Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if North Korea didn't fire the torpedo?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 07:42 PM
Original message
What if North Korea didn't fire the torpedo?
Who am I to question the "experts", but here goes, in no particular order of importance, but just notes I make while reading:

1. Why is a new commission being convened?
The United Nations Command said Friday that it will convene a special committee to review the investigation that concluded North Korea had torpedoed a South Korean patrol ship.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=...

Why would they do this it it was cut and dried?

2. NK vehemently denies the accusation.
North Korea dismissed the allegation Thursday that it attacked a South Korean Navy vessel in March as "sheer fabrication," ....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/120...

In an unusually swift response, the North said Thursday the report was based on "sheer fabrication" and threatened "all-out war" in response to any attempt to punish it.

On Friday the communist state's official Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea reiterated claims the South had fabricated the evidence.

"It just produced fragments and pieces of aluminium whose origin remains unknown as 'evidence', becoming the target of derision," a committee spokesman said in a statement on official media.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gq8c...

North Korea yesterday said the conclusion by a multinational investigation team that a North Korean torpedo attacked the warship Cheonan had been fabricated and said it would send its own inspectors to get a firsthand look at the evidence in South Korea.

.....The commissions statement, delivered through the state media, said the investigation was a sheer fabrication orchestrated by the group of traitors in a deliberate and brigandish manner to achieve certain political and military aims.

.....The world will clearly see what a dear price the group of traitors will have to pay for the clumsy conspiratorial farce and charade concocted to stifle compatriots, the statement said.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=292...

3. N Korea has demanded that its inspectors be allowed to examine the evidence.
North Korea also demanded that its inspectors be allowed to visit South Korea over the weekend to conduct their own probe.

"We warn our traitors (South Korea) that they will have to present definitive proof that is suspicion-free.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/116...

4. South Korea has rejected NK's demand to send a team

S. Korea Says North Koreas Probe Demand Is Outrageous
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- South Korea rejected a request from North Korea to send a team to investigate accusations that the communist nation sank a warship, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae Young said.

Its like a robber or a killer wanting to investigate himself once the trust was revealed, Kim told reporters in Seoul today. We will send our position to the North in this afternoon.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/s-korea-say...

It seems like a good chance to embarrass the N Koreans by confronting them with iron-clad evidence. Why would the South refuse?

5. The experts do not appear to have hard proof that a NKJ submarine fired the missile. They just say it must have. All they seem to know for sure is this:
Investigators say a North Korean midget submarine and a support vessel left a naval base on the west coast two to three days before the attack on the South Korean corvette Cheonan on March 26 and returned to port two or three days later.

But then they switch to "believe"

The military believes that the submarine found the Cheonan on the evening of March 26 and fired a CHT-02D torpedo at the vessel from 3 km away.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/21...

Final sentence of the report: There is no other plausible explanation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10ji...

6. People who question whether NK did it are called "abnormal".
Many "normal" people already guessed North Korean was responsible for the incident in the Yellow Sea that March night.

North Korea has denied it. Strange to say, many South Korean opposition leaders and politicians had attempted to find alternative explanations to North Korean involvement.

If not North Korea, then who could it have been? There are many ``abnormal" South Korean people who are either sympathetic to North Korea or hopeful that the explosion came from a possible accident.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/05/137...

7. Who are these international "experts" who conducted the study.
We are told in thousands of reports how they are "experts" from US, the UK, Australia, and Sweden. But I have gone to considerable effort to find their names, with no luck. They aren't even on the report itself, which I find a bit unusual. Who are they? What makes them "experts". What is their background? Why and how were they chosen? How objective are they?
Report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10ji...

8. The incriminating markings which give definitive proof the torpedo is from NK appear to be marker pen markings, not stamped in. And it's just "#1". That's it!
Pics at bottom: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10121530....

9. S Korea's Democratic Party questions the report's conclusions.
DP spokesman Woo Sang-ho went further, calling the probe results insufficient proof and questioning whether the North was involved at all.

It would be extremely shocking if the Cheonan incident was committed by North Korea like the government announced, he said.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=292...

10. Liberal civic groups in S Korea also question the conclusions:
Liberal civic groups, including Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea and Peoples Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, said that the probe results are insufficient. We will not admit the probe results, a member of one group said. He said that the militarys presence on the investigative team biased the results.

The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn, he said.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=292...

11. Further questions about the smoking gun.

Questions raised about 'smoking gun'
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff reporter

Despite hard evidence provided by investigators looking into the cause of the March 26 sinking of the Cheonan, questions linger about the cause of the incident.

The multinational investigation team said a detonation of a heavy torpedo with a net explosive weight of 200 to 300 kilograms tore the Navy ship apart.

It said two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea, it said.

The CHT-02D uses acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods, the team said. Acoustic homing torpedoes track and target the engine noise from a ship.

But some experts raised the question if a midget submarine could have a system to carry and control such a precision-homing heavy torpedo.

``Sango class submarines are known to be used by North Korean commandos in infiltrating areas or laying mines, but they apparently do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons," an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. "If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark."

Investigators said North Korea's navy possesses a fleet of 70 submarines ― 20 1,800-ton Romeo class submarines, 40 Sango class and 10 midget subs.

"Given the findings combined with the operational environment in the vicinity of the site of the incident, we assess that a small submarine is believed to be the weapon system used in the attack," Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for the Joint Military-Civilian Investigation Group, told reporters. "We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault."

Moon's remarks also raised a question about the credibility of South Korean and U.S. authorities. Earlier, South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the West Sea.

In addition, Moon's team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect.


Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during Thursday's briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed "an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white," adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.

The JIG displayed fragments of a torpedo propeller during Thursday's press conference, citing it as critical evidence. It said the torpedo parts was recovered by fishing vessels May 15, and the debris, including 5x5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, a propulsion motor and steering section, perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo.

But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.

Yoon Duk-yong, co-head of the investigative group, denied the suspicion.

"The corrosion status of the fragments and wreckage of the Cheonan is almost identical," Yoon said.

Investigators claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South off the west coast seven years ago.

"The word is not inscribed on the part but written on it," an analyst said. "I personally trust the investigators tried their best to prove the link between North Korea and the Cheonan sinking, but the lettering issue is dubious."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/205...

12. The report's evidence might not hold up in a court of law.
David Garretson, an international relations professor at the University of Marylands University College in South Korea, said he believes North Korea was responsible for the attack, but he said the evidence would probably be a little shaky in a legal situation.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=...

Any thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. If this is a fabricated incident, who benefits? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Or an accident.
And certain parties saw an opportunity to get NK back on the terrorist list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't thine our country would have done that because how would we benefit?
If they had oil, or if Bush/Cheney were still there I wouldn't be surprised. They love whipping up the terra threat.

I didn't even think about an accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Other possibilites mentioned were friendly fire or collision with a US nuclear sub.
Both of which S Korea and the US would have a big incentive to cover up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Ahhh. The plot thickens. But dragging North Korea into it doesn't seem wise
(if any of the other scenarios are accurate).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if we'll ever get the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. Why exactly would a US nuclear sub be surfaced?
Where is the missing US nuclear sub and don't you think the families will notice the sailors missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Someway, somehow, Dick Cheney would benefit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-21-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. D'oh! It's always so obvious, yet I tend to complicate it! And where is Rumsfeld these days? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. The entire worldwide military-industrial complex.
Edited on Sat May-22-10 06:55 PM by roamer65
A Second Korean War would be a wet dream for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
39. The first immediate consequence of this incident was
Japan agreeing to keep the US military base in Okinawa. Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. That sounds like a keeper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. It was probably a 95-year old Japanese sailor in a 1-man sub who doesn't know WW-II is over.
I imagine they're still out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. lmao... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Hey, it happened on Gilligan's Island, so it *MUST* be true!
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
68. hahaha WIN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. South Korea continues to refuse to let N Korea see the evidence.
DPRK urges South Korea to receive DPRK inspectors
English.news.cn 2010-05-22 17:19:38 FeedbackPrintRSS

PYONGYANG, May 22 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic Korea (DPRK) on Saturday urged South Korea to receive an inspection group to be dispatched by the National Defense Commission (NDC) of the DPRK to verify evidence related to the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, the official KCNA news agency reported.

The request was made by Kim Yong Chun, vice-chairmen of the National Defense Commission (NDC), in a notice to South Korea.

South Korea on Thursday announced the outcome of investigations over the sinking incident of the Cheonan warship made by a multinational team, which said the warship that went into waters near a tense maritime border with the DPRK in March was torpedoed by the DPRK.

The DPRK on Thursday immediately rejected Seoul's claims that it sank the warship by a submarine, and said it would dispatch inspectors to South Korea to verify Seoul's claim.

In an earlier message to South Korea, Kim said the DPRK would send an inspection group through the west coastal area under the joint control of the north and the south at 10:00 a.m. on May 22.

However, the request was turned down by South Korea, which said it could not receive the inspectors and that a scientific and objective investigation conducted by South Korean and foreign experts finally confirmed that the ship was sunk by DPRK torpedo, according to the KCNA.

According to the KCNA, Seoul's rejection of the DPRK inspectors "can not be construed otherwise than a move to prevent the true nature of its conspiratorial farce and charade from being brought to light."

The report said the case was faked by the south and there was no ground whatsoever for the south to refuse to receive the NDC inspection group if the results of the investigation were objective and scientific as claimed by the south.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-05/22/...

North Korea Restates Demand to Inspect Ship Sinking Evidence
May 22, 2010, 12:07 PM EDT
y Seonjin Cha
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea restated its demand that it be allowed to inspect evidence gathered by an international panel that links the communist country with the sinking of a South Korean warship.
North Koreas National Defense Commission sent a further notice that it will dispatch an inspection team to South Korea to probe the results of the investigating panel, the official Korean Central News Agency said today. South Korea yesterday informed the government of Kim Jong Il that it rejected a similar demand made on May 20.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-22/north-korea...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. One reason I can think of is that SK doesn't want to allow NK
to examine the technology on their sunken warship. Regardless of whether NK actually sunk the warship or not, I can see where they wouldn't want to allow NK experts to get a good look at a SK warship, even one that was sunk. IIRC, this is one of the reasons the Russians didn't allow the British and Norwegians to attempt to rescue the Kursk when it sank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. then who did? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Initial speculation was a mine, from either NK or SK. Or internal malfunction.
South Korea fears mine from north sank ship
Seoul, wary of blaming Pyongyang, says malfunction could have also sunk Cheonan leaving 46 sailors missing, feared dead

Tania Branigan in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010 09.35 BST

A North Korean mine may have caused the explosion that sank a South Korean naval ship near a disputed sea border on Friday night, the south's defence minister said yesterday.

Seoul has been wary in ascribing blame and has also said that an internal malfunction could have caused the disaster that has left 46 crew members missing, feared dead. Pyongyang's state media have made no mention of the incident.

"North Korea may have intentionally floated underwater mines to inflict damage on us," the minister, Kim Tae-young, said, according to Associated Press.

The Seoul-based news agency Yonhap said he told MPs that a device "could have drifted into our area", pointing out that the north planted 3,000 Soviet-made mines in the sea during the 1950-53 Korean war.

"Though many sea mines were removed, it must have been impossible to retrieve them 100% ... One was found in 1959, and another was removed in 1984," he said.

Kim added: "Neither the government nor the defence ministry has ever said that there was no possibility of North Korea's involvement."

Others had suggested one of the south's own mines could be responsible, but the minister said there were none near the Yellow Sea.

Officials also ruled out the possibility of a torpedo attack, citing evidence from the ship's radar operators. They had earlier said that there was no evidence of North Korean military activity in the area at the time of the explosion.

The 1,200-tonne Cheonan split in two within minutes of a blast in the rear hull. It was patrolling the Yellow Sea near Baengnyeong, where several gun battles have taken place between North and South Korean vessels in recent years. But an attack of this kind would be a major escalation of tensions on the peninsula and would anger the US and China.

The South Korean paper Chosun Ilbo quoted experts who cited a range of possible causes. Yoon Yeon, a former commander of naval operations, said an internal explosion could not have caused the disaster, saying that fuses and explosive material would be stored separately in facilities with double or triple locks.
But Baek Seung-joo of the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses disagreed, saying: "If a single torpedo or a floating mine caused a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine."

One expert suggested the shock from an external explosion could have triggered a second blast inside the ship.
Fifty-eight sailors were rescued, but military officials fear the others were trapped within the rear segment of the ship, now resting 40 metres under water.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/30/south-korea...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Wouldn't North Korea be respnsible for North Korean mines? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. It could be an accident. It sure would suck to have millions die a war started by an accident.
And the hawks of the Korean government might be using the accident as a political opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. The South Koreans have the most to lose in a war. I say we take our queues from them.
To say that hawks in South Korea want war is just not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. Read This! An important analysis of the "evidence". WE ARE BEING LIED TO.
I really hope the author Mr Creighton doesn't mind this rather large snip, but he mentioned DU, so perhaps it's okay. His analysis is very extensive.

More at: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-... /

The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To
Posted on May 24, 2010 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

<snip>A Perfect Match?

This is the presentation referred to in the paper linked above. They mention that during a presentation of their findings, they showed the schematics of a CHT-02D torpedo in relation to the evidence they found. They claimed in their investigation that these are a perfect match and that claim is being repeated endlessly on both sides of the fake political divide. (please click on image for a larger view)

This is by no means a perfect match. No wonder they didnt want to sign that investigation of theirs. (please click on image for a larger view)

There are 4 clear differences in the design of these weapons and one is without a doubt, the key to proving these are not the same.


* A & D Here you can clearly see major differences in the design of the hub of the propellers. In the diagram above you can see it has a smaller hub whereas in the evidence below it, the hub is larger.

* B The actual shape of the propellers is very different. You can see a notch in the diagram above that doesnt exist in the actual evidence propeller below. The overall shape of the blades are vastly different as well, both the front and the rear propeller sets.

All of this might be explained away by suggesting that these propellers were switched out. Thought it might be possible, remember that these are finely tuned and designed systems; one just cant switch these hub designs willy nilly like one would on their John-Boat. But, that aside, though it may be possible to have put different kinds of propellers on this fish, it is certainly NOT a perfect match.

Now, the last point proves they are not the same torpedo.

* C - As you can plainly see, the stabilizers (or propulsion system?) in the diagram above are clearly shown IN FRONT of the separation plate as it is lined up in the display with the evidence below. However, the torpedo below houses that same stabilizer (or propulsion system) BEHIND the separation plate (separating the body and the tail section of the torpedo).

This is a major difference that cannot be explained by saying it was some kind of after market modification. This is part of a key design of the workings of these weapons and can not have been changed. This difference clearly indicates these are different weapons altogether.

(there are other differences that have been pointed out to this researcher; Jan noticed that the axle shape is tapered on the evidence and straight on the diagram. A good point. There are probably others as well (I noticed a difference in the shape of the fin in the guidance section in the back as well. clearly there is no way to say these are a perfect match)

It is no wonder the investigators chose not to sign their work.

The Forgotten Investigation

On May 6th, 2010 a report came out conducted by South Korea and others that said the torpedos metal and explosive residue indicated that it had come from a German origin.

The team of South Korean and foreign investigators found traces of explosives used in torpedoes on several parts of the sunken ship as well as pieces of composite metal used in such weapons, South Koreas Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.

The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying. REUTERS News Agency

This report has been all but forgotten by the media and the Clinton led state department as they press for crippling sanctions and perhaps more. But there is a confirmation of sorts in the May 20th unsigned investigation.

The first thing they should do, rather than attempt to convince the people that the two are perfectly matched in design (when they clearly arent) is a chemical and metallic debris analysis of the evidence. The May 20th investigation does not make mention of this crucial part of the investigation at all they dont mention it at all.

The reason for that is clear; if they were to address these two key scientific points, they would have to have admitted that the science shows these pieces of evidence are of German construction and therefore not of North Korean origin.

By ignoring these two important parts of the investigation, the May 20th paper confirms the earlier work of the May 6th study the torpedo is of German origin.<snip>

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Don't listen to anything from Willyloman.wordpress.com, he buys any conspiracy out there
You name any conspiracy out there and the group to which this guy belongs buys it immediately, whether it is HAARP, Vaccine conspiracies, New World Order/Bilderbergers controlling every government, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
54. Are you freaking kidding me? You're asking DUers to belive some conspiracy nutbag?
WTF DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. ...
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. Yep.
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. i don't believe they did
to me this looks more like a wag the dog 'opportunity', a dangerous one nonetheless

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. lol. based on what facts?
some of you folks are the mirror image of the "America is always right and blameless crowd". It's funny because it's the same kind of limited "thinking" and lack of critical thinking skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. You said it. It's crazy talk. No one in South Korea has anything to gain from a war
and a lot to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
55. Oh yeah. Someone posted a nutjob article that linked to freaking Rense
And people rec'd it! Why? Because it argued that evil Obama was lying to us about oil. (Did you know oil is an infinite resource/ Neither did I.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. The Chaebol say no war there will be no war. And the Chaebol won't allow any war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol

War is bad for business. Now if South Korean had close to 10% unemployment like we do it might look more appealing to the Chaebol. But they don't. Its only 3.8%. They can't afford to lose their workers to senseless wars like we can.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were in that position?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
21. What if accidentally the whole thing?
Who was phone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. No. Really. I accidentally the whole thing. The WHOLE thing. Accidentally.
Phone was you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. My thought: The BP oil gusher is more important than this.
Americans have died and our environment here at home is being destroyed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
28. Is the U.S. prepared to go to war against North Korea over this?

North Korea will call any U.S. bluff.

And if the Korean war restarts, the North Korean regime will move in and take over most of South Korea in just a few weeks.

The American right-wing will than call for nukes to be used in order to stop the North Korean invasion.

And what if it attack on the South Korean ship was an accident or unilateral action taken by some gung-ho North Korean commander without political/military authorization at the top? That's very possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. You vastly overrate the NK military.
I would bet that all of the North Korean tunnels under the DMA have been found, although only a few of them would be advertised. Using modern siesmic methods it should not be an extremely difficult problem to find the tunnels. Given the extreme importance of locating the tunnels, it is unreasonable to believe that moder methods have not already been employed.

North Korea's Air Force is mainly made up of old MiG 17s (Korean War vintage), 19s (Late 1950s), 21s (Vietnam War vintage) and a few modern aircraft. Their pilots recieve very limited training due to the expense of such training. The NK Air Force would be destroyed in the opening moves of a new war.

Their Navy is a coastal defense force that wouldn't be able to do much. Radar would spot any units at sea. They would then be destroyed by long distance missiles.

They do have almost 20,000 artillery pieces, but they are older pieces. For accurate pinpoint fire, they would need forward observers. They are suitable only for firing shells into an area. They are not rapidly mobile, and the firing location of almost all of them is already precisely known and the GPS coordinates are already in American/South Korean computers. American artillery is able to shoot and move, and the shells are able to steer themselves to precise GPS coordinates. The new Small Diameter Bomb weighs only 262 lbs and can glide up to 60 miles from the point where the aircraft releases it, to land with extreme accuracy on the target. A B-52 can fly along, miles outside of the North Korean Air Defense Missile umbrella and rain destruction on hundreds of independent targets. The new SBD2 bomb has a radar/heat seeker head that enable it to independently search for and target itself on tanks and trucks in a selected target area. So an NK armored column could be destroyed by a single B-52 dozens of miles away.

Much of the North Korean battlefield communications is non-electronic. That means human runners who are slow and may get killed, or may discover that the unit they are taking the message to has moved.

A modern war takes fuel, and LOTS of it. NK fuel convoys would have little chance of getting to the units that need the fuel. A tank that is out of fuel is a very expensive pillbox, easily destroyed from the air.

Sleeper sabotage units would be unreliable. After such a unit had been in the South for a few weeks, they would have been able to see for themselves that Dear Leader had lied to them.

The initial blow from the North would be staggering and US/ROK forces would have to fall back. Seoul would be pummeled. But in a few days time, the NK military would be destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Is that pretty much how it went down in 1950 with the vastly superior U.S. forces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Not quite
Edited on Mon May-24-10 07:55 PM by Lurks Often
In 1950, the US military was a shadow of what it was at the end of WWII, Truman and his Secretary of Defense, Louis A. Johnson, had drastically cut the military back. Things were so bad at the beginning of the war that the Army had to take tanks that were no longer being used and out on display, re-condition them and then send them to Korea. It cost Louis Johnson his job. Also we did not have the significant advantages in technology that we do now. In fact, the North Koreans entered the war with a better tank and better fighter then we did. We very nearly lost that war before reinforcements arrived. When we finally pushed the North Koreans back it was more due to superior leadership, since many of the mid-level and senior officers and NCO's were combat veterans from WWII, the invasion at Inchon and better logistics. The North Koreans had out run their supply lines when they pushed us all the way back to the port of Pusan.

Every war prior to Vietnam (and argument can be made for Vietnam as well) the US military has entered the war under equipped and unprepared and they paid for our government's failures to properly fund the military with their lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. No. US forces were few and inferior, except for the Air Force.
At first the Air Force dominated the NK, then the NK introduced the MiG-15, we countered with the F-86 Sabre and again we kicked Communist ass.

The Army in Korea was made up of poorly trained troops who were doing occupation duty, and there weren't that many of them.

The two forces were about even with respect to technology. Now we have an extreme edge in technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Self-Delete
Edited on Mon May-24-10 10:43 PM by Better Believe It

Deleted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. So are you all excited and anxious about kicking some "communist ass" in Korea again?
Edited on Mon May-24-10 10:44 PM by Better Believe It
-Are you ready for this and ya think the Pentagon Generals should call the North Korean regimes "bluff"?

This is serious stuff and shouldn't be taken so lightly. BBI-


North Korea's military 'bigger, better, closer, deadlier,' says General Schwartz
April 14, 2001

Pyongyang's military machine is "bigger, better, closer, deadlier," Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz said in testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schwartz heads the United Nations and ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Commands and U.S. Forces Korea.

North Korea so far "has yet to discuss or implement any meaningful military confidence-building measures beyond agreement of the opening of a railroad corridor through the Demilitarized Zone," he said. Schwartz said 70 percent of the North's army "approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems and 2,000 tanks" are based within 90 miles of the DMZ and are being reinforced. Most are positioned in more than 4,000 underground facilities from which they "can attack with minimal preparations or warning," he said.

Without moving any of its more than 12,000 artillery pieces, he said, "Pyongyang could sustain up to 500,000 rounds per hour against Combined Forces Command defenses and Seoul for several hours." Most dangerous, he said, "is the accelerated deployment over the past two years of large numbers of long-range 240mm multiple rocket launchers and 170mm self-propelled guns along the DMZ."

He said Pyongyang's ability to attack the South "without warning and (with) nonconventional weapons continues to grow bigger and get better." The North has the world's third largest ground force with 1 million active-duty soldiers, an air force of more than 1,700 planes, an 800-ship navy that includes "the largest submarine fleet in the world," and a 6 million man reserve force, he said.

He called the North's special operations forces "the largest in the world" with more than 100,000 men. "During wartime, these forces would fight on two fronts, simultaneously attacking both our forward and rear bases," he said.

Text source: Jim Osan, Stars & Stripes, March 30, 2001

http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/J2/J2-0001-N...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Until China's entry, North Korea got its butt kicked.
They had initial success with a surprise attack against a much smaller U.S. force, but after the Inchon landing it was damned ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. China won't back them up this time.
They're starving and fighting with old Soviet crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. The don't need China. They'll sweep the U.S. out of south Korea in a few weeks at most unless
Edited on Tue May-25-10 08:25 AM by Better Believe It
the right-wing convinces President Obama to use nukes.

How many heavily armed and well equipped troops do you think the United States can send to South Korea (10?) and how long will it take to get them there?

Do you have any credible information on what North Koreas military capabilities are?

I do.

I'm listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. You sound like a cheerleader for "Dear Leader".
There is much, much more to combat capability than the number of troops and number of cannons.

First is the level of training. The NK forces are very poorly trained. To train an infantryman to a competent level takes lots of money. The troops have to go on live-fire exercises. They have to drive the tanks and trucks in war games, and that takes lots of fuel and maintenance. Pilots have to fly the planes and practice dogfighting, and practice ground attack. They have to drop real bombs and strafe targets. NK doesn't have the money for that kind of training. Their pilots are barely able to fly the planes, never mind win a dogfight. Poorly trained militaries lose wars.

Obsolete equipment is a huge problem for NK. About 75% of their Air Force is flying planes that are antiques. They have: MiG-17 107 planes, MiG-19 100+ planes, MiG-21 120 planes, MiG-23 45 planes, MiG-29 20 planes, Q-5 40 planes, Su-7 18 planes, Su-35 34 planes. 412 of their fighters are flying museum pieces. Only 72 would have any chance at all in a modern air war.

Further, they don't have anything approaching an AWACS for command and control of airborne assets.

Their ability to shoot 500,000 artillery shell per hour doesn't mean that much. It does mean the Seoul will be plastered. For accurate fire, artillery must have a forward observers. If they don't have them, then the cannons are shooting blind. The most that they can do is shoot at an area. The US and South Korea can fire precision rounds that don't need forward observers and that don't miss.

Their tanks are also rolling museum pieces. Mostly they have T-34, T-54 and T-62. The numbers refer to the year of the design. IOW - The T-34 was design work began in 1934. None of them have Chobham armor nor do they have shoot-while-moving systems. They have to stop, aim the gun, then shoot. American tanks can shoot with extreme accuracy while moving.

Their submarines are all diesel-electrics. Once a day they have to run the diesel engine to recharge their batteries. That is an extremely noisly operation. They would be sunk while running their diesels. Submerged, a sub running on batteries is slow.

The rest of the NK navy is mostly patrol boats, manned by poorly trained crews.

They have a huge infantry, and during the Korean War used human wave tactics. While such tactics were effective back then, we can easily defeat such an attack now. Cluster bombs and cluster artillery shell can be really rough on exposed infanty.

And we would be able to cut off the logistics to their forward troops. With no beans and no bullets making it to their front, the front would quickly collapse. They would not surrender, they would simply get killed.

Further, the US would not be fighting alone. The ROK forces would be taking the brunt of the battle. The ROK army is modern and proffessional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Bull shit! Do you also think opponents of the Iraq invasion were Sadam supporters or "commies"?
Edited on Tue May-25-10 01:15 PM by Better Believe It
Such a claim echoes right-wing talking points propaganda.

So you "kicked communist ass" in Korea, did ya?

Why then did you lose that fricken war? You sure didn't win it. Can't defeat those little "inferior" nations and people? It was at best a draw. And please don't repeat that old stale political line that "we lost" because President Truman removed General McCarthur and wouldn't let him go to war against China.

And how in the world did you "lose" the fricken war against Vietnam?

Especially with all of that technology and the big, bad fighting Marines!

I suppose you might "blame" the anti-war movement at home and among anti-war active duty GI's for that. You can "blame" them and I will credit and thank the soldier anti-warriors and peace movement for ending an invasion and military occupation that was built on a mountain of lies. The anti-war movement won that. We're brought the troops home!

I have to say that you sound like a cheerleader for the warhawks who never saw a war they didn't like and pray for a chance to go to war in Korea.

How many troops do you think the government can send to Korea in a few weeks to replace the small U.S. contingent in Korea that would be all but destroyed in a matter of hours or a few days if a war breaks out?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Yep, you are cheerleading for "Dear Leader".
Edited on Tue May-25-10 01:58 PM by GreenStormCloud
You have repeatedly predicted a stunning NK victory.

One hopes that the NK won't attack, but if they do you will be severely disappointed to see the North lose badly.

One notices that you have not attempted to answer anything about material I have posted about the balance of forces.

BTW - There is a difference in being opposed to the Iraq invasion, and predicting victory for Saddam's forces. I was opposed to the Iraqi invasion, but I had no doubt as to what we would do to Saddam's military.

Also, I am not a chickenhawk, I am a veteran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Do your redbaiting and trash talk somewhere else. Not here on DU!
Edited on Tue May-25-10 02:10 PM by Better Believe It
This is not a right-wing trash talk board.

"One notices that you have not attempted to answer anything about material I have posted about the balance of forces."

One notices you haven't provided any credible links to your claims regarding North Korean military capabilities.

And you have failed to respond to any of my points.

Why is that?

I don't support the Stalinist regime in North Korea.

".... you will be severely disappointed to see the North lose badly"

I will be really angry if the right-wing warhawks manage to get us involved in a new Korean war that will result in thousands of GI's nedlessly dying. Don't you have even the slightest concern for our soldiers in Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq?

This is not a game where you get to play with other peoples lives.

And do you really think the United States really scored a knockout blow in the Korean and Vietnam wars and will once again score a great military victory in Korea?

So you're not a chickenhawk. Being ex-military, do you consider yourself a warhawk?

We're you in the Marines by any chance?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Read your own posts.
Your post, #28: North Korea will call any U.S. bluff.

And if the Korean war restarts, the North Korean regime will move in and take over most of South Korea in just a few weeks.

The American right-wing will than call for nukes to be used in order to stop the North Korean invasion.

You are predicting an unstoppable, except by nukes, victory of NK over SK and the US. Actually, you are completely omitting any SK forces.

So in my post #32, I posted some information about the forces. You can go here to find the balance of forces: http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

I leave it to you to navigate around the site. You will find that the overwhelming majority of NK equipment is very old. I listed the types and numbers of aircraft.

The invention, by the US a few years ago of the Small Diameter Bomb, and of the SDB2, is revolutionizing American major war tactics. You can learn more about it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munition...

Other of my comments are basic common sense to anyone who has a beginning knowledge of military logistics. Based on the extreme imbalance of the Air Forces, it is easy to predict with extreme certainty that ROK/US forces will quickly achieve absolute air dominance, both night and day. With out protection from air attack NK will not be able to move supplies to their front.

You responded in your post #34 with: Is that pretty much how it went down in 1950 with the vastly superior U.S. forces?

In that post you showed your ignorance of US forces in 1950 and of how the war progressed.

You were corrected by Lurks Often #35 and myself #36, and Zynx #41 and proteus_lives #44.

You quoted, #38, Gen. Schwartz. Such a lopsided analysis is what Generals do when they want a bigger budget. They emphasis the enemy's strength and ignore his glaring weaknesses while ignoring their own strengths. That you would take such a laughable analysis as a total summary shows how very little you know about military capabilities.

Then, in #46 with: The don't need China. They'll sweep the U.S. out of south Korea in a few weeks at most unless
You made that statement after I had posted about the balance of forces. You completely ignored the items I pointed out.

My comments about the NK training are based on their suck-ass economy. They are so broke that they lost about 10% of their population to starvation a few years ago. Other here have commented on the starvation in NK. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/02/091102fa_... A country that can't feed itself can't train soldiers either. Further, since they are an extreme Stalinist state, their military will suffer the same problems the Red Army had, only more so. I will have to refer you to an old-fashioned book for that. Inside the Soviet Army by Viktor Suvorov.

In post #49 I pointed out more of NK weaknesses and of ROK/US strengths.

In your post #51 you ignored the items I pointed out and tried to shift the conversation to Vietnam, Iraq, and accused me of being RW. So anybody who isn't in lockstep with you is RW?

I have stayed on topic and declined to chase any of the distractions that you have tried to post. We are talking about what will happen if Kim decides to attack. That is the topic.

Warhawk? I have seen some combat and have lost friends in combat. Those of us who have seen the elephant know that it isn't glory. We would much prefer peace. Prefering peace does not mean that I have to be blind to genuine balance of forces.

That you continue to insist that the North will be able to wipe out the ROK/US forces in a few weeks, even though you have been shown severe weakness in their military and very strong strengths in ours strongly suggests that you want the North to win.

If you want to discuss military strengths, begin with their Air Force as compared to the ROK/US Air Force. Remember that the side that dominates the air can cut the supply lines of the other side. Troops without supplies become helpless. If NK loses the air war, then after their initial surge, they lose the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. And all that to explain why you favor whipping "communist ass" in Korea once again?
Edited on Tue May-25-10 10:56 PM by Better Believe It
You failed to answer and again dodged the main and fundamental fundamental question in this discussion.

Why do you think the United States whipped "communist ass" and won the last Korean war and why do you think the United States military brass can win another Korean war even more easily a second time around?

Oh .... do you also intend to whip the asses of any Americans who you think might be communists, socialists, Marxists, pinko's or otherwise radical progressives or will you leave that up to the military Northern Command at some point?


I notice your rejection of what General Schwartz's observations .... after all, you certainly are more knowledgable than a mere General on such matters.

The two gung ho military links you posted do not provide the detailed information regarding North Korea's alleged military weaknesses you detailed in an earlier post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Read exactly what I said.
Edited on Wed May-26-10 09:07 AM by GreenStormCloud
At first the Air Force dominated the NK, then the NK introduced the MiG-15, we countered with the F-86 Sabre and again we kicked Communist ass.
I am referring to the air war, not the overall war. Once the F-86 was introduced by the US they dominated the Communist Air Forces. F-86 pilots were credited with shooting down 792 MiGs for a loss of only 78 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10:1

I gave you lots of reason why the current ROK/US military is far superior to the current NK forces.

I make no personal threats to anyone. You are just being silly.

Yes, I do reject Gen. Schwartz's comments. He was obviously spreading bullshit, maybe to try to get a budget increased. I have seen, and fallen for, that kind of line before during the cold war. Then I read Inside the Soviet Army by Viktor Suvorov, and began to read Col. Trevor N. Dupuy's books and learned about the Quantified Judgment Method of Analysis for militaries. Those books, and some others, wised me up about the game many generals play to get bigger budgets.

I have stated, and I repeat, that I hope that this fuss blows over. The South will not attack the North. War will come only if Kim decides to go South.

I NK attacks they will have initial success, but will have their ass handed to them in a few days to a couple of weeks.

In modern times a military can't win unless they can at least deny control of the air to their enemy. (Vietnam was almost forty years ago and no longer counts as modern.)From the very start NK will have to fight under a sky ruled by the ROK/US. That, and the other factors that I listed, and that you never responded to, will be sufficient to give a decisive victory to the ROK/US.

If you want to believe in a decisive NK victory if Kim attacks, then I shall leave you in your ignorance.

You may wish to notice that I am not the only one in this thread who disagrees with you.

BTW - proteus_lives has asked a good question of you. I shall ask a similar one. How do you expect a bunch of obsolete aircraft such as MiG 17,19,21s to defeat F/A-18s and F-22s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. So you read lots of pro-war military literature. No "peacenik" stuff for you!

I think you need to break away from military indoctrination (brainwashing) and begin to seriously read some progressive and liberal anti-war literature.

So a North Korean invasion of the south will be stopped and defeated with airplanes and only 27,000 U.S. troops!

Sure it will. And the tooth fairy will come to our rescue!

If the Pentagon couldn't win the 1950-53 Korean war what has changed since then?

If you really knew your military history, you would know the war against Vietnam was suppose to be won with superior air and sea power (Vietnam had none) along with half a million special forces and superior armed troops.

How did that go?

Oh those damn peaceniks ruined it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. You are omitting the ROK military.
The US won't be fighting alone. The SK has a large, well trained, well equipped military. I have previously given you the website to check the strength, organization and equipment of both NK and SK militaries. Whatever makes you think the the US would be fighting alone? Do you possibly think that SK won't defend itself against Kim? Do you think they want to live under "Dear Leaders" rule? Knowing that losing will mean living under Kim, they will fight to the last.

The study of military analysis is only a tiny part of my reading. It appears to be none of yours.

Vietnam was 35 years ago. Different era, different circumstances, different technology. A closer comparison would be the Gulf War. Saddam's much larger army was sliced and diced by air power.

Much has changed since 1953. The NK military is still using much the same technology. In that war we were evenly matched with regard to technology. NK was defeated and pushed back almost to the Yalu, then the Chinese intervened with a million troops. It was no longer a UN vs. NK war, but was UN vs China war. The UN did not want to risk widening the war to a new world-war, so they changed objectives to merely keeping SK independent. That objective was achieved. The NK was not able to conquer SK.

Now, our war-fighting technology is vastly superior. Their has barely moved. For example, because of a lack of small field radios, NK still uses bugles to give troop commands, and runners to handle battlefield communications.

I have already listed numerous problems the NK military has. I could easily continue for page after page listing their problems, but the greatest problem (After famine) they have is the very poor state of their training. A poorly trained troop is little more than a target. It takes lots of money to have a well trained military, and NK doesn't hardly any money.

Remember that they are so poor that they are once again having a problem with famine, after having lost one million people to starvation in the 1990s. http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/07033HaggardNolan... You may be interested in their Korea section: http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/index.html

More information on the current NK famine here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1737780,0...

Here is a current TIME article on the tensions: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991928,0... Notice that the picture of the tank is an SK tank.

Countries with active famines do not have signifigant war-fighting capabilities. Even you should be able to realize that. If Kim is crazy enough to attack, his military will be smashed.

One hopes that Kim is not so full of his own bullshit that he will realize what will happen if he starts the war up again. One hopes that it will be a lot of bluster and little else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Imperial armies and their apologists always exaggerate their military capabilities
Edited on Wed May-26-10 05:04 PM by Better Believe It
and underestimate their opponents as you have done.

The Korean War 1950-53 and Vietnam are good examples of that foolishness.

Encourage a full scale war against North Korea at your own peril.

Would you like to see some real stats on North Korea's military forces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. You are calling us "imperialist". That's what NK calls us.
Your faith in Dear Leader has blinded you to harsh reality. Kim runs the most oppresive government on Earth. And you are claiming that he can easily overrun ROK/US militaries. NK lost badly in the 1950-53 war and had their butts saved by China and Russia. That help won't be there if Kim starts another war.

Take a look at post #64, this thread. The poster has been there and has first hand knowledge. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Countries with large scale starvation do not have effective militaries. That is so obvious that it is almost an axiom, but you don't want to face that fact.

I have given links to a site that keeps up with the stats on all the world's militaries. If you want to post some other stats, do so. Just remember that it takes more than a warm body to make a soldier. A poorly trained, half-starved, soldier is little more than a target. Go ahead and post them. I will be easily able to deal with them. I have likely seen them already.

Whether or not there is a war depends upon Kim. If he doesn't attack, there won't be a war. If he does attack, there will be a war. I do not encourage starting a war with NK, only in forcefully resisting if they attack. You do not seem to see a difference between those two.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. I didn't call you an imperialist , capitalist or Wall Street bankster! Don't be so sensitive.
Edited on Wed May-26-10 11:09 PM by Better Believe It
However, the U.S. obviously had imperial ambitions in southeast Asia and such ambitions are rather obvious now in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and have been clear in Latin America for over a century.

Or do you think it's really all about exporting freedom and democracy in the world?

If that's what you believe, do you think it would be wise to provoke North Korea into war or perhaps we can set-up a bogus attack on the south similiar to the Tonkin Bay incident in the waters off Vietnam. Remember that pretext for war? And of course how can we forget the invasion on Iraq in order to destroy the non-existent WMD's?

I hope the military brass doesn't do something similiar to the above in Korea.

But, since the North Korean military is in such a state of disorganization according to you, we don't really know if the attack on the South Korean military ship was approved and directed by the top military and political leadership in North Korea.

Accepting your views on North Korea, we'd have to consider the possibility that this was a rouge action committed by a lower level military commander without approval at the top.

You still want to provoke a war when we don't have the hard facts on what happened in the North Korean chain of military and political command?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. There is no reason to provoke a war. Given time, NK will collapse on its on.
It is entirely possible that this could have been a rouge action. There have been other actions by NK that I think were rouge individuals. SK is in charge of how strong the response will be. The response must be measured, strong enough to be taken seriously but not strong enough for a war to start over. At present, SK is setting up huge loudspeakers on the DMZ and will broadcast propaganda over them. The North (I am guessing) will likely set up strong speakers of their own and the
DMZ may be real noisy for a long time. I hope that is all they do.

Definitely we should not fire any shots ourselves, unless fired upon first.

The problem is that NK is entering another famine. They are already having starvation deaths. Kim may be generating an external crisis to distract his people. He may need a war to keep control.

There is an excellent book, "The J Curve" that discusses the internal problems a government like NK's has. They are fragile with a very limited ability ability to withstand social shocks. His is so far on the extreme over controlled end of the curve that internal collapse could happen at any time. Nor can he loosen the control on his country because the immediate result would be to descend into chaos before recovering into a democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #63
71. Please provide the sources you are using
Given how significantly different your perception of how big and good the North Korean military is compared to everything else I have seen and read, I'd certainly like to see where you are getting your data from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. No problem. Here's just two for starters.
Edited on Thu May-27-10 01:05 PM by Better Believe It
These two sites just report the sobering facts. There are many more if you care to look. We are not talking Grenada here.

If anyone thinks that 27,000 U.S. troops and the South Korean military can stop and easily defeat the North Korean armed forces they are living in fantasyland.




http://www.asianresearch.org /

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. First, I don't remember anybody
saying this was going to a repeat of Grenada. The closest comparison of is likely to happen would be Desert Storm from the point where the ground troops entered Kuwait & Iraq.

I clicked on the Global Security link
You seem impressed by the North Korean numbers, I'm not. Most, if not all, of the NK tanks and other armored vehicles are late 50's, early 60's technology. Their Air Force is only marginally better with about 2 squadrons worth of Mig-29's, roughly comparable to an F-16. Their Navy is a coastal force.

Their reserves are children, old men and young adults, all they are going to do is die in large numbers or defect.

The Iraq Army of 1990 was better equipped and their Republican Guard was at least as motivated and well trained as anything the North Koreans have.

Training, logistics, morale and the quality of the equipment are far, far more important then raw numbers.

The real wild card is if the North Koreans use chemical or nuclear weapons. We'll still win in the end, but casualties across the board will be much higher.

If a war starts, my expectation is that the active, conventional part will last about a month, with the North Koreans suffering the most casualties.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #53
84. why are you playing games?
the man asked direct questions and you accuse him of being a rightwinger/redbaiter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Troop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
64. Very succinct and factual GSC. Don't forget that the food problem has hit
the NK military - there are many reports of soldiers and military units stealing food from collectives. Movement of large units to under-DMZ tunnels would be observed and would telegraph NK intentions. Simply crossing the DMZ would be a bloodbath; every inch is registered for artillery, missiles and other indirect and direct fire weapons (thousands of mines would need to be cleared as well). Firing solutions for fixed defenses and key terrain are probably already stored for their guns, but mobile SK forces could avoid much of the fire. I worked with ROK soldiers in another life and they are tough, well trained and courageous. They may not be as flexible as US soldiers, but their officers, at all levels, are trained to employ initiative. Chemical weapons would be a significant issue, I think, but the SKs are probably including that in their preparations. I think the final result will be a lot of dead SK civilians, significant damage to metro Seoul and a smoking ruin where NK used to be without resorting to nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Thanks. I appreciate the input of someone who has been there. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
74. I would say total gung ho military bull shit rather than objective facts.
Edited on Thu May-27-10 01:16 PM by Better Believe It
North Korea would pretty easily cross the DMZ in the event of war and be in Seoul in short order.

This would be a protracted blood bath for both sides.

The United States doesn't have any troops to send in unless they renew the draft. Without a military draft, the U.S. would "only" sustain perhaps 10 to 20 thousand casuelties in a few weeks. That's more like Vietnam numbers rather than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Think the American public will support that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. Odd
Edited on Fri May-28-10 10:14 AM by Lurks Often
the only person in this string of posts regarding the military capabilities of the respective countries involved not being objective is you.

Either you are reading sources that are drastically misinformed or you are interpreting the raw data (numbers of soldiers, tanks and other military equipment) incorrectly.

On edit: I've also noticed that you have been intentionally confrontational and rude to anybody who disagrees with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. You found nothing objectionable about GreenStormCloud's suggestion that I support the Stalinist
regime in North Korea when he wrote:

"You sound like a cheerleader for "Dear Leader".

Sorry that my anti-war stance has offended GSC and you.

Do you agree with GSC that the United States is not functioning as an imperial empire and does not employ troops to defend economic interests from Latin America to Asia and all over the world?

I don't think the U.S. military has bases in over 100 nations and spends more money on war production and troops that the rest of the entire world combined in order to spread peace and democracy.

But, if that's what you believe I think you need to read progressive literature on that subject and hope you change your opinion.

I have to say that it seems those few who have downplayed and minimized North Korean military forces seem almost anxious to get us into a war with North Korea .... they seemingly look forward to kicking more "communist ass". Did you happen to notice that?

Just hope GSC doesn't start writing in favor of kicking some communist, pinko, radical and progressive ass within the United States.

Would you like to start punching and kicking around some "pinkos" in the United States.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. You do?
So tell me how a MiG-21 can defeat a F-18.

This will be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. Your conclusions are not supported by military reality
any military event on the peninsula will trigger a plan that has been in process since in 1955. Do NOT underestimate the capability of the NATO forces involved in this event. Saddam's million man army in GW1 is an example of that line of thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
33. Memo to self: Buy stock in tinfoil.
It seems to be in heavy use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
42. Neither South Korea nor the U.S. have anything to gain from this.
As such, the conspiracy view does not make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. But but but but there's always Them!
You know, Them! They always have something to gain from something like this, and it's always much easier to point to Their shadowy involvement than accept a more realistic scenario that inserts those gosh-darned uncomfortable shades of grey into the world.

(Or maybe that's just what They want us to think.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. The U.S. has already gained from this.
Due to this little episode they got the Japanese government to agree to the
Okinawa base extension without much fuss. Something that looked like a
complicated political fight with an uncertain outcome just two weeks ago
turned into a done and sealed deal just like that. While U.S. gain is now
obvious to all, no other beneficiary is apparent. These are just facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Here is the link with more info:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
58. That's basically nothing.
Seriously, that does not mean a whole lot to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
45. Well lets look at North Korea's admitted record


Now remember this is what North Korea admits to (usually after years of denial):


North Korean submarine invades South Korean territory on a commando mission

and then breaks down 37 dead


http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9612/29/nkorea /

The formal apology, carried in English by the North's official Korean Central News Agency and in Korean by Radio Pyongyang, represented a major concession by North Korea.

Pyongyang had insisted its submarine accidentally drifted into South Korean territory during routine training.

South Korea said the submarine was on an espionage mission when it broke down. Thirteen South Korean soldiers and civilians were killed in the massive hunt for the 26 North Koreans who swam ashore.

Twenty-four North Korean commandos were killed or found dead. One was captured alive and another is missing.




North Korea apologizes for kidnapping Japanese civilians




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/18/japan.north...



It will rank as a stunning confession to one of the most bizarre crimes ever committed by a state. Yesterday, in an extraordinary admission, North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il said his country's special forces abducted at least a dozen Japanese nationals during the 1970s and 80s in a fit of patriotic overzealousness.

Incredibly, the victims of these snatch and grab operations were of no military, scientific or political value. Instead, they included a beautician, a schoolgirl and couples on romantic seaside dates who were suddenly whisked off to the most secretive country on earth.

For years, sensational stories of courting couples being carried off from beaches in the night by North Korean frogmen have filled the Japanese media. At first, few gave much credence to the tales, which seemed to be among the most unlikely of cold war fantasies.

But the rumours persisted and reports of failed abductions and testimonies of captured North Korean spies proved convincing enough for the Japanese government to draw up a list of 11 of its nationals who it suspected were abducted by its reclusive north-east Asian neighbour.

Yesterday, the worst fears were confirmed as Mr Kim ended a decade of denial in an attempt to win economic aid from Japan and remove his country from US president George Bush's "axis of evil".







Now to answer the question why would North Korea do such a thing?

Because last November South Korea had attacked and destroyed a North Korea ship that it thought that had entered its waters. North Korea had demanded but not received an apology.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/201...

According to a BBC report, South Korea's ship fired on the North Korean ship after the Northern ship allegedly trespassed across a sea border that the two countries dispute. The North Korean ship returned fire, but not before it had been set ablaze after being hit by South Korean ordnance. North Korea maintained that its ship did not cross the border, and demanded that South Korea apologize, the BBC said. The New York Times reported that a North Korean naval officer had died and that three sailors were injured in the incident.



A tit for tat response from a crazy ass dictator who has a well established history of crazy ass actions. Yep sounds about right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
66. Have they completely ruled out SMERSH? And KAOS? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
73. Wuhl....they were thinking about it!
Looks like the "Axis of Weevil" bullshit is still riding high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
76. Washington Post: Analysts question Korea torpedo incident
How is it that a submarine of a fifth-rate power was able to penetrate a U.S.-South Korean naval exercise and sink a ship that was designed for anti-submarine warfare?

Such questions are being fueled by suggestions in the South Korean and Japanese media that the naval exercise was intended to provoke the North to attack. The resulting public outcry in the South, according to this analysis, would bolster support for a conservative government in Seoul that is opposed to reconciliation efforts.

As fanciful as it may sound to Western ears, the case that Operation Foal Eagle was designed to provoke the North has been underscored by constant references in regional media to charts showing the location where the ship was sunk -- in waters close to, and claimed by, North Korea.

"Baengnyeong Island is only 20 kilometers from North Korea in an area that the North claims as its maritime territory, except for the South Korean territorial sea around the island, Japanese journalist Tanaka Sakai wrote in the left-leaning Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.

He called the sinking of the ship an enigma.

"The Cheonan was a patrol boat whose mission was to survey with radar and sonar the enemys submarines, torpedoes, and aircraft ... " Sakai wrote.

"If North Korean submarines and torpedoes were approaching, the Cheonan should have been able to sense it quickly and take measures to counterattack or evade. Moreover, on the day the Cheonan sank, US and ROK military exercises were under way, so it could be anticipated that North Korean submarines would move south to conduct surveillance. It is hard to imagine that the Cheonan sonar forces were not on alert."


The liberal Hankyoreh newspaper in Seoul echoed a similar theme.

A joint South Korean-U.S. naval exercise involving several Aegis warships was underway at the time, and the Cheonan was a patrol combat corvette (PCC) that specialized in anti-submarine warfare. The question remains whether it would be possible for a North Korean submarine to infiltrate the maritime cordon at a time when security reached its tightest level and without detection by the Cheonan, it reported.

More: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/asian_a...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
77. Kim Jong-il's unofficial spokesman: Report a lie, just like Colin Powell's "proof" to the UN.
Says it was friendly fire. Report team split on conclusions.

May 26, 2010
South Korea in the line of friendly fire
By Kim Myong Chol

.....CBS News reported on May 19 a significant Iraq War-like split among multi-national investigators: "The US, Britain and Australia - all of which helped in the investigation - are all prepared to back up the findings. Only Sweden, which also sent investigators, is a reluctant partner in blaming the North Koreans." ...

......

The investigation team did not prove at all the presence of a North Korean submarine at the scene of the sinking at the time of one of the world's greatest military exercises, as illustrated by telltale failures:

# Failure to identify the name of a suspect small, primitive museum piece-like North Korean submarine and the names of its crew. A Toyota vehicle abandoned at the scene of a terrorist attack does not mean that either Japan or Toyota Motor Corporation was responsible for the action.

# Failure to discuss the manner in which the suspected slow-moving North Korean submarine managed to penetrate South Korean waters, operate in shallow waters (depth of less than 30 meters) without being detected by the state-of-art radar and sonar-mounted US and South Korean ships and get away scot-free after the corvette sank in an explosion with a column of water so high (about 100 meters), so flashy and so noisy that a sentry on the shore of the Island of Baekryon witnessed it.

# Failure to cite one of the world's greatest war games that was going on at the scene. Yonhap reported on March 26 from Pyongtaek City on the west coast of South Korea that "The Foal/Eagle US-South Korean joint exercise is currently underway in the West Sea as US Aegis ships arrived May 25 at the Pyongtaek Naval Base where the Second Fleet is headquartered".

# Failure to discuss the presence in the war games on the fateful March 26 night of four Aegis ships, the USS Shiloh (CG-67), a 9,600-ton Ticonderoga class cruiser, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), a 6,800-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, the USS Lassen, a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and Sejong the Great, a 8,500-ton South Korean guided-missile destroyer, most probably supported by US nuclear and South Korean German Type 209 and 212 AIP submarines.

# Failure to refer to the German explosives found at the wreckage of the corvette despite an initial announcement. The Korea Times reported on May 7, "The multinational investigation team is also closely looking into the possibility that a North Korean submarine fired a German-made torpedo used both by the South Korean and American navies in an attempt to dodge its responsibility."

The Blue House (presidential house) was dismayed at the multinational investigators' May 7 announcement that they had detected German RDX in the wreckage and pressured the Defense Ministry not to accept the findings, as Yonhap reported two days later.

# Failure to explain the failure to find and retrieve two harpoon anti-ship missiles and a torpedo tube lost when the corvette sank, while succeeding in recovering the motor and propeller of the spent torpedo.

The investigation team produced what it termed "conclusive evidence": the eye-catching hand-written Korean markings "ilbon" or "No 1" in English found on the propulsion section of the used torpedo allegedly recovered from the sea bed.

This turns out to be most inconclusive and counter-productive, calling into serious question the credibility of the findings. The use of "ilbon" in Korean script - not in Chinese characters - may look like North Korean writing, which is distinctly different from what is written in South Korea.

But native North Koreans use "ilho" for the English "No 1". "Ilbon" is what South Koreans would use, although North Korean street addresses more often than often not do contain numerals like "ilbon".

More: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LE26Dg01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
80. Russia wants '100% proof' N.Korea sunk ship
Thu May 27, 5:48 am ET

MOSCOW (AFP) Russia will not support efforts to punish North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship until it is fully convinced Pyongyang was behind the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman said Thursday.

"We need to receive 100 percent proof of North Korea's role in the sinking of the corvette," the spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

"Our specialists are currently studying the materials of the investigation. We need to draw our own conclusions about what happened. Everything will depend on the situation and the body of evidence."

The comments came a day after Russia announced that it was sending a team of experts to South Korea to assess the evidence about North Korea's involvement in the sinking of the warship, which left 46 sailors dead.

In a separate report, a senior source in Russia's navy suggested that Moscow was unhappy about being excluded from the lengthy multinational investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan, a 1,200-tonne corvette.

The investigation -- which included experts from South Korea, the United States, Australia, Britain and Sweden -- concluded last week that there was overwhelming evidence that the ship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo.

"With the participation of Russian specialists, the results of the investigation into the incident might have been more complete and objective," the Russian navy source told Interfax.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100527/wl_afp/skoreankore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
81. North Korea Officially Denies Involvement In Warship Sinking
5/28/2010 11:34 AM ET
(RTTNews) - North Korea has come out with an official statement denying its involvement in the sinking of the South Korean Navy ship 'Cheonan' in the Yellow Sea near the disputed maritime border of the two countries.

The disclaimer, the first since the March 26 tragedy which claimed the lives of 46 sailors, asked Seoul to conduct an "objective and fair" probe.

Pak Rim Su, head of the policy bureau of North Korea's National Defense Commission (NDC), was quoted as saying by China's official Xinhua news agency that the key to judging the Cheonan mishap lay in whether the South received the inspection group from North Korea.

If the results of the joint probe were "just and honest" Seoul should not have a problem in submitting the "body of evidence" to the inspection group. A senior North Korean military official, meanwhile, displayed simulated images suggesting how the warship could have gone down.

A multi-national probe team has established that Cheonan had been hit by a North Korean torpedo. But the Communist nation rejected the findings and insisted on sending its own team of inspectors for verification.

More: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1319...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pakman Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
82. I wouldn't be surprised
See Gulf of Tonkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pakman Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
83. I wouldn't be surprised
See Gulf of Tonkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
85. N.Korea rejects evidence of sunken S. Korean ship
Posted: 29 May 2010 1034 hrs

SEOUL : North Korea has flatly rejected evidence showing it torpedoed a South Korean warship with the loss of 46 lives, saying it does not own a midget submarine allegedly used for the March attack.

The North's powerful National Defence Commission (NDC), chaired by leader Kim Jong-Il, held a rare press conference on Friday and denied Pyongyang's involvement, according to official North Korean media.

Major General Pak Rim Su, director of the policy department of the NDC, said the North does not have a 130-tonne "salmon-class" submarine, which the South says torpedoed its 1,200-ton corvette, the Cheonan, in the Yellow Sea.

We don't have anything like a 130-tonne salmon-class submersible," Pak was quoted by Pyongyang's Chungang TV as telling reporters.

A multinational investigation led by Seoul concluded earlier this month that the March 26 sinking was caused by a torpedo attack from the North.

South Korean investigators said a salmon-class midget submarine had intruded into South Korean waters via international waters.

But Pak said: "It does not make any sense militarily that a 130-tonne submersible carrying a heavy 1.7-tonne torpedo travelled through the open sea into the South, sank the ship and returned home."

He also rebutted Seoul's allegation that salvaged fragments of the torpedo matched design specifications that appeared on brochures the North allegedly sent to an unidentified potential buyer of North Korean torpedoes.

"Who in the world would hand over torpedo designs while selling torpedoes?" he said.

Senior Colonel Ri Son Gwon dismissed as a "fabrication" a serial number handwritten on a torpedo fragment reading "1 bun" or number one.

South Korea said the serial number handwritten in Korean was strong evidence of Pyongyang's involvement in the sinking.

"When we put serial numbers on weapons, we engrave them with machines," Ri said. "We use 'bun' only for football or basketball players," he said.

Ri said the blame for the incident rested with the "commander-in-chief of the puppet armed forces and military bosses."

Pak said the Seoul-led multinational investigation team was not in a position to conduct an objective probe, attacking Seoul for rejecting Pyongyang's demand that it will dispatch its own investigation team. - AFP/jy
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
86. North Korean general says experts who disagreed with conclusions were expelled from team.
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 29, 2010 -- Updated 1547 GMT (2347 HKT)

(CNN) -- A North Korean official has questioned South Korea's credibility for its rhetoric and actions over the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, state-run media in North Korea reported Saturday.

Maj. Gen. Pak Rim Su lashed out against the South for saying the North Koreans sank the Cheonan warship, a claim fiercely denied by his communist government. He said the evidence produced by South Korea to make its claim has been fabricated.

.......He said that the involvement of the United States shows that the probe couldn't be objective.

Pak said people who disagreed with the investigators' assertions were expelled from the investigation team. He said the changes in investigation results as the case moved forward cast suspicion on the review, according to the state-run news agency's account.

For example, the North Koreans say, the warship captain said at first there wasn't outside provocation but later said there was. And they say the military said at first there were no grounds to say it was an attack by the North but later changed that viewpoint.

The North Koreans say the South is attempting to undermine efforts to promote reconciliation and North Korea's progress. They argue that the claim has served to rally conservative forces in South Korea and help them politically in upcoming elections.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/north.k...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
87. South Korean religious leaders question conclusions of the Cheonan sinking investigation

May 28, 2010 by kyle

COMMENTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE JOINT CIVILIAN-MILITARY INVESTIGATION GROUPS CONCLUSION

.......First of all, we point out that JIGs investigation cannot be fair and objective from the beginning. The Ministry of National Defense and the military, which are the most responsible for the incident took control over the whole investigation. They also made a hasty announcement to meet the first day of the campaign for the coming election on June 2, which left suspicions about the background. If there is any intention to take advantage of 46 young sailors deaths for any political purpose, it will kill them again.

JIGs announcement did not explain anything but left so many questions among Korean people. Now we are asking the following questions.

1. We cannot understand why the crucial moment of sinking is missing from the footage (TOD). The JIG must also release the records of radio messages exchanged and Cheonans CCTV recordings.

2. If Cheonan had sunk due to a shockwave and bubble effect by an underwater torpedo explosion, there must be any eyewitness of the giant water pillar. Moreover, most survivors are not suffering from torn eardrums, intestinal damages, fractures, or lacerations which are the general symptoms of torpedo explosion.

3. There were 13 Korean and US up-to-date ships at the West Sea near the scene. They were conducting a joint military drill at that time. Among those 13 ships are Cheonan, a warship to detect and fight with the submarines, torpedoes, airplanes, and missiles, and another warship Aegis specialized in dealing with submarines. Why couldnt any of the super modern ships detect the attack of the North Korean submarines or torpedo?

4. Why was late petty officer Han Joo-ho searching the third location, not the bow or the stern where the sailors were? Why did the American ambassador and the commander of American Army in Korea attend the memorial service for him to express condolences and pay comport money to his family? The JIG must give a clear explanation to the wide spread suspicions of probable clash between the US and Korean ships or mistaken firing between the two.

5. Why have the survivors been strictly separated and controlled since the tragedy happened? Why are they not allowed to say anything about it, though they know the truth best?

According to JIGs announcement, a North Korean submarine attacked Cheonan with a heavy torpedo and escaped without being detected at all. It means President Lee who is in charge of national security should take full responsibility for what happened and apologize to Korean people. The minister of defense, the joint chief of staff, and the naval chief of staff should do the same thing.

More: http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=7166
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
88. 
South Korea Faces Domestic Skeptics Over Evidence Against North
May 29, 2010, 2:48 PM EDT

May 30 (Bloomberg) -- South Koreas government is trying to stem skepticism about an inquiry that blamed North Korea for the sinking of a warship, according to local media reports.

Prime Minister Chung Un Chan ordered the government to find a way to stop groundless rumors spreading on the Cheonans sinking, the JoongAng Daily said yesterday. Prosecutors questioned a former member of the panel that probed the incident over his critical comments, the paper said. The Joint Chiefs of Staff sued a lawmaker for defamation after she said video footage of the ship splitting apart existed, a claim the military denies, Yonhap News reported.

Almost one in four South Koreans say they dont trust the findings of the multinational panel, according to a poll commissioned by Hankook Ilbo on May 24. North Koreas state-run Korean Central News Agency yesterday accused the Souths puppet military of trying to cover up the truth about the sinking by seeking to silence opposition lawmakers with the lawsuit.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-29/south-korea...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
89. Kick for truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
90. Stephen Gowans: The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident
May 20, 2010

While the South Korean government announced on May 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.

Thats not my conclusion. Its the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Koreas 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 Cheonans sinking. (1)

South Koreas Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonans 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.

Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, We didnt detect any movement by North Korean submarines near the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster. (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarineshave been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to the Cheonans sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, We closely watched the movement of the Norths vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the countrys western sea border. (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

Its unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine. (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which its virtually impossible for submarines to operate. Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea, notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily. (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warships crew, he received an order that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them. (12)

Much more, including motivation: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
91. The sinking of the Cheonan: Accident, false flag or enemy attack?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The sinking of the Cheonan
Accident, false flag or enemy attack?

On March 26 this year, the Cheonan, a South Korean Corvette, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island. Initial reports from Naval and Intelligence chiefs ruled out foul play:

Won Se-hoon, director of the National Intelligence Service, was quoted as saying during a parliamentary committee session that to his knowledge, there was no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said that he had heard nothing to implicate any other country in the incident. "Obviously, the full investigation needs to go forward. But to my knowledge, there is no reason to believe or to be concerned that that may have been the cause," he said.

Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ruled out the possibility, saying, "No North Korean warships have been detected, and there is no possibility of their approaching the waters where the accident took place."....

"We closely watched the movement of the Norths vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking, said Commodore Lee Gi-sik, chief of information operations under the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul, during a media briefing. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the countries western sea border."

"If a single torpedo or a floating mine caused a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine," said Baek Seung-joo of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. Instead, he believes an accident within the vessel is to blame.......

Former Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Song Young-moo, said, "Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea, but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily." Experts say those waters are only 25 m deep and characterized by rapid currents, making it very difficult for North Korean submarines or semi-submersible vessels to operate.

Members of the right wing* Government of Lee Myung Bak took a different tack:

"A torpedo is among the "most likely" causes for a South Korean naval ship that sank close to the disputed border with North Korea last month, killing at least 40 sailors, South Korea's defense minister said."

At this point, Lee's government put a clamp on speculation, gagging official spokesmen.

On May 20 the South Korean government announced that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine. The World's press trumpeted that the "International Inquiry" had unanimously agreed that a North Korean torpedo was the culprit.

This was a slight exaggeration. The committee was not "international" in any bi-partisan sense, it comprised North Korean adversaries America, Australia, Britain and neutral Sweden. Neither was it "unanimous. CBS news reported"

Only Sweden, which also sent investigators, is a reluctant partner in blaming the North Koreans.

More: http://brewerstroupe.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 29th 2017, 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC