North Korea sank South Korea war ship

[JimH52]

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

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

 

[martybegan]

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]

well, the war never officially ended.

 

[Tom Clancy]

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]

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]

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

 

[antagon]

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]

It's very disturbing.

 

[Neubarth]

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]

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]

Seems that would qualify as breaking the truce...

 

[Neubarth]

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]

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

 

[antagon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

what happened. a mistake?

 

[martybegan]

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.

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"?