South Korean Warship Allegedly Torpedoed by North Korea

[nicky10013]

There have been many scares like this before. The problem is, all it takes is one stupid move to reignite the war. A formal peace treaty was never signed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8589507.stm

[xul]

I don't think the ship was torpedoed by North Korean. If North Korean fired a torpedo to the South Korean ship, all sonar consoles on the ship would buzz and the South Korean would be certain that they had been attacked. Considering the technical capability of the North, they have no way to sneak a warship or a sub to the South warship in torpedo range without being detected.

The fact is up till now the South government is still uncertain that whether or not they have been attacked. The explosion is probably caused by its own ammunition explosion, though there is a slight possibility that it is caused by a drifting sea mine.

[nicky10013]

I don't think the ship was torpedoed by North Korean. If North Korean fired a torpedo to the South Korean ship, all sonar consoles on the ship would buzz and the South Korean would be certain that they had been attacked. Considering the technical capability of the North, they have no way to sneak a warship or a sub to the South warship in torpedo range without being detected.

The fact is up till now the South government is still uncertain that whether or not they have been attacked. The explosion is probably caused by its own ammunition explosion, though there is a slight possibility that it is caused by a drifting sea mine.

You're right. I posted this literally a few minutes after it happened. The South Korean government today acknowledged there's no way it could've been the North Korean Navy.

[Rue]

How many times do I have to tell you. Paris Hilton leading an illuminati free-mason Mossad false flag CIA operation did it.

[nicky10013]

How many times do I have to tell you. Paris Hilton leading an illuminati free-mason Mossad false flag CIA operation did it.

Despite the initial thoughts that the North had nothing to do with this, the South's Defence Minister now claims that the most likely cause was a torpedo.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/800469--s-korea-defence-minister-says-torpedo-blast-likely-sank-warship-in-march

[xul]

You're right.

The result of the investigation has showed you are right and I'm wrong.

But I still can't image how on earth those South's dude could hear nothing from their sonars when the torpedo was approaching them. I don't blame them for they didn't find the sub before it attacked, for it might have been waiting there for days before the South's corvettes arrived. But the propellers of a torpedo will be really noisy if it moves at high speed to strike.

I'm also wondering what the admiralty of the South and another corvette had been doing after the attack happened. A conventional sub cannot move very fast underwater, and the depth of water there reportedly is 25 to 50 meters, so the sub was un-maneuverable and unescapable. It was almost a suicidal mission to the North's mariners of the sub. But now, maybe they are just sitting in their cozy home, stroking the medals Kim awarded them and telling their kid the heroic feat they have made.....technically and political-incorrectly, I think they really deserve the medals.

[nicky10013]

Looking more and more like war is around the corner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/world/asia/26korea.html?ref=global-home

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/north-korea-severs-all-ties-with-south/article1580106/

[sharkman]

I think lil' kim wants to play with his nukes, or knows he can do pretty much what he wants now that he has them. Which is why it's so sad to see Obama's child like faith WRT Iran.

[GostHacked]

I think lil' kim wants to play with his nukes, or knows he can do pretty much what he wants now that he has them. Which is why it's so sad to see Obama's child like faith WRT Iran.

I agree, NK is more of a threat because they actually have nukes and the means to deliver them.

[Wilber]

I agree, NK is more of a threat because they actually have nukes and the means to deliver them.

I don't know about that. North Korea is a threat because China won't step on its leadership. China is the power in this region and it is up to it to show leadership when dealing with Kim. The first nuke NK uses will be its last because the country won't exist anymore.

[nicky10013]

I don't know about that. North Korea is a threat because China won't step on its leadership. China is the power in this region and it is up to it to show leadership when dealing with Kim. The first nuke NK uses will be its last because the country won't exist anymore.

Bingo. The game goes on because China doesn't wan't 22 million refugees pouring into Southern China. It would be a catastrophe. And Americans think Mexican illegal immigration is bad! Ha!

Furthermore, the South can't do anything about the North, either. The North has one of the worlds largest standing armies. The North also has a pretty good hostage in Seoul. There are 10,000 artillery pieces within range of the city. That many could reduce the city to rubble over the course of an hour or less.

There is also no indication whether or not the North has a weaponized nuclear device. There isn't even a consensus on whether the weapons the North has tested were even successful. Furthermore, there is no indication whether or not they have a delivery platform. The latest rocket, the Taepodong-2 has been tested and it has failed every time.

This really is a Mexican standoff. As crazy as the North seems, their randomness actually fits a workable pattern based around their negotiation strategies. Before every major summit, they usually launch a few rockets or test a few bombs in order to strengthen their position. They then offer up those programmes in exchange for things like fuel oil and food aid. The North is well aware of the dire consequences of another war on the peninsula, just as much as the South is. More than anything else, be it getting back at the US or South Korea, Pyongyang's main goal is to simply maintain their stranglehold over North Korean citizens and war is by far the largest threat to that. The problem here is, as much as the two sides want to avoid another bloody conflict, one stupid move on either side could cause a lot of problems. This could be it, though I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.

[nicky10013]

Which is why it's so sad to see Obama's child like faith WRT Iran.

Which is why Clinton just got China and Russia on board with tougher sanctions against Iran. In the realm of international relations that deal is a masterstroke.

[Wilber]

Bingo. The game goes on because China doesn't wan't 22 million refugees pouring into Southern China. It would be a catastrophe. And Americans think Mexican illegal immigration is bad! Ha!

Furthermore, the South can't do anything about the North, either. The North has one of the worlds largest standing armies. The North also has a pretty good hostage in Seoul. There are 10,000 artillery pieces within range of the city. That many could reduce the city to rubble over the course of an hour or less.

Hard to believe there would be any more people trying to get out of the North than there already are. Much of Seoul is indeed within in range of northern artillery but it is far too large a city to be destroyed in a matter of hours or even days. A large portion of that artillery would have a very short lifespan.

It would be a nasty and costly war but the North would not win. The South has the worlds 6th largest military and can count on some powerfull allies. I doubt the North could count on any that could have an impact on the result. I don't see China going to the North's aid in a war the North started unless its own borders were threatened.

This situation is not sustainable indefinitely. The North cannot continue to exist in its present form. It's really just the Albania of three decades ago but with more guns. Without China they are toast. The question is how far the gangsters in charge will go in an effort to resist change that is inevitable.

[nicky10013]

Hard to believe there would be any more people trying to get out of the North than there already are. Much of Seoul is indeed within in range of northern artillery but it is far too large a city to be destroyed in a matter of hours or even days. A large portion of that artillery would have a very short lifespan.

It would be a nasty and costly war but the North would not win. The South has the worlds 6th largest military and can count on some powerfull allies. I doubt the North could count on any that could have an impact on the result. I don't see China going to the North's aid in a war the North started unless its own borders were threatened.

This situation is not sustainable indefinitely. The North cannot continue to exist in its present form. It's really just the Albania of three decades ago but with more guns. Without China they are toast. The question is how far the gangsters in charge will go in an effort to resist change that is inevitable.

There would be tonnes of people flooding over the border. The North has an extensive gulag system and have specific camps dedicated for families. If you flee, you guarantee that your entire family ends up in a camp for at least 25 years of hard labour which is essentially a death sentence. That's a pretty large deterrent to fleeing the country.

The North wouldn't win, however, the costs would outweigh the ones taken in the first Korean War. As I said, war is in no ones interests and both sides know it.

One would think the situation isn't sustainable indefinitely, however, that's what they said about the North when the USSR fell. The KWP has a vested interest in it's people being poor and uneducated/uninformed. Ironically, the more sanctions implemented, the further you cement the offending regime in power. As an example of the seriousness of the situation, most North Koreans have no idea a man landed on the moon. Hard for an organization to topple when there's a lack of education to that degree. When implementing things like sanctions, it also plays straight into authoritarian regime's propaganda. North Koreans are constantly being bombarded about horrible American imperialists which destroyed their country in the war. When all of a sudden the Americans and the South Koreans cut off food supplies to the North, it immediately validates to most in the North exactly what the regime has been saying, even to the point of giving people like Kim Jong-Il a semblance of legitimacy. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but the average citizen of the DPRK has absolutely no access to any outside information.

It seems to me that the situation at the moment is almost exactly balanced and has been for the past 57 years. The South and the US don't want war because they don't want to take the casualties. The North doesn't want war because the most likely outcome is the collapse of the KWP. The Chinese doesn't want war between the North and the South because they don't want 20 million refugees. Seems to me that unless something gives, the situation is indeed indefinitely sustainable.

I see three possible solutions to the reunification question. An attack from the South, an attack from the North and the death of Kim Jong-Il and the implementation of a Deng Xiaoping style governance style which leads to slow opening of the country. There's a 4th but almost non-existent possibility of a fast Gaidar-esque shock therapy solution where a new leader implements fast market reforms. However, considering the success in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the North would just as likely collapse. China would know the risks and wouldn't allow it. If the country collapses the same result of millions of refugees would occur. If you ask me, the third is the most likely, yet it would probably take another 10-15 years for the bastard to die. Hopefully the reports are accurate and he has cancer.

Edited May 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

None of these regimes are infinitely sustainable. Look at the USSR and the rest of the Warsaw Pact. In the late seventies they seemed to be on the ascendancy and had the west on its back foot, ten years later they were gone. The North Korean regime can only survive because of what it can blackmail from others. Blackmail only works for so long until the victims get tired of it. The day will come when the Chinese realize that Kim and his henchmen aren't worth the trouble. On that day, they will be toast.

[nicky10013]

None of these regimes are infinitely sustainable. Look at the USSR and the rest of the Warsaw Pact. In the late seventies they seemed to be on the ascendancy and had the west on its back foot, ten years later they were gone. The North Korean regime can only survive because of what it can blackmail from others. Blackmail only works for so long until the victims get tired of it. The day will come when the Chinese realize that Kim and his henchmen aren't worth the trouble. On that day, they will be toast.

The USSR collapsed because the internal dynamics of the regime changed. It wasn't Reagan or the anything the west did. It was Gorbachev's glastnost which caused the collapse. He figured that he didn't have the politburo support for widespread economic restructuring (perestroika) so he loosened censorship laws. It worked for about the first 3 years. Then, as the pace of the information that became available to Soviet citizens vastly increased, so did their discontent with the CPSU. First, names of the victims of Stalin's purges started slowly appearing in the press. Then outright denunciations of Stalin. It progressed to the unthinkable; the slandering of Lenin up to which point had replaced god in the socialist system. The CPSU lost control and it collapsed. China too will at some point lose control as they further integrate into the global economy. North Korea, however, is the most isolated regime on the planet. It's far more easy to keep control before the process of liberalisation has begun then afterwards. What exists in North Korea is the only example left of Stalinist Totalitarianism. It won't change until Kim dies and a liberalising figure takes office.

As for the blackmail point, I don't think it's accurate to say that at one point the victims will get tired of it. As I said, the status quo has existed for 57 years because everyone knows that the next Korean War will cost at the minimum, millions of lives. It's easy to talk tough but if you're the PM of South Korea or President of the US, what's the best course of action? Sending a half million tonnes of grain or starting a war which you KNOW would be a bloodbath, unpopular and which would be a risk the geopolitical world order? Every time, the South and the US is going to go with the grain. Every time that's the right decision. People there are suffering, but the only solutions we have to the problem would create pain a million times worse than the problem.

Furthermore, authoritarian regimes don't work the way we would think they do. You assume that we cut off their bribes and all of a sudden the regime collapses because angry people aren't getting their food. We know that to be false. Cuba has been cut off from most of the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis. North Korea had 2-4 million people starve to death in the early 90s due to famine. The regimes are still alive, well and strong. That's because, as I mentioned, they thrive on closed societies. The people don't care if things get worse because things in those states are already really bad; without exception, authoritarianism is bred through poverty. If the people lack the ability to overthrow tyranny at the moment, how are things getting worse going to help them along? For the most part the people I have this discussion with take it from the exact opposite angle they should be and with good reason. Anytime things get bad in our neck of the woods we boot the bastards out of office. It's the way we were raised, it's a natural reaction. People in the North don't have that luxury. Things are already awful. Give them jobs and money, they'll take their minds off starving and then worry about Kim. First, people always have to survive.

As for the members of the regime, no matter how bad things get, they'll always have a revenue stream. In the USSR, party members had access to better goods which they could sell. The highest ups always had the best domestic and imported goods. The same is the same with those in Cuba. Instead of inter-bloc trade, Kim has relied on illicit arms sales to fuel his need for movies, cognac and mercedes. Despite whatever sanctions imposed, some of that illegal trade is always going to get through. Sanctions and tough love just doesn't work. It never has. As I said, unless we start dropping bombs, which is highly unless they do, it's up to the Koreans despite whatever help they get from where.

Edited May 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

War with North Korea wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, it would have a lot of positive implications. First and foremost the repressive regime that has acted as a major regional irritant and a provocateur would be eliminated. This would mean growth and prosperity for the region including Japan and China.

Secondly there is the nuclear question. North Korea has shown in the past it has no qualm aboput selling weapons to our dodgey nations, especially ones who are onthe wrpongside of the fence. Eliminating the regime will eliminate the threat.

And thirdly, the vast masses of North Koreans will finally be freed to join their kinsmen and an end to their enforced starvation will be at hand.

...all this needs in for North Korea to fire another shot...

[Shakeyhands]

on a personal note: My neice is currently in Changwon SK teaching english. She says that she travels with her passport at all times and is a twenty minute trip to the Naval Base nearby. Apparently all of the foreigners are very concerned, but the Sk's just seem to be rolling with it and not getting too excited... I wish she were home to be truthful.

[sharkman]

War with North Korea wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, it would have a lot of positive implications. First and foremost the repressive regime that has acted as a major regional irritant and a provocateur would be eliminated. This would mean growth and prosperity for the region including Japan and China.

Secondly there is the nuclear question. North Korea has shown in the past it has no qualm aboput selling weapons to our dodgey nations, especially ones who are onthe wrpongside of the fence. Eliminating the regime will eliminate the threat.

And thirdly, the vast masses of North Koreans will finally be freed to join their kinsmen and an end to their enforced starvation will be at hand.

...all this needs in for North Korea to fire another shot...

All true, but the crux of the matter as I see it is that Kim's cheese has slid off his cracker. Some others on this thread infer that Kim would never actually use his nukes because he knows that then his country would be reduced to rubble. That would make sense if the man was not half crazy. Since he is, you can not predict his response as you would a lucid person.

An open war would inevitably defeat NK, which would use nukes to take out as many of the enemy as possible. That would bring a response from the US and then China would jump in and you've got the risk of a world war style conflict.

[M.Dancer]

An open war would inevitably defeat NK, which would use nukes to take out as many of the enemy as possible. That would bring a response from the US and then China would jump in and you've got the risk of a world war style conflict.

I believe (I may be wrong...) that China would not stanbd for NK to use nukes...if NK did...i think china would write her off.

[nicky10013]

All true, but the crux of the matter as I see it is that Kim's cheese has slid off his cracker. Some others on this thread infer that Kim would never actually use his nukes because he knows that then his country would be reduced to rubble. That would make sense if the man was not half crazy. Since he is, you can not predict his response as you would a lucid person.

An open war would inevitably defeat NK, which would use nukes to take out as many of the enemy as possible. That would bring a response from the US and then China would jump in and you've got the risk of a world war style conflict.

He's not crazy, though. The North Koreans are very skilled negotiators. In terms of foreign relations, he knows exactly what he's doing.

As for M.Dancer's analysis, yes those are indeed all true. However, an analysis can't just be a benefit analysis but a cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, even after calculating all those costs, the north is so back breakingly poor that A) There's no way the South reunifies immediately (Southern ministers have said that it absolutely cannot be the German example of reunification) given the example Germany set Since there would be no reunification the north could easily slip back into authoritarianism thus negating the cost of blood and treasure in prosecuting a war to dislodge the KWP.

[dre]

War with North Korea wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, it would have a lot of positive implications. First and foremost the repressive regime that has acted as a major regional irritant and a provocateur would be eliminated. This would mean growth and prosperity for the region including Japan and China.

Secondly there is the nuclear question. North Korea has shown in the past it has no qualm aboput selling weapons to our dodgey nations, especially ones who are onthe wrpongside of the fence. Eliminating the regime will eliminate the threat.

And thirdly, the vast masses of North Koreans will finally be freed to join their kinsmen and an end to their enforced starvation will be at hand.

...all this needs in for North Korea to fire another shot...

Those objectives dont even come CLOSE to justifying the means. Which is why there wont be any war.

Seoul is in range of North Korean artillary... Theres 600 170mm Koksan guns and more than 300 multiple luanch rocket launchers ready to launch a mixture of shells and chemical weapons, and probably about 1000 scuds capable of diliverying chemical weapons at various locations around SK. Seoul will likely be hit with hundreds of thousands of rounds from these weapons within the first hour of combat alone.

Then you have the NK army about 80% of which is stationed along the DMZ that has the capacity to launch about five hundred thousand artillary shells PER HOUR for the first few hours of combat.

Not to mention about 100 no-dongs which would rain down on Japan. And of course the possibility that NK has operable nuclear weapons.

Nobody is going to risk that over a sunk ship. SK will talk tough and push for some kind of sanctions but if faced with open war they will balk REAL fast.

[dre]

He's not crazy, though. The North Koreans are very skilled negotiators. In terms of foreign relations, he knows exactly what he's doing.

As for M.Dancer's analysis, yes those are indeed all true. However, an analysis can't just be a benefit analysis but a cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, even after calculating all those costs, the north is so back breakingly poor that A) There's no way the South reunifies immediately (Southern ministers have said that it absolutely cannot be the German example of reunification) given the example Germany set Since there would be no reunification the north could easily slip back into authoritarianism thus negating the cost of blood and treasure in prosecuting a war to dislodge the KWP.

Reunify WHAT exactly? Two piles of smouldering rubble?

[nicky10013]

Reunify WHAT exactly? Two piles of smouldering rubble?

I completely agree. That situation is the outcome in the unlikely event the North does collapse.

[M.Dancer]

Nobody is going to risk that over a sunk ship. SK will talk tough and push for some kind of sanctions but if faced with open war they will balk REAL fast.

Eraserhead and pinpong say they will declare war if there are any repecussions for their actions. No one is suggesting that war will be bloodless but we have to be prepared to fight to the last korean...