North Korean Torpedo Sinks SK Naval Vessel

[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.