NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking
Thu, 2010-05-20 13:29
#1
Bec.De.Corbin
NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking
Thu, 2010-05-20 14:14
#2
Bec.De.Corbin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks
Investigators from the five-nation team said detailed scientific analysis of the wreckage, as well as fragments recovered from the waters where the Cheonan went down, point to North Korean involvement.
Torpedo fragments found on the seabed "perfectly match" the schematics of a North Korean-made torpedo Pyongyang has tried to sell abroad, chief investigator Yoon Duk-yong said. A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier, he said.
"The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine," he said. "There is no other plausible explanation."
We get Korean news via satellite and this briefing was done live on all the South Korean TV stations yesterday. It was pretty intense and very detailed: the briefers were actually briefing the nation, not the press during the presentation. The coverage and information I'm getting every day on this situation is in greater detail than this article and it fails to mention some major factors like what South Korea is planning on doing about this (I would not want to be on the next North Korean ship that fires on a South Korean ship) and the criticism it's navy is getting from the public (and the ships families) for allowing this to happen. That particular ship did not have its sonar up graded yet... it was planned for early next year. The ship that was with it was in the same situation. Many are saying they should not have been out there without a ship with up dated sonar.
For those that are wondering South Korea is not planning an attack in retaliation for this: they are going to wait for the next naval skirmish that the NK likes to start and kick the shit out of the NK navy (they are more than capable of doing that)... The South Korean navy has in the past stopped shooting at NK ships that get hit, cease fire and get towed or limp away. Next time that will not be the case; the crews will be swimming back to NK.
Thu, 2010-05-20 15:00
#3
Snert
I'm just glad to hear that North Korea now has enough money and resources to afford submarines and torpedoes for surreptitiously sinking ships for no apparent reason! For a while there it seemed like maybe North Koreans weren't eating all that well and such, but clearly not.
Anyone worrying about the population of NK: no worries! It's all good now!
Thu, 2010-05-20 15:25
#4
Bec.De.Corbin
You mean these guys?
Thu, 2010-05-20 16:16
#5
Let's see: If I'm an Admiral in the South Korean Navy, and one of my Captains just had his boat blow up for mysterious reasons, I can do one of two things:
1. Investigate and find out that incompetence, corruption, or sabotage led to the sinking. Procedures weren't followed, or somebody did something they shouldn't have been doing, or people didn't do what they were supposed to do. Which means my subordinates careers are over, which means [i]my[/i] career is effectively over, or
2. Blame North Korea.
Hmmmmm. Decisions, decisions.
Thu, 2010-05-20 16:24
#6
Snert
If you choose option 1, don't forget to build a NK torpedo to "plant" at the scene.
Thu, 2010-05-20 16:41
#7
"Looky here! It says "Made in North Korea: Take that Capitalist Running Dog!" right on it!!!"
Very convincing.
How do we know it was found at the scene? Why, the South Korean Navy said so. And we know militaries never lie.
What we are expected to believe without question (and many are so very eager to do just that, right Snert?) is that North Korea is so Kah-raaay-zeee!!! that they'd sink a S.Korean vessel just for giggles. Because they're evil.
Remember when the US Navy said it was a jilted [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion]homosexual[/url] who blew up the turret on the USS Iowa? Just like that.
Thu, 2010-05-20 16:47
#8
During the investigation, the [South Korean] government indicated that there might have been a number of reasons for the explosion, such as an internal malfunction, that did not involve North Korea. A But as the end of the investigation drew near, such explanations slipped away, and leaks and hints pointed to a deliberate North Korean strike.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/20/north-korea-south-ko...
Edited to Add:
I doubt that from a strategic or realpolitik view that either the US or SK would find it advantageous to fabricate an escalation in tensions with the nuclear state of NK.
Thu, 2010-05-20 16:48
#9
Snert
Because they're evil.
Or in a state of constant antagonism with SK since before either of us was born. Seems they've pulled stunts like this before, though of course they deny those too.
North Korea is accused of waging a slew of attacks on South Korea over the years, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner that killed all 115 people on board. It has never owned up to the attacks, and Seoul has never retaliated militarily.
Lemme guess: each and every one of those accusations is a cruel and callous attempt to smear the pacifist, perfectly sane Kim Jong Il. His birth was heralded by swallows, and marked by a double rainbow!! Does this kind of aggression really sound like something a demi-god would do, Jingles?
Thu, 2010-05-20 17:09
#10
I must be nice to believe unconditionally everything you are told by people wearing uniforms. So comfy.
It is a pattern with you: authority figure makes ridiculous claim, you believe it with evangelical faith and fury, and begin immediately to attack anyone who expresses any doubt at the official stories. Cops, military, governments, corporate media and spin, they are always and in all ways telling the truth for you.
Thu, 2010-05-20 17:21
#11
Snert
I must be nice to believe unconditionally everything you are told by people wearing uniforms.
Um, aren't the denials also coming from people wearing uniforms? I think there's a picture of them a few inches above this post.
Thu, 2010-05-20 17:30
#12
Yup Jingles and it sure makes it hard to discuss the news of the day from anything but a MSM perspective that US military and all its allies are good and any country that is not at least indirectly controlled by Wall street is for one reason or another very evil.
My first reaction when the news was reported was why would North Korea do such a dumb thing. That was quickly followed by and I also believe there where WMD's in Iraq and "secret" nuclear installations in Iran. Of course the North Korean government could have sunk the ship. The article also says that the torpedos were for sale on the arms market. In our court system what they showed would be pretty flimsy evidence to even lay charges on let alone convict because even if it was a North Korean torpedo who the hell knows who owns them and might profit from increased security contracts or other juicy things that get wrung out of the public purse by our corporate disaster and scare mongers.
Thu, 2010-05-20 19:40
#13
And in other related news, it appears that the world's foremost progressive societies, the People's Republic of North Korea and the People's Republic of Zimbabwe are working co-operatively on another achievement of friendship and peace with Mugabe's offering of a "Noah's Ark" to the Dear Leader:
North Korea is holding a training camp in Zimbabwe ahead of its appearance in the 2010 World Cup, hosted by neighboring South Africa. As a thank-you for foreign business coming to Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has been arranging a "Noah's Ark" gift of pairs of animals to be shipped to North Korea's zoo.
Among the animals being sent to North Korea are elephants, giraffes, zebras, [u]jackals, hyenas[/u] and civet cats
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/zimbabwe-noahs-ark-gift-north-korea...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-20/zimbabwe-plans-to-sell-eleph...
Wait a minute... doesn't the progressive People's Republic of North Korea already have enough jackals and hyenas? :D
Thu, 2010-05-20 21:19
#14
Bec.De.Corbin
My first reaction when the news was reported was why would North Korea do such a dumb thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10130909.stm
Why would North Korea have taken such a calculated risk, and for what purpose?
Some observers have suggested that it may have been a simple act of retaliation.
The Cheonan sank close to the disputed sea boundary between North and South Korean territorial waters, along which the two navies have clashed a number of times in the past decade.
The most recent incident, last November, left a North Korean ship in flames, with reported casualties amongst the crew.
Good question if you don't follow Korean politics and history. But then because I have a Korean spouse I understand their language, get their news via satellite and have a vested interest in their politics much more than most here. I suspect it's about retaliation for North Korea's humiliation from their last naval skirmish with the South Korean navy in that area last year. Like most Asian societies, in Korea, lose of face is not taken lightly; especially on a national level.
I've been following this on Korean TV since it's happened so you might consider me a bit of a subject matter expert on this (for babble anyways). Korean TV has had numerous investigative news shows like 60 minutes run very informative stories on this. You have to remember South Korea is a small nation and they support their military for the most part. This was a very big event. The rising of the ship halves was covered live by all the Korean stations for over three hours at a time. The whole nation watched as those hull sections slowly raised out of the sea; my wife cried and I couldn't help feel her sadness. After that they've had (civilian) engineer professors on their shows explaining how the ship was damaged with engineering graphics and the whole nine yards (especially now). For one thing the internal decks are buckled in an upward v from a huge force from below at the point of the break. There is very little doubt in the ship engineering community that the ship was broke in half by an external explosion directly under the hull. Modern torpedoes dive under the target ship and then explode a few meters under it, not on it, using hydrostatic force to break the ships back and sink it. This is exactly what happened to the Cheonan. Add to the fact that they found parts to a known North Korean torpedo design on the sea floor where the ship was hit and it doesn't take much to figure out what happened.
I wish I could find some links to those graphics they used, they were pretty good.
I'm not here to change anybody's mind, think what you want to think, I'm just posting what I know and have seen. I've weighed the evidence presented to me from various sources and I'm convinced North Korea torpedoed that ship. If you disagree with that for whatever reason it's all good.
Another thing that doesn't make any sense: South Korea has showed restraint in the face of North Korean aggression before; they've told their own people they are not going to war over this. So why would they blow up their own ship? To start a war they're not going to start?
Thu, 2010-05-20 22:31
#15
[url=http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-anothe... sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident[/url]
By Stephen Gowans
While the South Korean government announced on March 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)
South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)
Notice he said “accident.”...
Thu, 2010-05-20 22:50
#16
Fidel - awesome link! BTW, you should have added the true sinking of Cheonan from that article:
the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because [u]it ran aground upon a reef[/u]
There ya go. The real reason behind the sinking. Case closed. BTW, the link that you posted from is also:
The official website of the NZ-DPRK Society, working to increase awareness, understanding and contact between the people of New Zealand and the DPRK
At least our Dear Leader has progressive folk from New Zealand spreading the truth. ;)
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:06
#17
Yep, the Kiwis should be careful not to incur the wrath of the vicious empire for having communicated with one of the axes of evol countries.
"The moon unit will be divided into two divisions. Moon Unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa." - Dr. Evil, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:06
#18
I think the NK sailors' lifespan has just been lowered a notch or two.
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:11
#19
North Korean dissident plots revolution in London
Jooil Kim turned his back on Pyongyang's elite to plan propaganda website and TV channel
One man who will be closely following developments on the Korean peninsula as tensions flare between Pyongyang and Seoul will be a 37-year-old army defector from North Korea based in London.
Following in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, Jooil Kim is using London as a base to plot revolution with the aim of toppling one of the world's most tyrannical regimes.
As a captain in the North Korean army, Kim belonged to the elite, but he began to harbour doubts about the regime when he saw the gap between the harsh realities and the texbook socialism he had been taught. In 2005 he decided to make a break for it.
Sent to the border with China to track down army defectors, he seized the chance to defect himself. He swam 200 metres across the Duman river at night and escaped to China, where he made enough money to survive by washing dishes in a restaurant.
Kim, who arrived in the UK in October 2007, is now hatching plans for the downfall of Kim Jong-il, the ruler of a country where human rights violations are "both harrowing and horrific" in the words of the UN special rapporteur on North Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/20/jooil-kim-north-korea
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:21
#20
Fidel - It's obvious that we are not on the same track.
Ya come across as someone who would have fled social democratic West Germany for the more progressive East Germany. In that same vein, ya also come across as someone who would have fled fascist South Korea for the more progressive North Korea.
Hmmmm... I would have stayed put. But - I would have joined ya as long as both myself as well as all my relatives were part of the progressive socialist ruling class in the GDR and the DPRK. Then my progressive lifestyle would have been guaranteed on the other side of the fence. 
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:25
#21
Gee, I wonder which South Korean manufacturer created those fake North Korean torpedo parts - was is Hyundai? Or perhaps KIA? 
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:30
#22
Bec.De.Corbin
The ship hit a reef in the middle of the ship? Maybe it was moving sideways...
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:33
#23
Fidel - It's obvious that we are not on the same track.
Ya come across as someone who would have fled social democratic West Germany for the more progressive East Germany. In that same vein, ya also come across as someone who would have fled fascist South Korea for the more progressive East Germany.
It depended on which side you were on at the time. US author William Blum wrote in the [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/blum10022009.html]Fall of the Berlin Wall[/url]:
First of all, before the wall went up thousands of East Germans had been commuting to the West for jobs each day and then returned to the East in the evening. So they were clearly not being held in the East against their will. The wall was built primarily for two reasons:The West was bedeviling the East with a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East. As one indication of this, the New York Times reported in 1963: "West Berlin suffered economically from the wall by the loss of about 60,000 skilled workmen who had commuted daily from their homes in East Berlin to their places of work in West Berlin." (New York Times, June 27, 1963, p.12)
During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany designed to throw that country's economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited, equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from terrorism to juvenile delinquency; anything to make life difficult for the East German people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies look bad.
It was a remarkable undertaking. The United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed...
If you were one of Himmler's SS intelligence officers who survived the war, then chances are you were recruited by the OSS-CIA to spy on the Soviets. See [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9556]Operation Gladio[/url] for more on NATO's cold war hijinks. False flag terrorism was more common then.
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:45
#24
I wonder what options are avaialble to the USA here - they obviously will be consulting with China.
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:46
#25
Fidel, come on, I have always had the dream to drive an environmentaly-friendly Trabant - the true "people's car of the GDR:
[img]http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/data/500/trabant.jpg[/img]
![http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/data/500/trabant.jpg[/img]](http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/data/500/trabant.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
On top of that, I have an inkling that all of my non-relatives would have patiently waited ~10 years for their own apartment, a TV, as well as a telephone, among other things, all in the name of the progressive socialist GDR. Me, on the other hand, would have been too impatient and only a position on the federal GDR socialist secretariat would have sufficed - The benefits thereto would just be too enticing.
Our Dear Leader in the DPRK also has a good thing going. I certainly would flee to the DPKR right now if I could take over his position. From my understanding, his personal benefits and life-style are just outstanding.
Thu, 2010-05-20 23:53
#26
I think we all know what would have happened here had this been an attack on a Russian ship or an attack on Israel.
The Sinking of the Cheonan
China wants to be a world leader but is refusing to act like one. On Thursday, it urged both Koreas to exercise restraint but failed to blame the North. On her visit to Beijing this weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to leave no doubt that China's goal of a stable Korean peninsula will never be realized this way.
The United States and South Korea are also considering imposing new bilateral sanctions on the North. Washington may reinstate North Korea on its "terrorism" list. That may quiet some of the fury in Seoul (and Washington), but we're doubtful it will have much impact in Pyongyang, especially when China is so determined to offset any losses.
The United States must ensure that South Korea has the capability and training to deter future attacks. That means more joint naval exercises and a full investigation of how a modern ship - configured for antisubmarine warfare - was caught off-guard and sunk.
Washington and Seoul must not close the door on six-party negotiations, which have not met for more than a year. China will have to use its leverage - we suggest a suspension of oil deliveries - to get Pyongyang back to the table.
We know the talks are a very long shot. They are probably the only chance to peacefully curb North Korea's nuclear program and finally end the Korean war.
Fri, 2010-05-21 00:11
#27
Fidel, come on, I have always had the dream to drive an environmentaly-friendly Trabant - the true "people's car of the GDR:
It's just a hunk of metal. Studies have shown that having stuff alone is not what makes people happy. Besides, scientists are essentially saying today that cold war era promises of middle classy kapitalism based on consumption for us and the other 85% of humanity was a terrible lie. This, what we have here in the west, can never be globalized. We'd strip earth's resources bare in nothing flat and choke on the pollution. Yes, billions of people were lied to constantly throughout the cold war era.
E. Germany is home to a population of people who lived under both socialism and kapitalism. And East Germans have indicated [url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html]which of the two systems they prefer.[/url]
Fri, 2010-05-21 00:14
#28
U.S. officials urge measured response in attack on South Korean warship
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR201005...
Fri, 2010-05-21 00:23
#29
Overthrowing Kim: A Capitalist Manifesto (Part 2)
http://newledger.com/2010/05/overthrowing-kim-a-capitalist-manifesto-par...
Fri, 2010-05-21 00:51
#30
This is an 'internal' (the division of Korea is artificial) matter between the Korean states.
It isn't any of Canada's, the U.S.A.'s and any other state's, save perhaps China's, goddamn business.
Fri, 2010-05-21 00:59
#31
West Germany was a frontline state during the cold war. The west poured money into W. Germany to make it a show case for capitalism. Meanwhile, thirdworld capitalist countries in even our own hemisphere were not faring nearly as well. Grinding poverty has been the norm for Haitians and Guatemalans and Salvadorans all the while. Hundreds of defectors were shot climbing over a wall. Some were war criminals escaping Soviet justice into the open arms of the west. Our side basically reconstructed Himmler's SS to spy on our former WW II allies and even commit acts of terrorism and murder of innocent civilians in order to create an illusion. While hundreds were shot climbing over a wall to a world of glitz and propaganda subsidized by the west, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people were being slaughtered by brutal rightwing dictatorships throughout Latin America and supported by the USA. Canada's largest trade benefactors south of us have been anything but democratic during and since the end of cold war.
Fri, 2010-05-21 01:30
#32
It's just a hunk of metal.
It was actually plastic.
You may not remember the summer of 1989, but I do - tens of thousands of GDR citizens fleeing through the then open Hungary border to the BRD. Tens of thousands of GDR citizens taking refuge within the confines of eastern bloc BRD embassies. Hundreds of thousands of GDR citizens protesting in Leipzig every Monday night chanting "Wir sind das Volk" and then later "Wir sind ein Volk".
BRD citizens were certainly not clamouring to head over to the GDR. Why was that? And yes I have read your linked article and understand same. Similar attitudes about Hitler and the Nazis were also prevalent in post-war Germany, unfortunately. But time does heal all wounds.
These two excerpts from your article say it all:
[b]Eight percent[/b] of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today.
This brings up an old question once again: Did a real life exist in the midst of a sham? [u]Downplaying the dictatorship is seen as the price people pay to preserve their self-respect.[/u] "People are defending their own lives," writes political scientist Schroeder, describing the tragedy of a divided country.
Fri, 2010-05-21 08:01
#33
Bec.De.Corbin
This is an 'internal' (the division of Korea is artificial) matter between the Korean states. It isn't any of Canada's, the U.S.A.'s and any other state's, save perhaps China's, goddamn business.
And that is exactly what the consensus is in Korea... they will handle this; all they need from their allies is political support (as per the US state department's comments posted above). South Korea may be small but they are no slacker nation. As I said before in post 2: the next North Korean ship(s) that fires on a South Korean ship is going to have a very bad day.
Covered in the news last night: One result of this that South Korea is now going to put more effort in to improving their navy's anti submarine capabilities: that is the only edge the North Korean navy has over the South. Now the South is going to work on removing that advantage. I wonder if the North considered that before they initiated this attack.
Fri, 2010-05-21 09:53
#34
Covered in the news last night: One result of this that South Korea is now going to put more effort in to improving their navy's anti submarine capabilities: that is the only edge the North Korean navy has over the South. Now the South is going to work on removing that advantage. I wonder if the North considered that before they initiated this attack.
I find that a suspect argument. The same argument was used in Iraq/Gulf War I: "Iraq had lo tech radar from China that defeated our latest hi tech RFB/ECM-117s, B-2s and 'smart bombs'" as a means of justifying the use of these most advanced weapons by the arms industry, the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the H.W. Bush administration to bomb Iraq, which in reality, had no defense against assaults from these weapons.
Same with South Korea. I think this argument is being used so the arms industry can make money, their military can justify its ballooning budget and get the latest hi tech cool military "toys' to play with and so the government can wipe the egg off its face.
I think the reason why this happened, if in fact the ship was torpedoed by a North Korean sub, was not due to a technical or human failure or outdated equipment, but simply because the South Korean crew was not expecting an attack by the North Korean military.
Fri, 2010-05-21 13:10
#35
U.S. officials urge measured response in attack on South Korean warship
Wasn't that what Stephen Harper called the Gaza massacre?
What's with all the bloodthirsty warmongers infesting this thread? I mean, I expect Northreport to carry on as usual whenever an Official Enemy is targetted, but where did the Fukyama acolyte come from?
Fri, 2010-05-21 13:22
#36
This is an 'internal' (the division of Korea is artificial) matter between the Korean states. It isn't any of Canada's, the U.S.A.'s and any other state's, save perhaps China's, goddamn business.
Agreed. And there are many Koreans since the massacre at Kwang ju who still believe that the US Military has no business occupying their country. The US military represents the greatest threat to peace in that area of the world. Military occupations and democracy are two separate and distinct themes incompatible with the other.
Fri, 2010-05-21 14:07
#37
Hillary Clinton warns of 'consequences' for North Korea over sinking of ship
US secretary of state considering censure for Pyongyang over sinking of South Korean warship that cost 46 lives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/21/clinton-north-korea-ship-cen...
Fri, 2010-05-21 16:07
#38
Bec.De.Corbin
I find that a suspect argument.
Same with South Korea. I think this argument is being used so the arms industry can make money, their military can justify its ballooning budget and get the latest hi tech cool military "toys' to play with and so the government can wipe the egg off its face.
I can understand that if it was the USA or perhaps Britain but I think South Korea is a unique situation. There's a little more than corporate greed going on here. In South Korea there is also pressure from the population on the navy, military and government as to why the submarine or the torpedo launch wasn't detected by the two ships on patrol (especially now). An investigative reporter broke the story about the sonar being on the out dated side on both ships. Before that the government had the entire navy chain of command meet the ships crew's families, from the secretary of the navy on down, and there was allot of screaming and yelling; people had to be restrained. This was when the ship had just sunk and a lot of the anger was at how slow the rescue operation was going: crewmen could have still been alive in the forward section of the ship. Now the issue has shifted towards the age and condition of the equipment. All of the lower enlisted that were killed on that ship were draftees: the sons of farmers and working class families who serve a 26 month tour of duty, so the attitude of the majority of the Korean population is a bit different about their military than say the USA or Canada. Anybody's kid could end up on a warship or a tank and they want them to be the best that can be afforded to them. You can't really blame them really. The Koreans are patriotic for the most part; but they are also harsh on their military when it comes to accidents and incidents like this. Are there dissenters in South Korea, sure, but most of that is aimed, rightfully so, at corporations trying to crush workers unions and not at the military per say. Those union workers kids are the ones manning the ships, tanks and artillery of the ROK armed forces, not the cooperate fat cats who's sons are safely tucked away in a university somewhere.
Heads in the navy may still roll over this...
I think the reason why this happened, if in fact the ship was torpedoed by a North Korean sub, was not due to a technical or human failure or outdated equipment, but simply because the South Korean crew was not expecting an attack by the North Korean military.
Oh that ship was torpedoed alright, no doubt in my mind, the only conspiracy theories should be by whom... to them I say have fun reaching crush depth on that one (pun intended).
I kind of disagree with you on not expecting an attack, no, being complacent perhaps would be a better assessment. The navy had just been in a shooting battle with the NK navy in that area just 7 months before. One would think that would be enough to keep anybody frosty while on patrol but you never know. You do make a point about technology that is now being discussed on Korean TV: several shows have now had naval experts on saying that that area, because of the sea bed terrain, current and water temperature layers make submarine detection very difficult, even for the most modern sonar. It's almost perfect for submarine operations.
About the best thing to use to find a submarine in those waters is another submarine. There is a Korean attack submarine program that is in the works: it was started before this incident happened.
Fri, 2010-05-21 16:30
#39
Sonde buoeys are a lot cheaper than submarines. Canada has used the Aurora airplane and arrays of sondes in the water to look for submarines off our coasts and now northern waters. We'd have our own sub fleet if Uncle Sam would allow our stooges to write Canadian defence policies. Our lackies in Ottawa have been a little embarrassed about it over the years.
Maybe it's a similar situation with Uncle Sam's lap poodles in Seoul- that they don't want Korean sub traffic interfering with US nuclear powered and nuclear-armed submarine patrols in Korean waters.
Fri, 2010-05-21 22:45
#40
U.S. officials urge measured response in attack on South Korean warshipWasn't that what Stephen Harper called the Gaza massacre?
That's exactly right.
He also made the same saber rattling statement yesterday concerning the Koreas.
Fri, 2010-05-21 22:55
#41
I think the reason why this happened, if in fact the ship was torpedoed by a North Korean sub, was not due to a technical or human failure or outdated equipment, but simply because the South Korean crew was not expecting an attack by the North Korean military.
I kind of disagree with you on not expecting an attack, no, being complacent perhaps would be a better assessment. The navy had just been in a shooting battle with the NK navy in that area just 7 months before. One would think that would be enough to keep anybody frosty while on patrol but you never know.
Keep in mind that this is the greatest loss of life in a single incident of an armed (military) act of aggression since the Korean War (1950-1953.) I don't think any South Korean would have expected or foresaw this happening.
Sat, 2010-05-22 00:26
#42
Bec.De.Corbin
Maybe it's a similar situation with Uncle Sam's lap poodles in Seoul- that they don't want Korean sub traffic interfering with US nuclear powered and nuclear-armed submarine patrols in Korean waters.
Shows what you know... the coastal waters around Korea are too shallow and cluttered for the big US nuclear submarines to operate in. The smaller diesel electric subs are much better suited for "brown water" operations.
Nice rhetoric by the way... you sound like the North Korean state news lady they show on Korean TV sometimes... well not really sound like her but you know... At least you got back on subject.
Sat, 2010-05-22 01:29
#43
Bec.De.Corbin
Keep in mind that this is the greatest loss of life in a single incident of an armed (military) act of aggression since the Korean War (1950-1953.) I don't think any South Korean would have expected or foresaw this happening.
I agree the brazenness of the attack is a surprise to the South Koreans. The North Koreans have taken the gloves off in the words of one South Korean admiral. In the past there has been a "gentleman's agreement" between the two navies that damaged vessels were allowed to withdraw from the fighting or were not finished off if they quit shooting. Ships that assisted them were not fired on as long as they did not fire their weapons.
This has changed everything.
Sat, 2010-05-22 02:08
#44
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Questions-surface-over-North-Korea39s.6282...
If this account of the state of North Korea's subs is accurate (and I think it is), is it possible that the sub's commander gave the command to fire the torpedo (assuming this is what happened) because he thought the chances of sinking the South Korea vessel were remote and, unfortunately, the unthinkable became an horrific reality?
If this were to turn out to be the case, I don't think we will hear about it soon because:
The South Korean government and military would not be able to gain face and;
The North Korean government and military would lose face,
were such facts (if they are the case) to come to light at this time.
If this is the case, the sub's commander is in deep shit with the North Korean government and military (having taken an executive action 'in the field' without a direct order from the government via the military.)
Sat, 2010-05-22 03:28
#45
Maybe it's a similar situation with Uncle Sam's lap poodles in Seoul- that they don't want Korean sub traffic interfering with US nuclear powered and nuclear-armed submarine patrols in Korean waters.
Shows what you know... the coastal waters around Korea are too shallow and cluttered for the big US nuclear submarines to operate in. The smaller diesel electric subs are much better suited for "brown water" operations.
Oh?
[url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6357721.html]U.S. nuclear submarine Ohio arrives in S Korea for joint military exercises[/url] 2008
Nice rhetoric by the way... you sound like the North Korean state news lady they show on Korean TV sometimes... well not really sound like her but you know...
And I'll bet you know all of the words to God Bless America.
Sat, 2010-05-22 09:39
#46
The Ohio is an SSGN converted from an SSBN. Her role is to launch guided missiles from deep water, not perform combat operations in littoral waters. This is the same role that the Soviet/Russian Oscar-II (such as the Kursk) subs have. Visiting a port (on the surface) is a complete mis-characterization of what BDC said.
Sat, 2010-05-22 12:10
#47
Yeah they were just visiting for the salmon derby.
The whole point here is that since 1991, the USSA is the only military superpower with anywhere from 700 to 1000 military bases, secret and not-so secret gulags for torture and basic human rights abuses, military communications installations, and air bases around the world. They are still there with nuclear weapons in Europe, supposedly to protect Europeans from a cold war era threat that does not exist today.
The USSA, Canada's largest trade benefactor, is the only aggressive superpower with nukes on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas and have North Korea surrounded militarily. The Yanks have threatened North Korea with nuclear incineration a number of times since the 1950s. And there are larger points to be made of all of this colder war mumbo jumbo and just to say that:
[u]Nuclear weapons can have no legitimate purpose! [/u]
Not now nor ever.
The frontline state of Germany has been re-united. It's time that the US Military abandoned its occupation of the Korean peninsula and allow the country to unite. Democracy and military occupations are two incompatible themes.
Sat, 2010-05-22 14:09
#48
If this is the case, the sub's commander is in deep shit with the North Korean government and military (having taken an executive action 'in the field' without a direct order from the government via the military.)
I have a hunch that he has already been taken out to the firing squad.
The frontline state of Germany has been re-united. It's time that the US Military abandoned its occupation of the Korean peninsula and allow the country to unite. Democracy and military occupations are two incompatible themes.
I also agree with the concept of a united Korea. Unlike the re-unification of Germany, the re-unification of Korea would result in massive economic chaos/collapse in North Korea with likely a huge flood of impoverished economic refugees from North Korea into South Korea. The South Korean economy would not likely be able to bear the strain.
The GDP per capita of the South is ~16 times that of the North, notwthstanding the malnourishment in the North as evidenced by the fact that the average North Korean male is ~ 4 inches shorter than their southern compatriot. I suspect that both the North (to protect the regime) and the South (to protect the economy) have their own reasons not to re-unify anymore.
[b]North Korea:[/b]
Population: 24 million
GDP per capita: $1,244
Avg. Height of male: 4 inches shorter than South Korean
[b]South Korea:[/b]
Population: 50 million
GDP per capita: $17,074
Sat, 2010-05-22 15:20
#49
Unlike the re-unification of Germany, the re-unification of Korea would result in massive economic chaos/collapse in North Korea with likely a huge flood of impoverished economic refugees from North Korea into South Korea.
According to a Citigroup financial report to US State Dept. a few years ago, economic reforms in North Korea are about where China was in the 1980s. Monetary reforms then were said to be about where China was in the 1990s.
There are reasons why an expensive US Military occupation continues to divide the Koreas, and they have nothing to do with concern for North Koreans' health or general welfare. I'm sorry, but that is pro-American nonsense.
The truth is that the USA was the world's largest economic and military power in 1980. Today they are just the world's largest military power. The Asian countries and Pacific Rim countries are now a region of the world that is the largest generator of capital wealth. And the ongoing US Military occupation of the Korean peninsula is all about imperialism and keeping the barbarians divided and conquered. The vicious Anglo-American empire wants anything but a united Korea and contributing to the Asian tigers economic output. The whole region is considered a threat to Anglo-American corporate and financial interests. And that's what's happening today. The largest threat to peace in that region of the world continues to be the US Military occupation and the surrounding of Korea with nuclear weaponry. Once again, and for the progressives and wannabe progressive babblers,
[size=16]There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.[/size] And perpetual military occupations from a bygone era have nothing to do with democracy or fomenting general conditions for an outbreak of democracy. US military presence in the region is political interference in the extreme.
Sun, 2010-05-23 00:18
#50
Bec.De.Corbin
Maybe it's a similar situation with Uncle Sam's lap poodles in Seoul- that they don't want Korean sub traffic interfering with US nuclear powered and nuclear-armed submarine patrols in Korean waters.
Shows what you know... the coastal waters around Korea are too shallow and cluttered for the big US nuclear submarines to operate in. The smaller diesel electric subs are much better suited for "brown water" operations.
Oh?
[url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6357721.html]U.S. nuclear submarine Ohio arrives in S Korea for joint military exercises[/url] 2008
Nice rhetoric by the way... you sound like the North Korean state news lady they show on Korean TV sometimes... well not really sound like her but you know...And I'll bet you know all of the words to God Bless America.
1. One nuclear submarine showing up at port for a training exercise does not mean it's patrolling the shallows around the Korean coast.
2. OMG I honestly DON'T know all the words to God Bless America. I end up "Family Guying" it.
Besides: I wouldn't sing it here even if I did.
3. You're claim the USA is "occupying" South Korea is pretty laughable. I mean you act like US soldiers are patrolling South Korean streets, setting up road blocks and raiding houses.
Sun, 2010-05-23 01:30
#51
The US nuclear sub Ohio was there for a joint military exercise, was it not? Why dock at a port in South Korea at all if the water is too shallow to float even a dinghy as you claim?
Have you ever been on a boat, Bec.De.Corbin?
[url=http://www.petitiononline.com/60korea/petition.html]65th anniversary of the US Military occupation of South Korea[/url] Sign the petition
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/752055.stm]30th anniversary of the Kwangju massacre 1980[/url] 2000 pro-democracy protesters murdered while defying another US-backed dictator