N Korea shells S Korean Island

A show of force by a regime at its most vulnerable time -- changing of the guard -- to demonstrate to the outside world that it's still alive and kicking.  This response to South Korea's naval exercises near disputed waters, though, is too much.

"Could this intensify to become a serious conflagration? Is that perhaps what the North wants for some reason?"

As the person on babble who would be most directly impacted by any such conflagaration, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I don't anticipate this latest incident leading to any sort of existential crisis on the Korean peninsula.

I've lost track of the number of inter-Korean crises that have taken place since I got here(this includes things with a civilian death toll, which didn't seem to make the news much outside of Korea). And what's happened in the last ten years pales besides some of the stuff that went on during the Cold War, when, among other things, both sides tried to assassinate each other's leaders(the North Koreans actually killed the First Lady of South Korea during one such attempt).

But hey. If I end up fleeing for my life in the next some time in the next few days, I'll be sure to post my mea culpa from Incheon Airport. Assuming it's still standing.

It's unlikely this exchange between the two will unfold into war because both the United State and China won't support their respective allies if that's what the Koreas want to do.  Since this attack coincides with the North's recent announcement that it built a new uranium enrichment facility, it's likely telling the South and the rest of the world to back away.  It's a big risk to take, but the North probably supposes that launching a war against it is too risky for the South to do because of the presence of China and the United States, two states that don't want to fight a war against each other.  So we are likely to see China flex its muscle to discipline or placate the North once again.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:

 The Enphendo Island locates north of 38-parallel line 

Not really - it's actually at 37° 40′ 0″ N, 125° 41′ 47″ E.

Not that the 38th parallel marks the border between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea anyways - the Demarcation Line runs roughly south west to north east, with some of the DPRK south of the 38th parallel and the some of the ROK north of it.

Aj

I am not a geographer so are you telling me that the NY Times article was wrong?   Could it be that the line runs through the island?

I love the coverage though, the homes were "civilian" on an island were there is nothing but a military base and its civilian support staff.  The island is in dispute and has been since the UN gave it unilaterally to the South.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not a geographer so are you telling me that the NY Times article was wrong?

I thought you were quoting some un-named "non-American news source".  But if the New York Times also said the island was north of the 38th parallel, it would also be incorrect.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Could it be that the line runs through the island?

The 38th parallel would run some 20 miles to the north, so the island is clearly south of it.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love the coverage though, the homes were "civilian" on an island were there is nothing but a military base and its civilian support staff.

What are you trying to say - that it's okay for North Korea to attack civilian workers in South Korea, and destroy their homes?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

. . . your presumption it would be from a "non-American" news source . . .

No "presumption" needed - you yourself described it as a "non-American news source" (actually, that's all you described it as).  My honest confusion is over what the New York Times has to do with this, since you weren't quoting that publication - only some undefined "non-American news source".

Of course, somehow you managed to turn this into an opportunity to pat yourself on the back for your open-mindedness and accuse everyone else of being Fox News-consuming drones. *Shrug*

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To be clear what I am saying is that civilian support staff for the military living in a disputed territory are also universal soldiers not innocent bystanders.

Thank you for your frank answer.

Sorry Aj I was thinking of a quote in another thread about income inequality.  As sometimes happens when I post in two threads I get a little confused and we seem to have picked up a number of new trolls today and yesterday so thus my response to you that was inappropriate to what you had written.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not a geographer so are you telling me that the NY Times article was wrong?

Good Lord...could it be that the NY Times is <gasp> wrong about something?!?  It's hard to even contemplate such a thing...

The 38th Parallel is not the boundary between North and South Korea. The armistice after the Korean War produced the DMZ that runs north of the 38th Parallel in the East and dips down below the 38th Parallel in the west.

The entire incident is nothing but a pointless act of aggression by North Korea. I feel bad for the murdered innocent civilians and South Korean Marines who where on the island defending their country.

The US and China have too much to lose and very little to gain from an armed conflict. As long as they allow a mad man in North Korea to dictate to the rest of the world things will simmer.

Don't forget about Japan and Russia....they both have alot to lose if there is an armed conflict. 

The US Military is only there at the Peninsula Club since the 1950s to enforce regional peace and democracy. And N. Korea is free to trade freely with the rest of the world without political interference from any country.[/sarcasm]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/asia/24korea.html?_r=2&amp;hp wrote:

The">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/asia/24korea.html?_r=2&hp]The North blamed the South for starting the exchange; the South acknowledged firing test shots in the area but denied that any had fallen in the North’s territory.

That's what the S. Koreans get for amassing 70,000 troops along the border and firing shots North Korea's way?

Perhaps the news headlines might be more informative if they stated some facts in their propaganda rags for a change. SOmething like,

'DPRK on high alert after US-backed South Korean Military Regime Mobilizes 70,000 Troops and Shells DPRK'

...or something as informative and not so spastic as the Yahoos who wrote the Yahoo newz diddy. 

Quote:

That's what the S. Koreans get for amassing 70,000 troops along the border and firing shots North Korea's way?

According to the post above you, ROK shot at some water. Then, to show that nobody shoots THEIR water, NK killed some humans.

And that's assuming, of course, that it even IS their water. When a nation claims that its leader is a divine being born under a double rainbow then I tend to take pretty much any claim of theirs with a grain of salt the size of a shoebox.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I'm not as fiery or as theatrical in expressing myself as some of you are here; me saying "dropping bombs on that building in that situation was wrong" is equal to one of your two paragraph rants about cooperate stooges ass raping cows and killing babies in their cribs with flamethrowers and all that other stuff you like to throw in for extra effect. 

Post a quote or apologize for your unfounded nasty bitter personal attack.  I say a lot of things about the evil empire but I don't ever remember anything that includes rape analogies or killing babies in their cribs with flame throwers.  I think you are confusing me with the American spin media in the lead up o the first Iraqi war.  They claimed the false killing babies story to vilify the people the country they were about to invade. 

Sarah Palen and Glen Beck scare me more than the leaders of North Korea.

It's a shared thing for cults of personality, Boom Boom.

Defend what? It entirely obvious that the military exercises were a massive provocation. Was there any need to do training at this particular part of the Korean peninsula, except to draw a reaction. North Korea repeatedly warned South Korean not to do this, and then South Korea started engaging in live fire. North Korea replied with directed fire at South Korean targets.

You actually expect me to believe that the South Korean government was completely clueless about how North Korea would react?

Quote:

Defend what? It entirely obvious that the military exercises were a massive provocation.

Let's remember that if someone ever fires a rocket at some Israeli water.

Quote:

North Korea repeatedly warned South Korean not to do this

How does one say "You're not the boss of me" in Korean?

Quote:

You actually expect me to believe that the South Korean government was completely clueless about how North Korea would react?

I'm sure they expected some kind of irrational, swaggering, dick-waving nonsense from Dear Leader -- as we all do -- but to expect that conducting military exercises would result in civilians being shelled? Somehow I doubt that. Yes, I know I'm showing a marked bias for the rational side over the totally delusional side, but there you go.  

[url=http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_no... Now[/url]:

TIM SHORROCK: You're always kind of surprised when these things happen. But in the context of the last 50 years, it is not really that surprising, particularly if you look at the maritime zone and particularly if you look at the history of U.S.-South Korean military and its standoff with the North Korean regime. First of all, over the last few years, there has increasing tensions over this zone. As I said, this border area in the sea, [b]this border line was imposed unilaterally by the U.S. Navy in 1953 right after the Korean war. That line has never been recognized by North Korea, nor by the international community.[/b] A few years ago, under the former presidency of Roh Moo-Hyun, there was actually a meeting, a summit meeting, between the president of South Korea and Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea. They sat down and worked out sort of [b]a set of agreements to try to decrease tensions in that maritime area[/b], including the making of free fishing zones and having discussions to alleviate the [tension] to make sure there were no incidents like this. [b]This new president Lee is a very conservative man who has rejected the former sunshine policies of Kim Dae-Jung[/b] and his predecessor, who were much more open and tried to cement closer relationships and end the enmity between North and South Korea. [b]Lee unilaterally pulled away from this agreement.[/b] And over the last few years, our listeners and watchers will remember, there have been quite a few incidents. Earlier this year, in March 2010, a South Korean naval ship was blown up allegedly by North Korea by a torpedo and sank, killing about 33 sailors. This was also a very serious incident. And many people who watch North Korea believe that that particular attack, if North Korea did it, was in retaliation for an incident that took place last year when South Korea fired on a North Korean ship that had crossed the line and many North Korean sailors were killed in that attack. And so you know this has been going on. I think the first thing that needs to be done is it would be important to [b]restore some kind of discussion, some kind of negotiation so they can reduce tensions in that specific area.[/b] (emphasis added)

This is a curious and genuine question:  what border IS recognized by the international community?

Quote:

We should remember that the US/G8/Snert do not consider massive military exercises using live fire in disputed territory by [b]the worlds largest military[/b] to be provocation.

China?

Snert wrote:

Quote:

That's what the S. Koreans get for amassing 70,000 troops along the border and firing shots North Korea's way?

According to the post above you, ROK shot at some water. Then, to show that nobody shoots THEIR water, NK killed some humans.

And that's assuming, of course, that it even IS their water. When a nation claims that its leader is a divine being born under a double rainbow then I tend to take pretty much any claim of theirs with a grain of salt the size of a shoebox.

And remember that the next time 70,000 guys wearing helmets fire artillery shells in your direction. No shooting back.

Cueball wrote:

According to the South Korean army, yes they shot at some water. For all you know that means they missed their target. The record is clear. Live fire was begun by the South Koreans.

Cueball come on man, I know you're smarter than this.

The South Koreans were doing a scheduled training drill the North Koreans knew about (but didn't like and demanded SK to cancel) It involved practice artillery gunnery where SK artillery units were firing in the opposite direction from North Korea out to sea. You're assertion that the SK units fired on NK and missed their targets (thus starting the engagement) is pretty, I don't know, crazy and I hope it's from your lack of knowledge about how artillery units train and other things military. Please understand I'm not poking fun at you or anybody else here for not understanding this.

Again a little class on modern artillery for those of you who don't know much about it: Artillery doesn't need a physical target to hit during target practice to see how accurate it is, it just has to hit a grid location on the map (out at sea in this case). Also, in Korea, most all weapons gunnery ranges fire south, I spent two tours there on tanks and our tank gunnery fired south when we were up close to the DMZ. Many US Army artillery units fired at a range called "C" range where they fired out into the South China Sea (again with the shooting at a spot in the water). Now grant you the ROK units were on islands in the waters North Korea was claiming is theirs, thus the term disputed, just like were that island they blew up is. But that don't mean it is their sovereign land and even if you want to support NKs claim it still doesn't justify what they did if you ask me.  

The South Koreans were not threatening the North Koreans; they were just pissing them off by not caving into their demands. Now some of you here might say "well that's enough to blame SK" well you go run with that; it's your prerogative.

The ROK units were south of the line established by the UN and in their own sovereign territory. They always have be across that line when they did this drill. As I said above North Korea decided to make a big deal out of this known drill to use it as an excuse to start a fight with SK for whatever reason. They knew their "demand" to stop the drill would be ignored because, well, they always are ignored. South Korea isn't going to let North Korea bully it around (you can call home and ask my wife....LOL). I'm sure most here can understand that.   

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I'm not as fiery or as theatrical in expressing myself as some of you are here; me saying "dropping bombs on that building in that situation was wrong" is equal to one of your two paragraph rants about cooperate stooges ass raping cows and killing babies in their cribs with flamethrowers and all that other stuff you like to throw in for extra effect. 

Post a quote or apologize for your unfounded nasty bitter personal attack.  I say a lot of things about the evil empire but I don't ever remember anything that includes rape analogies or killing babies in their cribs with flame throwers.  I think you are confusing me with the American spin media in the lead up o the first Iraqi war.  They claimed the false killing babies story to vilify the people the country they were about to invade. 

Oh, my apologies then. It was a some what over the top generalization of how some people's posting style seems to me (exaggerated for effect)... it was not aimed directly at you. However, with all things said to others; it's not what I think I said, it's what you think I said and I've obviously offended you. As such I offer my apology to you and anyone else offended by that part of my post.

I have to remember not everyone is an old thick skinned rhino hide like me...