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

Who sank the Cheonan south Korean ship? Questions arise

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove these advertisements.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3031
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 22 May 2010, 11:34
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 21856.html

Questions raised following Cheonan announcement
The huge security breach and torpedo markings have both caused experts to raise questions about the investigation findings released Thursday

Image

» The label “1 beon,” No.1, is written on the shaft of the propeller of torpedo presented by the joint military-civilian investigation team as the evidence of North Korea’s attack, May 20.  

The joint civilian-military investigation team on Thursday presented propeller fragments from a North Korean torpedo as conclusive evidence as to the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan. A number of questions remain, however, such as why no North Korean submarine was discovered after the Cheonan was attacked.

Stealth Submarine?

The investigation team said that a North Korean Sango Class Submarine and Yono Class Submarine had left a naval base on the West Sea some two to three days prior to the attack and returned to base two to three days after the attack. They determined that the Yono Class Submarine carried out the attack.

A Sango, Shark Class Submarine, weighs 300 tons, while a Yono, Salmon Class Submarine, weighs 130 tons.


Until now, military officials have been saying they did not detect any unusual military movements from North Korea.

“From March 24 to 27, the military detected two North Korean Sango Class Submarines, but the likelihood of their connection to the sinking was judged to be weak.” said Defense Minister Kim Tae-young before the National Assembly on April 2.

“We have not detected any unusual movements from the North Korean military,” said U.S. Combined Forces Command Commander General Walter Sharp through a press release on March 28, two days after the sinking.

In other words, at the time, the Sango Class Submarine that was detected around the time of the sinking was not believed to be directly connected with the sinking, while the Yono Class Submarine was not detected at all.

The investigation team confirmed that around the time of the attack, they had been unable to clearly identify the submarines that had left the base. A military intelligence official said later, through comprehensive analysis of all sorts of intelligence material, including communication intercepts, video footage and human intelligence, they belatedly learned that a Yono Class Midget Submarine had left with its mother ship.

This explanation, however, failed to clarify all questions. 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.

“If the North Koreans were to try an ambush in revenge for the Daecheong Island naval clash, they would have done so only after they were certain of success following several infiltration exercises in the waters off Baengnyeong Island,” said a former Navy admiral. “The investigation team announcement basically stated that North Korea had planned an attack with a low probability of success on paper and successfully carried it out on one attempt, but that assessment lacks military credibility.”

In fact, if things transpired as the investigation team announced, then a North Korean submarine penetrated the South Korean-U.S. surveillance net, waited precisely where the Cheonan would be approaching, sank the Cheonan in one shot, and then leisurely disappeared after completely avoiding a naval anti-submarine net that included the Naval ship Sokcho and Linx helicopters.

Some have stated that while it was possible the Cheonan was unable to detect the submarine, it remains difficult to understand how it could not detect the torpedo launch.

“A submarine is supposed to be difficult to detect military, but most torpedoes can be detected,” said Kim Jong-dae, editor-in-chief of defense journal D&D Focus. “It is doubtful they would have been completely unable to detect the launch.”


One military official explained they were unable to detect the torpedo since the one used in the attack had a different audio range from those ascertained by the South Korean military, but some respond that it is difficult to understand why they would not have the audio information contained even in brochures regarding a torpedo that has been produced since the 1980s. Accordingly, in order to clear up these doubts, some are calling for the military authorities to release the communication intercepts to show the North Korean submarine‘s intent to attack. The investigation team, however, has reportedly been unable to secure intelligence data that would confirm clearly the circumstances of the attack besides the fact that the Yono Class Submarine left its base in North Korea.

Torpedo Fragment?

There are also some questions regarding the North Korean torpedo fragment, which was presented as conclusive evidence. First, some experts stated that the marking 1 beon, No. 1, presented as key evidence that it was a North Korean torpedo, is different from typical North Korean markings.

“North Korea does not frequently use the term beon,” said one North Korea expert. “Instead, they use the term ho, as in Daepodong 1-ho, Gangnam 1-ho, etc.”

In fact, a North Korean training torpedo obtained by the South Korean military seven years ago was marked “4 ho.” In light of the fact that the beon discovered on the torpedo fragment and the ho found on the training torpedo are different, the investigation team could not have conducted a precise handwriting analysis. The team said it would consider a plan to determine the similarity through ink analysis, but it is uncertain whether a clear answer will result.

Both appear to have been written by hand inside the torpedo for organization and maintenance purposes, but why one is beon and the other ho is a question.
I post Here
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 42
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Oct 2009, 18:26
Pioneer
Post 26 May 2010, 04:17
Thank you. I have been looking for more information on the sinking from any source. I still have many questions on this. The DPRK usually claims a victory after actions. This incident baffles anyone who watches events in the region.

One thing that is troubling is the recent shifts in the DPRK military. Were some faction in the DPRK military acting unilaterally? Would Pyongyang know?

What is the SIGINT on this incident? We record everything. Was there an increase in traffic after the attack? What was the traffic like days before and after? Given that the West sea is loaded with US hydrophones where is the torpedo signature? There is no doubt that the ship was hit dead center with an external explosion, indicitive of a torpedo.

We need more information. Anyone have a link to the original press conference?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 554
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2007, 05:36
Komsomol
Post 28 May 2010, 04:02
Other possible explanations arise as this subject is quite interesting for any observer.

The current possibility Oblisk (and the North Korean State) is proposing is that they did not destroy the sub and the United States and South Korea are plotting provocation from the DPRK. This is possible.

Another possibility and one I'm personally toying with. Won't be at all popular with those who think the North Korean State is 100% unified (such as Oblisk) but I'd like to toss the idea out there for those who may agree. The idea is that a possible split between the North Korean Military and the North Korean Communist Party exists. The danger with any nation which relies too heavily on the military to either stay in power or repel those who seek to topple them from power is a conflict between the two. The sinking of the submarine could be done by the military as a possible push to the North Korean Communist Party that one of their own should assume leadership after the current leader passes away. When the action was taken, the North Korean Communist Party and military alike claim they had nothing to do with the action (in order to stem possible external action against the DPRK).

Meanwhile internally the power struggle continues. While the military cannot openly subvert the current leadership because of the extensive personality cult which exists, the military can continue to play extremely high risk moves in order to obtain power, increased funding, and more influence on foreign policy matters. The Communist Party leadership will not dare dismantlement or remove funding from the current military for fear of a coupe and the military won't take over the leadership for fear of popular uprising in support of the Communist Party and their Dear Leader. So there exists a stalemate between the two and publicly both sides claim absolute loyalty to the other so that they don't appear weak to international forces.

But that's just an idea
Soviet cogitations: 9643
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Embalmed
Post 28 May 2010, 05:16
That is an awesome idea.


And I really don't want this military taking over.
Soviet cogitations: 833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Komsomol
Post 28 May 2010, 12:07
I think HateBot has a point. I can quite imagine an overzealous commander ordering the destruction of a South Korean vessel independent from his superiors. The North of course can't admit to this (though I think this was the excuse they gave for the kidnap of South Korean citizens a few years ago) as it would implie lack of 100% loyalty to Kim Jong Il and his lack of absolute authority over the military.

It will be interesting to see what China's report concludes as they have said today they won't "protect" whoever did it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 554
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2007, 05:36
Komsomol
Post 28 May 2010, 18:00
I find the entire situation fascinating and China's possible shift in policy even more so. If the Chinese probe claims North Korea did the attack then it would be a drastic shift in policy and something that will have serious ramifications for North Korea. If it finds otherwise however then the situation could tense up even more as a "Us vs them" mentality starts to brew between old allies and the West.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 28 May 2010, 18:41
Quote:
If it finds otherwise however then the situation could tense up even more as a "Us vs them" mentality starts to brew between old allies and the West.


I really hope this happens. North Korea needs a powerful ally (or at least an emerging one) to help get it back on its feet and modernise. Much of its infrastructure badly needs upgrading for a start. The aid China has been giving the north is limited and not enough to get it back to what it was before the collapse of the USSR. In the long term, China getting closer to North Korea could be a stabilising force in the region.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 28 May 2010, 19:53
Quote:
The North of course can't admit to this (though I think this was the excuse they gave for the kidnap of South Korean citizens a few years ago) as it would implie lack of 100% loyalty to Kim Jong Il and his lack of absolute authority over the military.


couldn't they throw him in jail or execute him, something radical to show good faith? though they would be criticized either way.
The schizophrenic is the new jew.
Soviet cogitations: 833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2010, 00:06
Quote:
couldn't they throw him in jail or execute him, something radical to show good faith? though they would be criticized either way.


As in the commander of the submarine? They may well have though it won't be published. If they admit that there are renegade commanders actively destroying South Korean shipping then it shows to both the North Korean people and the rest of the world that Kim Jong Il does not have the authority over the KPA that he says he does.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10556
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2010, 00:12
I don't believe in this "silent war" between the Party and Army.
Party IS the Army,and Army is,well,the Party.
Military has a privileged position in DPRK,it "comes first"-Songun policy.
Military is the strongest guarantee of Kim's rule,and he surely secured it to himself permanently with different privileges.
Army officers are the "Inner party",the elite of DPRK society,that's most likely considering the situation in DPRK.
DPRK has a long history of border conflicts with ROK,and several sea-clashes that even ended in serious damage/sinking(the last one happened in 2007 i think) so this sinking isn't something new or unexpected to me,to be honest.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 554
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2007, 05:36
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2010, 01:52
Quote:
Military has a privileged position in DPRK,it "comes first"-Songun policy.
Military is the strongest guarantee of Kim's rule,and he surely secured it to himself permanently with different privileges.


What happens if they want more then? Or if Kim is beginning to try to wean off support of the military as his country continues to go through extremely difficult times in terms of food/basic services? Or if old Korean War generals have had their eye on control of the Communist Party since his father's reign, but couldn't do so because of a reasonable successor. Now with children of Kim's who aren't high party officials the transition of power is not clear cut in the least and their moment of opportunity to take over the country is drawing near as Kim's health and age begin to fade.

Just some arguments to support the previous one, I find it an interesting alternative theory
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10556
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2010, 09:39
Quote:
What happens if they want more then?

I doubt they could possibly get anything more than they have now.

Quote:
Or if Kim is beginning to try to wean off support of the military as his country continues to go through extremely difficult times in terms of food/basic services?

If he didn't loose Army support during 90's turbulence and Arduous March,it's unlikely that he'll lose it now when the situation has stabilized,warmongers have been pleased with nuclear weapons etc.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 30 May 2010, 01:38
Quote:
If the Chinese probe claims North Korea did the attack then it would be a drastic shift in policy and something that will have serious ramifications for North Korea


luckily for north korea, china is defending north korea as well.
Quote:
BEIJING - South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak has claimed "overwhelming evidence" that a North Korean torpedo sank the corvette Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that there’s "overwhelming evidence" in favor of the theory that North Korea sank the South Korean Navy warship Cheonan. But the articles of proof presented so far by military investigators to an official inquiry board have been scanty and inconsistent.

There’s yet another possibility, that a U.S. rising mine sank the Cheonan in a friendly-fire accident.

In the recent U.S.-China strategic talks in Shanghai and Beijing, the Chinese side dismissed the official scenario presented by the Americans and their South Korean allies as not credible. This conclusion was based on an independent technical assessment by the Chinese military, according to a Beijing-based military affairs consultant to the People Liberation Army.

Hardly any of the relevant facts that counter the official verdict have made headline news in either South Korea or its senior ally, the United States.

The first telltale sign of an official smokescreen involves the location of the Choenan sinking - Byeongnyeong Island (pronounced Pyongnang) in the Yellow Sea. On the westernmost fringe of South Korean territory, the island is dominated by a joint U.S.-Korean base for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The sea channel between Byeongnyeong and the North Korean coast is narrow enough for both sides to be in artillery range of each other.

Anti-sub warfare is based on sonar and acoustic detection of underwater craft. Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it.

North Korea admits it does not possess an underwater craft stealthy enough to slip past the advanced sonar and audio arrays around Byeongnyeong Island, explained North Korean intelligence analyst Kim Myong Chol in a news release. "The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology."

The Cheonan sinking occurred in the aftermath of the March 11-18 Foal Eagle Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint U.S.-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. A mystery surrounds the continued presence of the U.S. missile cruisers for more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended.

Only one reporter, Joohee Cho of ABC News, picked up the key fact that the Foal Eagle flotilla curiously included the USNS Salvor, a diving-support ship with a crew of 12 Navy divers. The lack of any minesweepers during the exercise leaves only one possibility: the Salvor was laying bottom mines.

Ever since an American cruiser was damaged by one of Saddam Hussein's rising mines, also known as bottom mines, in the Iraq War, the U.S. Navy has pushed a crash program to develop a new generation of mines. The U.S. Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command has also been focused on developing counterparts to the fearsome Chinese naval "assassin's mace," which is propelled by a rocket engine.

A rising mine, which is effective only in shallow waters, rests atop a small platform on the sea floor under a camouflage of sand and gravel. Its detection system uses acoustics and magnetic readings to pick up enemy ships and submarines. When activated, jets of compressed air or solid-fuel rockets lift the bomb, which self-guides toward the magnetic center of the target. The blast rips the keel, splitting the ship or submarine into two neat pieces, just as was done to the RKOS Cheonan.

A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, "holes" the target's hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner. The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast.

The initial South Korean review stated that the explosive was gunpowder, which would conform to North Korea's crude munitions. This claim was later overturned by the inquiry board, which found the chemical residues to be similar to German advanced explosives. Due to sanctions against Pyongyang and its few allies, it is hardly credible that North Korea could obtain NATO-grade ordnance.

Thus, the mystery centers on the USNS Salvor, which happened to be yet right near Byeongyang Island at the time of the Cheonan sinking and far from its home base, Pearl Harbor. The inquiry board in Seoul has not questioned the officers and divers of the Salvor, which oddly is not under the command of the 7th Fleet but controlled by the innocuous-sounding Military Sealift Command. Diving-support ships like the Salvor are closely connected with the Office of Naval Intelligence since their duties include secret operations such as retrieving weapons from sunken foreign ships, scouting harbor channels and laying mines, as when the Salvor trained Royal Thai Marine divers in mine-laying in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, for example.

The Salvor's presence points to an inadvertent release of a rising mine, perhaps because its activation system was not switched off. A human error or technical glitch is very much within the realm of possibility due to the swift current and strong tides that race through the Byeongnyeong Channel. The arduous task of mooring the launch platforms to the sea floor allows the divers precious little time for double-checking the electronic systems.

If indeed it was an American rising mine that sank the Cheonan, it would constitute a friendly-fire accident. That in itself is not grounds for a criminal investigation against the presidential office and, at worst, amounts only to negligence by the military. However, any attempt to falsify evidence and engage in a media cover-up for political purposes constitutes tampering, fraud, perjury and possibly treason.

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/05/did-an-american-mine-sink-the-south-korean-ship.php
The schizophrenic is the new jew.
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.