NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

The South Koreans have always tried to build weapons systems tailor made for the needs of their armed forces. The SSX class nuclear submarine your talking about would have a displacement of about 4,000 tons, the USS Ohio has a 16,400 ton displacement, the Los Angles Class, an attack submarine, is about 6,800 tons. The "proposed" South Korean nuclear submarine is going to be smaller than any US nuclear submarine by over several thousand tons. Why is that? I'd say the Koreans know that smaller submarines are better suited for their coastal waters.

 

The purpose of nuclear powered submarines is for underwater endurance which suggests long deap sea operations. Given the small area of Korean peninsular coastline and the shallowness of its waters, why would either of the Korea's need (in an absolute sense) nuclear powered submarines. Does the South Korean government think they will get "more bang for their buck" by having fewer submarines patroling for longer? Less is more - efficient, effective and economical?

For North Korea, I can see it as a case of 'conspicuous consumption' just like its atomic bombs. No practical need, just showing off and brinksmanship diplomacy for food and financial aid.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

The South Koreans have always tried to build weapons systems tailor made for the needs of their armed forces.

The South Koreans do whatever Uncle Sam tells them to, just like our colonial administrators in Ottawa do as instructed by Warshington. SK is part of a "mutual logistics support agreement" with the US Military that extends from Japan and South Korea in the northeast Asian region south to Australia, and from Hawaii in the west to Singapore and Diego Garcia island in the Indian Ocean to the east.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Sure, you could sail an Ohio class sub around in the waters of the Korean coastline, I'm sure it's been done.

Yes it has been done. It's a fact. And there is no shortage of water with the peninsula surrounded on all sides by the Yellow Sea, China Sea and Sea of Japan. That's a lot of water to hide just a few nuclear-propelled, nuclear-armed submarines, don't you think? Bec, did you know that it only takes a cup of water to drown a person? Bec, how many cups of water are there in the South China Sea?

[url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LE05Dg01.html]Pyongyang sees US role in Cheonan sinking[/url]

No hard evidence linking North Korea to ship destruction

Quote:

 Mission impossible
There are four important points that make it clear that a North Korean submarine did not sink the South Korean corvette.

Fact 1.North Korean submarines are not stealthy enough to penetrate heavily guarded South Korean waters at night and remain undetected by the highly touted anti-submarine warfare units of the American and South Korean forces. A North Korean submarine would be unable to outmaneuver an awesome array of high-tech Aegis warships, identify the corvette Cheonan and then slice it in two with a torpedo before escaping unscathed, leaving no trace of its identity.

Fact 2. The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology.

Fact 2: The disaster took place precisely in the waters where what the Pentagon has called "one of the world's largest simulated exercises" was underway. This war exercise, known as "Key Resolve/Foal Eagle" did not end on March 18 as was reported but actually ran from March 18 to April 30.

Fact 3: The Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise on the West Sea near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) was aimed at keeping a more watchful eye on North Korea as well as training for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the North. It involved scores of shiny, ultra-modern US and South Korean warships equipped with the latest technology.[...]

Fact 4: Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said on March 30 that he doubted there was North Korean involvement in the sinking: "Obviously the full investigation needs to go forward. But to my knowledge, there's no reason to believe or to be concerned that that may have been the cause."

General Walter Sharp, US Forces Korea (USFK) commander, also saw no link between North Korea and the sinking. In an April 6 press conference, he said: "We, as Combined Forces Command and the ROK [Republic of Korea] Joint Chief of Staff, watch North Korea very closely every single day of the year and we continue to do that right now. And again, as this has been said, we see no unusual activity at this time."

Wow, I think there are some extra facts there that some people are unaware of. Was it friendly fire?

NorthReport wrote:

Jeesh!

This thread is starting to sound like those other threads that suggest the USA was behind the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

I'd like to believe crazy George government's official conspiracy theory and ongoing today. I really would.

The problem I have with it is the dearth of legal evidence pointing to anyone not previously associated with the CIA and Pentagon in some way. It's like Six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Except that instead of Kevin Bacon being all points central, it's the FBI, CIA, and US Military at the centre of controversty and who pretend to be at odds with each other for the sake of insulating cosmetic government from all blame and accountability, and that's fascism.

 Apparently none of this is an issue for people who are far less discerning of things in general.

Does the US Military or their colonials in Seoul have any real evidence wrt this matter?

[url=http://911blogger.com/node/20970]Whistle blower Sibel Edmonds testimony under oath now available on video[/url] 9/11 blogger

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/gladio.jpg[/IMG]

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I think the ability to stay submerged for days if not weeks is what they are looking for; diesel electric subs can't do that.

Surprisigly enough, the highly advanced German Type 212 class submarine features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion system permitting the Type 212 to [u]stay submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing[/u] and with no exhaust heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

Edited to Add: In fact, the export version, designated as Type 214, has been purchased by the Republic of Korea Navy:

Quote:

The Republic of Korea Navy has ordered nine Type 214 submarines, designated as Son Won-Il class, to be built in Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering; three first batch models had entered service since 2007, and six second batch models will enter service from 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

Canada Imposes Sanctions on North Korea

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/24/south-korea024.html

"Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations,' Harper said in the statement. He also pledged Canada's support for South Korean President Lee Myung Bak's decision to respond decisively to 'the act of aggression.."

Korean Peninsula to Become Another Hotspot

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/113483-1/

"It is obvious now that the USA, South Korea and Japan will insist on the introduction of sanctions against the North. Russia and China may not share their views. The investigation held in the sinking of the South Korean corvette was conducted by US allies. Experts from neutral states did not take part in it, which makes one doubt what happened in the Yellow Sea.."

good dog Canada!

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

Sometimes cultures based on face are as hard for us (in the West) to understand ...

Frmrsldr wrote:

... I can see it as a case of 'conspicuous consumption' just like its atomic bombs. No practical need, just showing off ...

In this case, I would describe the situation as the arms industry perverting the South Korean desire to show or maintain "face" into what I describe above as 'conspicuous consumption'. South Korea doesn't need nuclear powered submarines, but in the desire to maximize its profit margins, the arms industry will sell weapons to (fill in blank) South Korea any way it can.

Arms industry: "I know, we are selling the instruments of death. But hey, that's how we make our living."*

*Sung to the tune of the Rolling Stones' "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll."

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel if you don't believe those torpedo parts pictured on post one aren't from what sunk that ship then we'll just have to agree to disagree (again). Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their minds. I'm good with that.

I don't believe in those 'torpedo parts' pictured on the post either.

They look like a drive shaft from a naval engine. The forensic evidence from the ship I have heard of is explosives residue and 'torpedo' fragments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507

If it was a torpedo, then this article would suggest that it was a South Korean or American (purchased) torpedo that was fired by a South Korean or U.S. ship.

Unless international arms industries and/or dealers are willing to sell to the highest bidder, regardless of who they are.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Canada Imposes Sanctions on North Korea

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/24/south-korea024.html

"Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations,' Harper said in the statement. He also pledged Canada's support for South Korean President Lee Myung Bak's decision to respond decisively to 'the act of aggression.."

Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of bullshit.

What about our egregious violation of international law and blatant disregard of international obligations concerning our illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan?

If you believe North Korea has committed these acts, then you belive that "we are living up to our international obligation of the NATO Charter where 'a criminal act of terrorism by a non state actor against one (NATO) member is considered an act of armed military aggression by a state against all (NATO) members' and that the Afghan war is U.N. mandated (it's not), NATO led" bullshit.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Again you get more details if you can watch South Korean news, those parts on display match an unexploded North Korean torpedo the South recovered a few years ago.

What those who support the torpedo theory are overlooking is: If a torpedo successfully blew the hole in the South Korean ship we've seen in news pictures, then there wouldn't be such large intact (torpedo) parts, there would, at best, only be torpedo fragments - as I mentioned above.

Who Sank Cheonan?

http://japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3361

"A new stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations.."

There seems to be a weird pattern on Babble: Anytime a Western nation commits a crime most Babblers condem it and assume the story is true. When a repressive/commie type country does something it is assumed to be a frame up and just not true.

jacki-mo wrote:

There seems to be a weird pattern on Babble: Anytime a Western nation commits a crime most Babblers condem it and assume the story is true. When a repressive/commie type country does something it is assumed to be a frame up and just not true.

And never mind the fact that certain country's economy next door to us is largely based on war.

And we won't mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the fact that VietNam war vets have said they were lied to constantly with respect to being told by US military and government that they were being sent to Vietnam to stop communists from invading a democratic South VietNam. Yeah that was a big-huge lie then.

They lied about not supporting the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler in Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. They did.

And then we've enjoyed the crazy George I&II lies with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan since 1991. All big fat lies for purposes of waging really expensive, US-taxpayer funded wars.

Hitler was said to be be the biggest liar of the last century. I think we owe it to past generations not to be sucked in again and again and again, like millions have been already.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19351]War Pretext Incident? The Sinking of the South Korean Corvette in the Yellow Sea.[/url]  Was the Evidence Forged?

Quote:

The key peace of evidence cited is a fragment of a torpedo propeller – somehow recovered at the final phase of the investigation - with a marking which reads “No. 1” and matches a North Korean torpedo found 7 years ago in the Yellow Sea. Considering that the blast was allegedly caused by a torpedo carrying a net explosive weight of 250 kg, investigators must have been remarkably lucky to find the right fragment with the marking implicating North Korea.The simple marking “№ 1”, which is the sole indication of the country of origin of the torpedo, possibly could write in the same manner on a South Korean torpedo too.

Former Soldier@ #81 wrote:

I don't believe in those 'torpedo parts' pictured on the post either.

They look like a drive shaft from a naval engine. The forensic evidence from the ship I have heard of is explosives residue and 'torpedo' fragments.

I'll have to take your word for it, FrmrSldr. I wouldn't be able to tell one end of a bomb from another. My gut feeling on this tells me that you're right - it probably was not a torpedo of any kind that blew up the Cheonan.

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433

"WMR's intelligence sources in Asia suspect that the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare corvette, the Cheonan was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea..'

[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FalseFlagOperation]False Flag Operation[/url] from "TVTropes.org"

Whenever people from one nation or organization pretend to be members of another, to stir up trouble. Common scenarios include: 
[list][*] Pretending to be an enemy and attacking another enemy, to get them to fight; 
[*] Pretending to be an enemy and attacking yourself, to justify a counterattack; 
[*] Pretending to be a member of a terrorist organization and attacking your own people, to better control them. [*] In espionage, pretending to be from either the victim's nation or an allied one to fool someone into betraying secrets. [/list]

It's not limited to violence; spreading misinformation or committing sabotage in someone else's name can work wonders too. Basically it is a Frameup scaled up to target large organizations and nations.