress this enough. These are people, who through self preservation, brainwash themselves. Not others; themselves.

 

[Q_Goest]

Wiki has it as part of the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_wars#2009_incident"":

The primary cause of these skirmishes is the rich crab-fishing waters in the area of the Northern Limit Line. North Korea does not recognize this boundary, setting the stage for confrontation.

Makes sense to me. Here's a source of revenue for both countries, so the primary resolution to the problem has to be to get agreement between the two disputing nations as to where the boundry is. I wonder if that's even politically possible - tough job.

Mr. Obama must be a lot smarter than me. I would have thought a policy where you treat your allies better than your enemies would encourage people to be your allies. But it would appear that I am wrong here, and Mr. Obama has a better plan.

Why is it we throw our politicians under the bus? I'm sure the political cogs are turning on this one, something that doesn't include a knee jerk reaction.

 

[robheus]

Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, that started the Vietnam war?

It never happened.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, that started the Vietnam war?

It never happened.

Well, that's not strictly true, but in either case, what is your point?

 

[KalamMekhar]

Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, that started the Vietnam war?

It never happened.

Aren't you the person who said the US is full of capitalist pigs? The first Tonkin attack was all too real. Luckily no US sailors were lost. The second one was anyones guess. If I were in that situation, I would fire on targets also.

 

[Gokul43201]

The second one was anyones guess.

Anyone's guess? You make it sound like a complete unknown, when in fact, there is a huge volume of research on the matter (including the NSA's own declassified study[1,2]) that concludes that no attack took place.

1. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1202-06.htm
2. PDF file of scanned NSA report -> http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/spartans/chapter5.pdf

 

[robheus]

Aren't you the person who said the US is full of capitalist pigs? The first Tonkin attack was all too real. Luckily no US sailors were lost. The second one was anyones guess. If I were in that situation, I would fire on targets also.

Don't remember having said exactly that.

Well excuse me, the Vietnam incident got a little out of hand, don't you think?

Isn't USA defending it's borders, and why would Vietnam or any other sovereign country not defend it's borders?

 

[KalamMekhar]

Anyone's guess? You make it sound like a complete unknown, when in fact, there is a huge volume of research on the matter (including the NSA's own declassified study[1,2]) that concludes that no attack took place.

1. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1202-06.htm
2. PDF file of scanned NSA report -> http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/spartans/chapter5.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the US Vessels were attacked. I am just saying that given the evidence at the time, it appeared like they were being attacked again. it is always easy to hindsight things.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't remember having said exactly that.

Well excuse me, the Vietnam incident got a little out of hand, don't you think?

Isn't USA defending it's borders, and why would Vietnam or any other sovereign country not defend it's borders?

Borders? What are you talking about? I'm still not seeing a point here...

 

[robheus]

Borders? What are you talking about? I'm still not seeing a point here...

Borders that separate different countries.

I assume you are american, maybe this is a new concept for you, but borders indicate that you are not supposed to enter that territory (unless normally visiting) or occupy it, because it belongs to other people.

 

[mheslep]

Borders that separate different countries.

I assume you are american, maybe this is a new concept for you, but borders indicate that you are not supposed to enter that territory (unless normally visiting) or occupy it, because it belongs to other people.

Does 'it' in this case refer to S. Vietnam, which was invaded by N. Vietnam?

 

[robheus]

Does 'it' in this case refer to S. Vietnam, which was invaded by N. Vietnam?

Bad example. Vietnam is one country, they just wanted to be liberated from the imperialists.

Or do you portray the US history as that the North of the US "invaded" the south in the US civil war?

That's a new vision on US history I might say.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Bad example. Vietnam is one country, they just wanted to be liberated from the imperialists.

Or do you portray the US history as that the North of the US "invaded" the south in the US civil war?

That's a new vision on US history I might say.

Korea is one country in the exact same way Vietnam was one country at the time. How can half of Korea choose to defend its borders against the other half of Korea?

Your argument is inane. If I combine your ideas of defending the border and really only one country, the torpedo incident is like California sinking all the Navy ships docked at San Fransisco to preserve their state's rights

 

[russ_watters]

Borders that separate different countries.

I assume you are american, maybe this is a new concept for you, but borders indicate that you are not supposed to enter that territory (unless normally visiting) or occupy it, because it belongs to other people.

Yeah, I know what borders are, I just still don't see any point to this line of discussion.

Are you trying to argue that the sinking of the South Korean vessel didn't happen or that it was justified (or both?)?

In either case, your characterization of the issues with regard to the Vietnam and Korean wars is a real mess. I don't think you have a clue what the real history was there. Ie:

Korea IS one country, indeed. Just that the US split the country up in north and south.

That's a misrepresentation of the fact that it was all the allies after WWII who divided up the various liberated countries.

 

[robheus]

Yeah, I know what borders are, I just still don't see any point to this line of discussion.

Are you trying to argue that the sinking of the South Korean vessel didn't happen or that it was justified (or both?)?

It probably did not happen the way it is brought in the mass media, this would not be the first time an incident was misused for various political goals.

US and S Korea just want to show their muscles now, and provocate the north.

In either case, your characterization of the issues with regard to the Vietnam and Korean wars is a real mess. I don't think you have a clue what the real history was there. Ie: That's a misrepresentation of the fact that it was all the allies after WWII who divided up the various liberated countries.

The US turned S Korea into a dictatorship.

 

[robheus]

There was an excellent post here (didn't remember who posted) but it disappeared.

Nevertheless, I copied the URL of a very interesting article on this subject of the sinking of the S Korean vessel, attributed to N Korea (although at first, this attribute was not made).

 

[Supercritical]

Lots of dubious info in that article. It draws from many opposition sources, akin to al Jazeera or Russia Today asking GOP leaders (under the trust-inspiring title of "US officials") about the verity of Obama administration statements

In the interest of keeping the debate away from "this official vs other official," I'll make one quick and easy point.

Your article has the following quote:

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.”

Here's a link to a picture of the (controlled) sinking of the HMAS Torrens:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

The Torrens was more than twice the displacement of the Cheonan, larger in every meaningful way, and was split in half by a 21-inch Mark 48 torpedo. Both of the alleged NK midget subs carry 21-inch torpedoes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That article has information so dubious as to make me wonder if it is intended to be news or propaganda.

Parts of a CHT-02D were recovered from the Cheonan site. These parts were marked in Hangul and exactly matched the schematics in a brochure that North Korea uses to try and sell them abroad. I am not familiar with that torpedo, but I can confirm Supercritical: torpedos are designed to sink even much larger vessels in a single shot. A submarine does not want to have to linger in the area to fire multiple torpedos.

Given that, one is faced with two conclusions: either the DPRK sank the Cheonan, or it's all a vast conspiracy.

Statements along the lines of "we don't know the cause" made before the recovery of what was left of the torpedo are worthless - yes, they didn't know then, but they know now. That Gowans used such statements after the recovery is not terribly honest journalism.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That article has information so dubious as to make me wonder if it is intended to be news or propaganda.

Under what interpretation could it be intended as news?

 

[Perspicacity]

Read this excerpt from an article about North Korea history:

If you have to worry about your family being thrown into a prison camp because you defect to another nation, that pretty much automatically means you come from an evil society, regardless of whatever a murderer like Che Guevara thinks.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone off topic.

Closed.