# North Korea sank South Korea war ship



## JimH52 (May 19, 2010)

North Korea responsible for sinking warship, investigation finds - CNN.com

Just something else to increase tensions in the Pennisula...


----------



## martybegan (May 19, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> North Korea responsible for sinking warship, investigation finds - CNN.com
> 
> Just something else to increase tensions in the Pennisula...



Things like this used to be considered acts of war. Wonder what the South Korean people will expect in response.


----------



## elvis (May 19, 2010)

well, the war never officially ended.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 19, 2010)

That's true.. 

Now it all Depends on what S.Korea is gonna do, will they Retaliate? 

But, wouldn't that mean we would also be engaged in the War?


----------



## martybegan (May 20, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> That's true..
> 
> Now it all Depends on what S.Korea is gonna do, will they Retaliate?
> 
> But, wouldn't that mean we would also be engaged in the War?



If the North Koreans were smart they would finger some sub captain for "illegally" firing off a torpedo. By denying it they just piss more people off.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2010)

NK is China's bully boy.  Which is why nothing will be done about this.


----------



## antagon (May 20, 2010)

what can be done?  north korea has nothing to lose, perhaps something to gain in engaging the south.  i would appraise south korea's situation to be the opposite.

the only thing i could think of is a joint counter-submarine operation where we tell them to recall their subs, emplace a surveillance net and sink/raise any subs at sea after a deadline.  sub-on-sub to avoid the risk of surface vessel and helicopter casualties escalating the situation.  aside from the continued risk to shipping, subs also present a security concern as missile delivery platforms which put considerably more territory under threat than their land-based range.

at the same time... there is always the gulf of tonkin approach, although i fail to see any any motive on the part of s. korea or its allies.


----------



## CMike (May 20, 2010)

It's very disturbing.


----------



## Neubarth (May 20, 2010)

antagon said:


> what can be done?  north korea has nothing to lose, perhaps something to gain in engaging the south.  i would appraise south korea's situation to be the opposite.
> 
> the only thing i could think of is a joint counter-submarine operation where we tell them to recall their subs, emplace a surveillance net and sink/raise any subs at sea after a deadline.  sub-on-sub to avoid the risk of surface vessel and helicopter casualties escalating the situation.  aside from the continued risk to shipping, subs also present a security concern as missile delivery platforms which put considerably more territory under threat than their land-based range.
> 
> at the same time... there is always the gulf of tonkin approach, although i fail to see any any motive on the part of s. korea or its allies.



We have listening capacity on the ocean around both Koreas.  I favor letting the South Koreans know exactly where the N K subs are (We can be accurate within 18 inches) so they can sink all of them that are out of port.  That can easily be done with sub launched torpedoes or helicopter launched torpedoes.


----------



## antagon (May 20, 2010)

yeah.  a bit of what i'm getting at.  the key is non-escalation.  you wouldn't want a retaliatory flair as much as a regulatory flair with action against a neighbor you don't want full-on conflict with.  i favor the sub on sub angle because of the technological advantage, particularly with US machines in play, as well avoiding mig vs helicopter showdowns, which would result in certain failure for the good-guys.


----------



## hjmick (May 20, 2010)

Seems that would qualify as breaking the truce...


----------



## Neubarth (May 20, 2010)

antagon said:


> yeah.  a bit of what i'm getting at.  the key is non-escalation.  you wouldn't want a retaliatory flair as much as a regulatory flair with action against a neighbor you don't want full-on conflict with.  i favor the sub on sub angle because of the technological advantage, particularly with US machines in play, as well avoiding mig vs helicopter showdowns, which would result in certain failure for the good-guys.


 In 1982 when I was an antisubmarine warfare officer, I watched with interest the Argentinian invasion of the British Falkland Islands and two other island a thousand miles or more to the east of the Falkland Islands.  The British tried diplomacy and warnings that they would take military action if the Argentinians did not leave the British islands immediately. Argentina placed 20,000 soldiers on the islands and claimed that the Pope had given the islands to Spain when he divided the new world into two regions belonging to Portugal and Spain. Since the Island was English speaking and the British had maintained a colony on the islands for a long time they were not going to budge.

The Argentinians were stupid enough to sail a cruiser out of Buenos Aires knowing full well that the British had nuclear powered subs.  Blam, no more cruiser! British submarine HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano with the loss of well over 400 sailors.  When the appropriate time presents itself, we should use our nuclear powered attack submarines to eliminate all shipping traffic to North Korea.  That might change their attitude towards attacking the south.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 20, 2010)

North Korea needs a spanking. I do not expect anything from the current administration.


----------



## antagon (May 20, 2010)

there's just a lot at stake foremost for the south which would like an economic recovery just like the rest of the world.  the same concern applies to us. the implications of a ship-sinking blockade or a 'spanking' are likely war with north korea, a country which has demonstrated that the state of their citizens or their economy are not top concerns.  any american administration looking to spank without consideration for how much of a war south korea wants to endure, would be errant.  obama's over-labored war decisions might play out well for american interests.  i dont think either bush or kennedy, to name the hottest-headed presidents in recent history, would have acted immediately at this news, to their credit.


----------



## JW Frogen (May 21, 2010)

This is a horrible tyranny, the worst on Earth.

And the real horror of it is it is such a poxy tyranny. There is no need for it to exist at all, except to serve the whims of Killer Kim.

It is a running sore bleeding everyone, China, South Korea, Japan, the US, yet no one will put this rabid dog down!


----------



## martybegan (May 21, 2010)

The primary concern is the amount of damage the NK's could do in the first few hours of a conflict. Even keeping it conventional they have a ton of tube artillery that could hit Seoul and the surrounding areas. 

As for ground forces the NK armored forces could probably gain some ground. I am unsure as to thier ability for sustained operations, and in addition you would have a situation the US Air force has not seen in a long time. A moblie mechanized army on the offensive, out of the range of thier permanent air defenses, with the fighters having to cover occupied territory. 

I think the ground pounders would be hating this situation but the Air Force and Navy Pilots would probably have a field day.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 21, 2010)

I wouldn't be surprised if both are treading very carefully because it's not making a whole lot of sense right now to either side.

The North knows that the South has a defensive pact with the U.S. And the South knows that the North has a defensive pact with China.

This thing hit the North so hard that Kim actually paid a personal visit to Beijing to work out strategy.

Rather than following the media and talking head approach by considering this only at face value, this "incident" reminds me more of one of those things that some thrid party might involve themselves in so that they could hopefully "provoke" some sort of conflict.

The question to me becomes "Who would benefit geostrategically if the the US and China were drawn into a conflict on the Korean Peninsula?"

Certainly not North Korea or South Korea. And certainly not the US or China.

Which tells me that there's probably a bigger game at play and that the stakes are much larger than a potential conflict in Korea. It also explains why movement/response on the issue is so minimal. The South may spin it in the public spectrum to try to force the North into finalizing a peace treaty, but they know there's more behind this than North Korea and China, they don't want to be forced into a war that they don't want.


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

JW Frogen said:


> This is a horrible tyranny, the worst on Earth.
> 
> And the real horror of it is it is such a poxy tyranny. There is no need for it to exist at all, except to serve the whims of Killer Kim.
> 
> It is a running sore bleeding everyone, China, South Korea, Japan, the US, yet no one will put this rabid dog down!



i have long been a critic of bans on assassination of heads of state.  we actually justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians ahead of the elimination of one.  in the case of NK, i think their whole nation is hostage to one idiot, and gambling with the direction of the next in line has more potential for success than with kim.


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if both are treading very carefully because it's not making a whole lot of sense right now to either side.
> 
> The North knows that the South has a defensive pact with the U.S. And the South knows that the North has a defensive pact with China.
> 
> ...



what happened.  a mistake?


----------



## martybegan (May 21, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if both are treading very carefully because it's not making a whole lot of sense right now to either side.
> 
> The North knows that the South has a defensive pact with the U.S. And the South knows that the North has a defensive pact with China.
> 
> ...



Not sure if Im ready to go that deep into a more sinister motive. Occams Razor applies until other data is determined. What is more likely, a nefarious 3rd party organizing WWIII or some trigger happy NK sub commander pickling off a fish at the "enemy"?


----------



## Neubarth (May 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> North Korea needs a spanking. I do not expect anything from the current administration.


Indeed, Ollie!

Galtieri (Sp?) was the dictator of Argentina in 82, and Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of Great Britain.  If anybody knows English history, their female leaders usually have the Biggest Balls in their history.  Attacking England when they have a woman as Prime Minister would be the same as Poland slapping Hitler in the face in August of 1939. Only an idiot would do something that stupid.  

Margie (Maggie) was quoted as saying, if they want war, lets give them a taste of what war is like.

A few hours later the Argentinians lost their prize cruiser.  Funny how that works when you have a real leader in office, one who has hairy pair of king sized balls.  It was England's game, and they won. Let's hear it for Ms Thatcher

We do not have a leader with large hairy balls right now.  In fact, he might be a closet gay.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't be surprised if both are treading very carefully because it's not making a whole lot of sense right now to either side.
> ...



I don't know. A mistake sounds possible but it's probably in the lower end of the probability spectrum. 

Going back to what I said in my post, I'd be looking at third party involvement and determining who benefits if the US and China are engaged. 

For example, last week Russia completed several strategic agreements that severely weakend the US position in the Middle East. With increasing Chinese requirements for Central Asian energy resources and with the US continuing to push for more control over energy producers in the region, you have to consider Russia. How do recent and current events fare for Russia, who has designs on maintaining a strong global presence, and who is very aware that the senior policy makers in Washington have been working a long-term strategy to eliminate Russian dominance in Eurasia.

In fact, some of our most senior policy makers have published a recommended strategy that draws Russia into conflict with China, thereby minimizing the regional dominance of both of them. I don't think it's out of the question to consider whether or not someone else is playing the same game to minimize US influence in the region - especially in light of the new Turkey/Syria/Iran triangle that Russia has just orchestrated.


----------



## Neubarth (May 21, 2010)

martybegan said:


> The primary concern is the amount of damage the NK's could do in the first few hours of a conflict. Even keeping it conventional they have a ton of tube artillery that could hit Seoul and the surrounding areas.
> 
> As for ground forces the NK armored forces could probably gain some ground. I am unsure as to thier ability for sustained operations, and in addition you would have a situation the US Air force has not seen in a long time. A moblie mechanized army on the offensive, out of the range of thier permanent air defenses, with the fighters having to cover occupied territory.
> 
> I think the ground pounders would be hating this situation but the Air Force and Navy Pilots would probably have a field day.


Three carrier task forces in the Sea of Japan would eliminate North Korea as a military power in 72 hours.  That is all it would take.  If Obama had any balls, they would already be on station.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 21, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't be surprised if both are treading very carefully because it's not making a whole lot of sense right now to either side.
> ...



Considering the frequency of geo-political subterfuge in contrast to the infrequency of rogue military commanders, Occams Razor actually promotes the need to consider a thrid party.


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > North Korea needs a spanking. I do not expect anything from the current administration.
> ...



north korea is not argentina, neubarth.  south korea is not an island either party could give a shit about, either.  your take on the situation and the poise of american leadership makes it hard to respect your capacity for thought...  quite similarly to your input on economic matters.  while we're up that alley, have you considered what impact a war in a third theater with a more formidable force would have on your already pessimistic US economic outlook?


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The primary concern is the amount of damage the NK's could do in the first few hours of a conflict. Even keeping it conventional they have a ton of tube artillery that could hit Seoul and the surrounding areas.
> ...



that is silly.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It may sound silly to you but he is right. However a third front right now with this administration at the helm.......No thank you. Not if we can avoid it. However North Korea still deserves a spanking not only for this but all their other little escapades this past 2 years. Does anyone get the Idea that things with North Korea are like a test? Each situation they push a little further.......


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Neubarth said:
> ...


i call bullshit, sarge.  establishing air superiority over north korea wont be like iraq.  in itself, that presents jeopardy to our placing three carrier groups in the region.  moreover, eliminating NKs ground effectiveness will require more than bombing, cruise missiles and shelling.  whatever administration you and neubarth would support which would go riding into conflict with north korea would be plumb stupid, not brave, not respectable.  

an idiot like mccain, for example, is likely to blow his load prematurely.  would that please you war mongers?  _*what purpose benefiting the US or south korea would conflict serve? 
*_
this situation provides the standing which could bring to bare greater diplomatic leverage against the north, where countries on the fence with their position relative to the situation (like china) could be pressed to realize their misplaced allegiance.  it might be yours and neubarth's military background that makes your positions so inept when it comes to strategy and diplomacy, i dont know the cause.  but like the wars in iraq and afghanistan, diplomatic currency is not best spent forcing the hands of your citizens and allies into conflict.  it takes a dense skull not to come away from the last decade with out a clue in that respect.


----------



## antagon (May 21, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Shorebreak said:
> ...



i'll flip a coin on the options...  the commander needn't be rogue.  the whole regime could merely be reckless or righteous about the north's sovereignty over some patch of water.

alternatively, i wont preclude china in publicly destabilizing pyongyang.  they will have the biggest say in any action, simply because their disposition on the matter will define the scope of 'adversary'.

...nor the US.  unless we are drawn into war, we could stand to benefit in some sinister ways i've conjured up.

a world of trouble...


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



War monger? Please don't get stupid. 

It is not difficult to understand the words "not if we can Avoid it."  I do believe that we should, along with the UN, place some very harsh sanctions on North Korea.

What would be even better would be if North Korea actually admitted that one of their commanders made a mistake and they apologized and paid restitution to South Korea and the families who lost loved ones. But i don't see any of that happening either.


----------



## CMike (May 21, 2010)

Perhaps the world knows that we have a pussy for a president?


----------



## Neubarth (May 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> i call bullshit, sarge.  establishing air superiority over north korea wont be like iraq.  in itself, that presents jeopardy to our placing three carrier groups in the region.  moreover, eliminating NKs ground effectiveness will require more than bombing, cruise missiles and shelling.  whatever administration you and neubarth would support which would go riding into conflict with north korea would be plumb stupid, not brave, not respectable.
> 
> an idiot like mccain, for example, is likely to blow his load prematurely.  would that please you war mongers?  _*what purpose benefiting the US or south korea would conflict serve?
> *_
> this situation provides the standing which could bring to bare greater diplomatic leverage against the north, where countries on the fence with their position relative to the situation (like china) could be pressed to realize their misplaced allegiance.  it might be yours and neubarth's military background that makes your positions so inept when it comes to strategy and diplomacy, i dont know the cause.  but like the wars in iraq and afghanistan, diplomatic currency is not best spent forcing the hands of your citizens and allies into conflict.  it takes a dense skull not to come away from the last decade with out a clue in that respect.


The issue is one of projection of presence and of potential power ashore.  I never said a thing about attacking North Korea with the Carrier Battle Groups.  I just said that we could control the skies over North Korea within 72 hours.  Believe me that is all it would take. Our Navy and Marine corp pilots are the best in the world (forgive me Israel, but your pilots do not take off and land on moving ships.) That potential of total war being just off of the coast would be enough to get North Korea from attacking South Korea should things start to flare up.  Obama needs to learn how to use the Navy in a situation like this.


----------



## Neubarth (May 21, 2010)

In 1972 -3 I was a Nuc Power Plant Operator onboard the USS Truxtun, DDGN now called a CGN.  We were airtraffic control ship for North Vietnam. Anything that flew over NorthViet Nam was controlled by our Air Traffic controllers.  We were stationed about ten miles off of the coast of Haiphong harbor and were directing all of the B52s and other bombing runs on that communist country.  Migs took off from NV airfields to attack us.  Not one ever made it close enough to be a valid threat.  The NV pilots were usually riding their parachutes within a minute or two of turning towards our ship.  

We had two carrier battle groups out in the Tonkin Gulf that was enough to totally control the skies over VietNam and Cambodia and Laos.  You do not mess with Carrier Battle Groups. They bring tremendous force and operational capacity to any nearby country.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 22, 2010)

The attack could also have been a test run. 

Imagine what would happen if a very quiet electric submarine were lying in wait for a US carrier task force to pass from one direction while some other naval forces were patrolling nearby. Like Iranian, Russian, Indian, North Korean, etc.

The electric boat sends out a fish (or several fish) from very close range, making evasive maneuvers and countermeasures impossible. To all witnesses and task force participants, it can be seen that the attack came from the direction of the passing naval vessels that are on patrol, and acoustic signatures are tracked directly back to their location.

In the eyes of the US military and the world, the nearby forces would have initiated a deadly attack on a US Carrier that must be responded to immediately. Some third party would be watching us go to war with a nation who was set up to be on the receiving end of an angry US military. At the expense of US lives and dollars.

Some call it far-fetched. I call it something worthy of consideration before jumping head first into a war - especially if the so-called "aggressor" denies guilt in the attack.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

If war breaks out. I support nuking the North Korean army until it begs for surrender.


----------



## Jos (May 23, 2010)

> 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 Korea's Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.
> 
> South Korean officials have not officially accused the North but made little secret of their belief Pyongyang deliberately torpedoed the 1,200-tonne corvette Cheonan in March near their disputed border in retaliation of a naval firefight last year.
> 
> 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


Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report | Reuters
I wonder which nation gets their submarines (for free) from Germany and has a long history of using false flag dirty tricks to trick other nations into wars?
Dolphin class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marc39 (May 23, 2010)

Jos said:


> > 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 Korea's Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.
> >
> > South Korean officials have not officially accused the North but made little secret of their belief Pyongyang deliberately torpedoed the 1,200-tonne corvette Cheonan in March near their disputed border in retaliation of a naval firefight last year.
> >
> ...




Jose, is that the same Reuters that got duped by some pranksters?
The Jawa Report: Eleventy-Million Editors at Reuters, CNBC Duped By Leftwing Hoax

Tsk tsk, Jose.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> If war breaks out. I support nuking the North Korean army until it begs for surrender.





You support forcing a nuclear response against the US from China. Wow. You're a genius.


----------



## Jos (May 23, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Jose, is that the same Reuters that got duped by some pranksters?
> The Jawa Report: Eleventy-Million Editors at Reuters, CNBC Duped By Leftwing Hoax
> 
> Tsk tsk, Jose.


Is that the same mypetjawa as andrew maizels one?
see my Avatar, good looking Schmuck, no


----------



## Marc39 (May 23, 2010)

Jos said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Jose, is that the same Reuters that got duped by some pranksters?
> ...



Sorry I demolished your Reuters link, Jose.  
How is Arizona?


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 23, 2010)

Has there even been an official statement from the White house yet? Or does Obama need 39 meetings and briefings before he can take a firm stand?


----------



## theHawk (May 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Has there even been an official statement from the White house yet? Or does Obama need 39 meetings and briefings before he can take a firm stand?



No doubt they are trying to figure out how to word it, to say the South Koreans need to just bend over and take it up the ass while appearing to take a stand and being strong.


----------



## Shorebreak (May 25, 2010)

Jos said:


> > 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 Korea's Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.
> >
> > South Korean officials have not officially accused the North but made little secret of their belief Pyongyang deliberately torpedoed the 1,200-tonne corvette Cheonan in March near their disputed border in retaliation of a naval firefight last year.
> >
> ...



It also turned out to be a German torpedo:

Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report | Reuters


> The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany



So we have very quiet boats from Germany that are operated by Israel, and we have a German torpedo that the news media is saying was probably used by North Korea to create confusion.

To Israel, the results of US policy towards North Korea have a direct impact on their desires for US policy on Iran. A lack of direct intervention by the US to prevent a North Korean nuclear program has resulted in North Korean development of a nuclear weapons program. Israel currently maintains nuclear hegemony over the rest of the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to move forward with further nuclear development, Israel will no longer be the only nuclear player on their block, which may force them into dealing with the rest of the region on a level playing field. That would be a policy disaster for the Israeli's.

Given the Obama Administration's lack of direct intervention to stop Iran's nuclear program, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Israeli's run a risky gambit to draw attention to the issue. If they could scapegoat North Korea into a military confrontation with South Korea, they could use the event as justification that these "Axis iof Evil" nations who possess nuclear capabilities cannot be trusted, therefore, immediate action must also be taken against Iran.

When you consider the odd nature of this torpedo attack, the North Korean denials, China's toned-down response (as though they do not want to be drawn into a contrived set of circumstances), the slow response of even the South Koreans etc, it makes you wonder if this is another one of those naval events that are intentionally contrived to start a shooting war. 

Release of government records over history on the USS Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin have revealed that these were all preventable of falsified incidents that were used to incite the people into supporting a pre-planned war effort. A documentary film was released just this week on the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean during the Six Day War, where Israeli aircraft attacked the ship for hours in an attempt to sink it and place the blame on Egypt, in an effort to draw the US into the war. In other words, disguising an attack in order to draw others into war is nothing new for Israel.

My hope is that my conclusions are 100% incorrect and that this event is isolated only to North Korea. I'll make my decision by watching how policy towards Iran is effected if this thing escalates into a shooting war. At that point we'll have a clearer understanding of who actually benefitted from this thing.


----------



## Neubarth (May 25, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > 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 Korea's Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.
> ...



The only thing wrong with your supposition is that only one submarine was in the water at the time the torpedo was fired.  That sub consistently sails out of and in to North Korean ports.  No German sub has sailed in to and out of a North Korean port in the ten years time that they US has monitored all traffic in the region.  The sub that sank the South Korean vessel was North Korean.


----------



## hjmick (May 25, 2010)

Holy shit... The Joos did it?


----------



## Shorebreak (May 25, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



As reported by....????


----------



## Shorebreak (May 25, 2010)

Wow. I just found this over at townhall.com from yesterday:

Caroline Glick : South Korea, North Korea, Israel and Iran - Townhall.com


> But while it is true that North Korea's proliferation activities threaten global security, it is also true that there is a qualitative difference between the regimes in Pyongyang and Teheran. The regime in Pyongyang is evil, but it is mainly motivated by its desire to survive. In contrast, Iran's regime is openly revolutionary. Its stated aim is to destroy the global order, annihilate Israel and the US and usher in a Shiite messianic era in which Iran will rule the world in the name of Islam.
> 
> Depressingly, just as the Iranian threat is greater than the North Korean threat, so the Obama administration's denial of the nature of the Iranian threat is greater than its denial of the North Korean threat. Quite simply, the Obama administration refuses to believe the ideology which informs the actions of Iran's rulers is what they say it is.
> 
> ...



No surprises. It seems as though the incident is already being used by Israel to push the US into more direct confrontation with Iran.


----------



## Jos (May 25, 2010)

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


Asia Times Online :: Korea News and Korean Business and Economy, Pyongyang News
So those wiley North Koreans snuck a submarine into the middle of US/ South Korean War Games


----------



## martybegan (May 25, 2010)

Jos said:


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



Diesel electric subs are well suited to an attack such as this. basically the get into position and just maintain trim and steerage until something they want to hit comes into range. 

And btw the AEGIS system is an AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM, it has nothing to do with Anti-submarine warfare. 

The attack to place in disputed waters, by a SK controlled island, but in waters that the NK's say is thiers. 

Finally guided missile destroyers are again, mostly anti-air/anti surface platforms. ASW is handled by frigates and helicopters.


----------



## theHawk (May 25, 2010)

Jos said:


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



Unfortunately your source is completely biased:

Here is some of their biased opinion submitted as if its fact-


> The Korean People's Army Navy *would not attack *South Korean or American warships *unless provoked*, since these vessels carry innocent soldiers on the high seas. True, the KPA Navy would be justified in torpedoing a US Aegis ship or a nuclear-powered submarine if one were caught red-handed. But the KPA Navy *would not stoop to infringing on South Korean waters *to attack a South Korean ship at random, unless it had returned there after committing hostile acts against North Korea.



Really?  They wouldn't attack?  Just because you say so?  

It further goes on to suggest the US military blew up the ship in a training accident (without any proof of course) and that the Hussein covered it up by offering the next nuke summit to be at South Korea.  Yea, as if the Hussein would ever cover up for our military.


Not to mention this whole piece is written by a piece of shit named Kim Myong Chol, a buddy of the tyrant Kim Jong-il who frequently spews propaganda on his behalf.

Yea, real unbiased source there slapnuts.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (May 25, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If war breaks out. I support nuking the North Korean army until it begs for surrender.
> ...



You gotta wonder about some of these people. Yeah, Just nuke em and everything will turn out fine. ~BH


----------



## antagon (May 26, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > i call bullshit, sarge.  establishing air superiority over north korea wont be like iraq.  in itself, that presents jeopardy to our placing three carrier groups in the region.  moreover, eliminating NKs ground effectiveness will require more than bombing, cruise missiles and shelling.  whatever administration you and neubarth would support which would go riding into conflict with north korea would be plumb stupid, not brave, not respectable.
> ...



i think diplomacy is the tool for this situation at this juncture, neubarth.  i fail to see the benefit of doing what you say.  all that i see coming from a mobilization of the fleet, is harms way.  it is not that north korea isn't aware that we can project nuclear power from kansas or las vegas.  we could posture china thusly with the taiwan thing, which this administration has done, but if we engage in a wargames demo near the northern line, this shit has a higher chance of escalating if another ship is damaged or lost, or a submarine from the north(?) is seen to be observing.  why bother.  

the UN could either be indebted to us for asking our support, or we could be indebted to the world for asking theirs, like clinton and the bushs preffered.  i disagree with this latter course of action in light of our being encumbered in two other theaters and in a recession.  i couldn't think why we would do it in a peacetime boom, really. 

your presumption that naval-led action against north korea today will go down like north vietnam in '72 or argentina in '82 is misguided.  as it is brittain lost a couple boats themselves.  why spend $300million moving carriers around korea, and risk hundreds of millions more in equipment, and the invaluable staff without affording any real diplomatic value?


----------



## Andrewmorgan (May 27, 2010)

I agree with tom clancy


----------

