North Korea responsible for sinking warship, investigation finds - CNN.com
Just something else to increase tensions in the Pennisula...
Just something else to increase tensions in the Pennisula...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
North Korea responsible for sinking warship, investigation finds - CNN.com
Just something else to increase tensions in the Pennisula...
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?
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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.