Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]

DPRK did ship attack

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove these advertisements.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 19 May 2010, 21:57
Quote:
u Myung-hwan said there was enough evidence to take the issue to the United Nations.

The Cheonan warship went down near the disputed inter-Korean maritime border, with the loss of 46 sailors.

North Korea has denied any involvement. Mr Yu's remarks came as a multinational team prepares to announce the results of its investigation.

It is the clearest indication to date from South Korea that it blames Pyongyang for the sinking of the warship on 26 March.
The ramifications of what has apparently been concluded about the sinking of the South Korean warship are potentially very significant, and very sensitive.

What the official and popular South Korean response now will be is difficult to gauge.

The South Korean authorities will be under great pressure to take a tough stance, economically and diplomatically, although maybe not militarily.

There is talk of referring the matter to the UN Security Council. But that will pose difficult questions for key countries like China, and even the United States, with considerable uncertainties about just how to handle Pyongyang.

The incident has increased tensions between the two nations.

The findings of an investigation led by experts from the US, Australia, Britain and Sweden are to be released on Thursday, with South Korea expected to blame the North.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says that for weeks South Korean media have been full of reported leaks about what that evidence will be.

An anonymous US official in Washington told the Associated Press that the investigating team would lay out evidence that the sinking of the Cheonan was the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.

Part of a torpedo propeller is said to have been discovered on the seabed and traces of explosive found on the wreck are said to match that used in a North Korean torpedo recovered a few years ago.

While the United States appears to be preparing to support the conclusions, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton due to visit Seoul next week, China is taking a more cautious line, our correspondent says.

Its ambassador to South Korea has been quoted as saying that he does not believe that clear evidence has been discovered that proves North Korea's involvement.

Some experts have suggested that the ship could have been sunk as the result of an accidental collision with an unexploded sea mine left over from the Korean War.

But of course this is simply imperialist propaganda, no?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10562
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 May 2010, 22:38
So what?
I hate Kim but i don't see anything overly wrong with that.One imperialist ship sunk.Amen.
These 2 states are basically still in war...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 12917
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 20 May 2010, 01:31
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Misuzu on 20 May 2010, 07:28, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Oddly I have to agree with loz.
Image

لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4340
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 20 May 2010, 20:15
Quote:
The armistice prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack, and South Korea would not risk any retaliation that could lead to war, said North Korea expert Yoo Ho-yeol at Korea University in Seoul.

"That could lead to a completely uncontrollable situation," he said, noting that Seoul and its 10 million residents are within striking range of North Korea's forward-deployed artillery.

South Korea and the U.S., which has 28,500 troops on the peninsula, could hold another round of joint military exercises in a show of force, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think tank.

He also said the military will likely improve its early warning surveillance abilities and anti-submarine warfare capabilities to prevent such surprise attacks in the future.

Analysts said Seoul could move to punish North Korea financially, and Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan also has said Seoul would consider taking it to the U.N. Security Council.

North Korea is accused of waging a slew of attacks on South Korea over the years, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner that killed all 115 people on board. It has never owned up to the attacks, and Seoul has never retaliated militarily.
Image

"It does not suffice to reject the error; we must overcome it, explain it and outgrow it." - Antonio Labriola
Forum Rules
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 7927
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 20 May 2010, 22:49
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Misuzu on 21 May 2010, 02:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: lol owned line 2;
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3688
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 21 May 2010, 02:25
Quote:
line 2;


Oh, no. You put "line 2;". You've found an unknown technicality that prevents me from doing anything!
Soviet cogitations: 9643
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Embalmed
Post 21 May 2010, 08:38
Actually I thought he was referring to line 2 of the report praxicoide posted. And that really is massive ownage.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3031
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 22 May 2010, 11:43
It doesn't seem plausible for the DPRK to randomly sink a RoK vessel in the south side's water. They gain nothing (except for perhaps making the arms-export more attractive to foreign nations) and strangely, they did not take credit for it, which the DPRK has done many times in the past when it shot down offending aircrafts and ships.

Threads of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=131&t=48293
viewtopic.php?f=131&t=48292
viewtopic.php?f=131&t=48291
viewtopic.php?f=131&t=48294
I post Here
Image
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 22 May 2010, 16:16
Ok ok, ive perused your topics and in some respects they make some goods points...But

1) An article blames the States
2) A propeller end just HAPPENS to be near by
3) There was one semi-unbias body in the multinational investigation team that sided with the rest on grounds of evidence.

I'm not going to do my usual siding with the west on this one because even I feel DPRK tech is too backwards to sneak in with a sub and knock out a ship, and me saying they could have done it with a person driven torpedo(ala WWII) is just as, if not more crazy than the article just blaming the states. I lack direct enough evidence from either side to go with one version. If I had pictures of the boat, and a better knowledge of certain things I would.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 23 May 2010, 08:38
Given what I've said in another thread, I have to concede something. I've been doing some reading, and it seems it is possible for a diesel engine WWII era sub to sneak up on a relatively modern ship and sink it. It just has to be quiet enough to avoid detection, which is possible even with the technology of that era. If the South was in war games, they wouldn't have been looking for a North Korean submarine, which would have helped the North's chances. Chinese subs have pulled the same trick on American carrier fleets, but didn't fire any torpedoes. They would just surface and laugh at the American crews shitting themselves. It was done for the shock value of saying “you’re not so superior anymore uncle Sam”.

An experienced commander probably could have done it, even with an old sub. If I was in the North Korean military command, I wouldn't want to be announcing such capabilities in order to maximise their effectiveness in a real war. That could be why there was been no public admission to the sinking.

In any case, I remain doubtful the North is responsible. But it is within the realm of possibility.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 23 May 2010, 17:32
did anyone of you have news of the okinawa base staying in japan? apparently the prime minister promised to remove it after his election but now he is using the north korean ship sinking in order to keep it there. that's why some speculate the attack is a cover to keep the base in japan. the prime minister also has a very small approval rating.
The schizophrenic is the new jew.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3031
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 May 2010, 00:49
Quote:
1) An article blames the States

Yes, and?

Quote:
2) A propeller end just HAPPENS to be near by

Image


Quote:
3) There was one semi-unbias body in the multinational investigation team that sided with the rest on grounds of evidence.

Image
I post Here
Image
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 24 May 2010, 01:20
>powell.jpg
DOH HO HO Rules 2 and 4 Oblisk. Atleast try to abide by your own petty rules.

Why not actually refuting my statements with conclusive evidence. You could have atleast used the argument from my point on blaming the states that evidence could have hypothetically been fabricated on grounds of maintaining the US base in Japan which is now not being given the boot because of just this in order to maintain American superiority in this region.

While something in theory is possible given the US' record for dastardly deeds the evidence as you OH SO LOVE TO REFUTE WITH is both lacking and arbitrary on any level.

Using Mr Colon is a STUPID image macro to argue against my points, which I am assuming involves 'evidence' and Iraq. Besides Hanz going WMD WMD Sweeden remained moderately neutral during the UN inquiry, as did other nations involved with the BEST KOREA investigation. And now DPRK threatens war if blamed for this? Lets keep in mind originally Seoul downplayed this whole thing and DIDNT want to blame the DPRK and did everything to rule that out.

So Oblisk, whats up?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 24 May 2010, 01:57
if further sanctions are given to north korea it's normal that they get pissed as hell. especially if they didn't do it. i don't understand why they would do it at all. and if a rogue officer did it they could blame in and demote him. it's not necessarily the usa but perhaps the japanese?
The schizophrenic is the new jew.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10562
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 May 2010, 01:59
How many tonnes grain does DPRK annually get from the USofA?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 24 May 2010, 17:17
http://www.ncnk.org/resources/publicati ... 8_2009.pdf

i think there was some stop due to the nuclear bomb controversy.
The schizophrenic is the new jew.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 24 May 2010, 20:05
Oblisk wrote:
. They gain nothing (except for perhaps making the arms-export more attractive to foreign nations)

What about a power play? They receive the opportunity to show that they are the better Korea.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4340
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 25 May 2010, 22:19
So they have cut ties to the South.

Quote:
North Korea said on Tuesday it was cutting all ties with the South and threatened its wealthy neighbor with military action over alleged violations of its waters off the west coast.

The comments marked a new high in tensions on the divided peninsula after the March sinking of a South Korean warship, which Seoul blames on a torpedo fired by the communist North.

The increasingly war-like rhetoric hit Seoul's financial markets, prompting policymakers to call an emergency meeting on Wednesday to look for ways to calm investors.

"The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea .... formally declares that from now on it will put into force the resolute measures to totally freeze the inter-Korean relations, totally abrogate the agreement on non-aggression between the north and the south and completely halt the inter-Korean cooperation," the North's KCNA news agency reported.

North Korea will also expel personnel from the Kaesong industrial park, a joint North-South venture just inside its border. It was not immediately clear what impact that would have on factories there.

The industrial estate, in which South Korean firms employ cheap North Korean labor, is an important source of revenue for the Pyongyang leadership.

North Korea earlier said if the South continued to cross into its side of the disputed sea border -- the scene of deadly clashes in the past -- the North would "put into force practical military measures to defend its waters."

The North referred to the South's government as "military gangsters, seized by fever for a war".


So what happens now? The US seems resolute to slap them with more sanctions, and Ban has basically said this was OK. I don't think they'll be able to dodge the bullet here.
Image

"It does not suffice to reject the error; we must overcome it, explain it and outgrow it." - Antonio Labriola
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 9643
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Embalmed
Post 25 May 2010, 22:42
wtf what is going on there. they really seem to want war.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 26 May 2010, 03:58
They being the North or South? Personally, I blame the South mostly. The current government is rabidly anti-Communist and following an aggressive policy to try and choke the North economically, whereas the previous regimes were much more conciliatory.
» Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.