S.Korean ship sinking with 100 on board, North attack suspected

[pampango]

Source: Vancouver Sun

A South Korean naval ship with more than 100 on board was sinking on Friday near North Korea and Seoul was looking into whether it was due to a torpedo attack by the North, South Korea's YTN TV network reported.

North Korea in recent weeks has said it was bolstering its defences in response to joint South Korean-U.S. military drills that were held this month.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Korean+ship+sinking+with+board+North+attack+suspected/2729623/story.html

[msongs]

1. gulf of tonkin nt

[Teaser]

3. no. no one wants war with north korea.

.

[Winterblues]

16. I tend to disagree with you. I believe the Right very much wants a "war"

with anyone and everyone..especially North Korea, they consider it unfinished business. Nothing they like more than burning up the military equipment and armaments. That is their major money machine..

[Teaser]

50. oh, some of their crazies do

but no one who has any serious position of power wants a war with North Korea, cause they now NK will go crazy nuts as it goes down.

But this all goes back to a South Korean boat being sunk. To stage that would require cooperation with the SK military. They definitely do not want a war.

[jmowreader]

63. The Right might want a war with them, but the Military does not

According to the unclassified portion of the CIA assessment of the North Korean People's Army, "the NKPA can march farther, faster and carrying heavier loads on less food and less sleep than any other army in the world." They've got division sets of brand-new equipment, which is lovingly maintained and only driven far enough to keep it in good shape, ready for an invasion. They've got five years' worth of canned rice and canned kimchi--the only two foods a North Korean soldier needs--that they rotate in and out of storage so it will still nourish the soldiers.

If the Right were to try going to war against North Korea they'd have to nuke the country or we would lose. There would be no stalemates here like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan--North Korea has an actual army and they would NOT be afraid to use it.

[treestar]

69. But they don't have technology

The country is poor, isolated and weak. Having a large army manpower wise means little nowadays. The Chinese have a huge army and it can't take a small island off their own coast. The huge NK army could not take SK or even begin to.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. No, Gulf of Tonkin was fictional.

This is actually happening, whatever the cause. I hope it isn't a military incident. N Korea would be insane to try anything - they may have a huge military, but it is completely unmotivated and would collapse as quickly as Saddam's huge military did. But it would only take one nut with proper authority to fire off one of their little nukes.

There has not been a direct confrontation between nuclear powers - only proxy wars. We certainly don't want to start now.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Too bad the article has so little information. Anyone know of good streaming SK English news....

...sources?

PB

[pampango]

7. Don't know that, but here's an update from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602048.html

"A South Korean naval vessel with more than 100 aboard was sinking on Friday in waters near North Korea and Seoul was investigating whether it was hit in a torpedo attack by the North, South Korean media said.

Broadcaster SBS said many South Korean sailors on the stricken vessel were feared dead.

South Korea's YTN TV network said the government was investigating whether the sinking was due to a torpedo attack by the North, and Yonhap news agency said the Seoul government had convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers.

Yonhap also reported a South Korean navy ship firing toward an unidentified vessel to the north. "

[hayu_lol]

9. Just google...

sinking Korean ship.

Lots of sources...as well as several about the N Korean ship headed for Iran.

[Adsos Letter]

25. Do you think the SK ships were trying to intercept the Iranian-bound NK vessel?

[Pavulon]

43. Who knows but I bet every sub fielded by N Korea

can be sunk at the exact same time on an order. There is a whole bunch of US navy in the area.

[UndertheOcean]

5. This is scary

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. technically, an act of war,

which never ended, and as allies of S. Korea, we....

Well, you know the rest.

Further details are awaited.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I agree, deeply concerning. nt

[crim son]

6. Crap.

Just what the world needs.

[Pavulon]

10. There are a very large number of US troops

there and a massive naval capability in the area. surface and sub, both fast attack and ohio class (nation killing) subs are already there.

[whats_a_zip]

13. Then we should get them home

This isn't our fight, let them solve it on their own.

[Akoto]

14. Unfortunately, it would become our fight.

South Korea is a long time ally of the US. If they were attacked by the North, we would be obligated to assist them. That's part of the reason we station military forces in the area.

It would also not particularly be in our interests to see the South, a democratic government, fall to the North, which is ruled by a crazy man.

[whats_a_zip]

15. What obligation?

A united Korea would ease tensions. Do you want to die to keep them separate?

[Akoto]

18. You can't be serious.

The North is a country which routinely violates every chance the international community offers for peace. The government is ruled by a man who is, at best, unbalanced. He has no interest in a Korea united for peaceful purposes. If he drove south and destroyed the democracy there, it would just as quickly become the isolationist poverty-ville that the North already is.

I must again emphasize that South Korea, our ally, was not the aggressor in this incident. They were attacked, and as their ally, it would be our diplomatic obligation to assist them.

[whats_a_zip]

19. So you do want to die for South Korea?

No one I know does.
North Korea is bordered by China.
Let China figure out what to do with them.

We have no obligation to South Korea, I believe we spilled enough blood their already. Bring our troops home, quit spending money on SK's defense, and let NK, SK, and China figure it out.

[cowman]

23. You have no Idea

of what would happen if N.K. were to invade S.K. do you. I spent time there in 72 at the DMZ, the NK are very brutal. So your solution is for us to run everytime a loyal allie is threatened? I'm glad Obama is in charge and not you.

I've seen the ugly side of war and I hate it but I also know that we can't just abandon our friends

[yodermon]

28. NK has massive artillary aimed directly at Seoul. My In-laws are in Seoul.

Please think about the implications of what you're saying.

[proteus_lives]

37. Are you 12?

Or just have no concept of history, allies and democracy? Not to mention politics.

[ronnie624]

55. I know the U.S. has a lengthy HISTORY of aggressive imperialism,

and that U.S. intervention in Korea bears a major portion of responsibility for the current situation there.

[proteus_lives]

62. Actually, it' Japan, China, Russia, North Korea.

Who are to blame for the situation there.

1. Japan for conquering and ruling the peninsula as part of their empire.

2. Russia/China for invading at the end of WWII and forcing the Western allies to garrison the southern half of the country to prevent communist ruin. (Because Stalin already broke his word to allow free election in Eastern Europe).

3. North Korea for beginning the war, China and Russia for keeping the war going and China again for continuing to prop-up the vile NK regime.

I blaming the US for everything is very fashionable but check your facts.

[ronnie624]

67. And then, out of a sense of genuine altruism and global responsibility,

Curtis Le May came riding to the rescue.....by bombing every city in North Korea to ashes.

The End


There's good reasoning for why the U.S. is the most feared nation on earth.

[proteus_lives]

72. Do you really think we should have let South Korea be overwhelmed?

[ronnie624]

73. I don't know.

Do you believe the U.S. military should murder millions of women and children?

[proteus_lives]

74. What are you talking about?

Bombing North Korea?

[Pavulon]

64. NATO, you mean nato right?

google is your friend.

[ronnie624]

68. Yeah, that's the ticket, NATO did it.

It was NATO that was directing U.S. foreign policy immediately after World War II.

[Pavulon]

70. 10 years is not immediate. This aint chavez friend

you should not just jump on a topic like this with zero knowledge. just wiki the korean war then post please..

[ronnie624]

71. The division of Korea

into North Korea and South Korea stems from the 1945 Allied victory in World War II, ending Japan's 35-year colonial rule of Korea. In a proposal opposed by nearly all Koreans, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to temporarily occupy the country as a trusteeship with the zone of control demarcated along the 38th parallel.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea>

[Pavulon]

77. Opposed because they did want to live in a communist state?

or be under soviet control? Who were the combatants in the korean war?

[Pavulon]

39. No but there are plenty who are ready to kill for it.

we do have a non aggression treaty with south korea and any attack on us forces there would involve invoking the nato treaty. If they attack the south directly it will start a shooting war involving NATO. Lots of people will die.

Bet your ass there are tomahawks standing by as well as f117's, b2's, and subs ready to deliver nuclear weapons in the event the north decides to use them first.

This is not social studies friend. There is a longstanding plan to deal with this situation.

[citizen snips]

41. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country....

He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton

[crim son]

33. Have our troops been killing people?

Just curious why you posted that.

[Statistical]

56. He was referring to Ohio class sub as a "nation killer"

It carries 24 Trident ICBM with total of 96 nuclear warheads.
It is a nation killer. Hopefully in the history of mankind it will never be used offensively.

[AngryAmish]

11. I'm sure cooler heads will prevail, right?

[nc4bo]

17. I'm not so sure.

:scared: :nuke:

Very disturbing development.

[Adsos Letter]

24. I,m trying to recall the last time an event of this magnitutde occurred there...

...not coming to me, at the moment. :(

[GreenStormCloud]

45. January 23, 1968, NK captured the U.S.S. Pueblo

LBJ was president. There were congressmen who wanted to go to war with them over that.

[Poll_Blind]

20. Historically, they do scrap a bit then cool off. The stakes are pretty high otherwise.n/t

PB

[IScreamSundays]

21. I've read a couple of reports on Google news that the ship has sunk

59 were rescued, the rest are dead or missing

Here is one of the stories:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/s-korean-navy-ship-sinks-near-dmz-reports-2010-03-26-1137100

[Poll_Blind]

22. Yeah, there's a bit of confusion also about how many SK ships were involved (1 or 2).n/t

PB

[Uncle Joe]

66. There are some serious wing-nuts commenting on that site.

It almost sounds like they want to encourage international instability.

[superconnected]

26. So are the 104 people dead? Were they saved?

I'll care about who sunk the ship after I find out if the people are okay.

[Adsos Letter]

27. I was just looking at AP news; sounds like they have rescued almost 60 crew at this point

no confirmed casualties yet.

[superconnected]

47. Thank you, that's the new's I really want to hear on this one, at this point.

[Adsos Letter]

29. UPDATE

Source: AFP--20 minutes ago


~snip~
South Korea's government called an emergency security meeting but a presidential spokeswoman said it was still unclear whether the sinking resulted from a clash with North Korea.

~snip~
A South Korean naval vessel had opened fire on an unidentified object but it was later found to be a flock of birds, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said

http://www.canada.com/news/Korea+navy+ship+sunk+near+Korea+border+Media/2730189/story.html

[davidthegnome]

32. A flock of birds?

Were tensions sky high or did we have a trigger happy Captain or....?

I'm not that well versed in naval combat or even naval vessels, but it just strikes me as kind of ridiculous that a flock of birds could be mistaken as a dangerous enemy.

[Poll_Blind]

34. They might have showed up as a radar return. A big enough group of birds...

...have been known to cause radar returns consistent (at least for a short period of time) with more-menacing objects.

PB

[davidthegnome]

36. That makes sense

Thanks

[Blue_Tires]

54. even if the flock was big enough to cause a blip, certainly it wasn't

moving at anywhere near the speed of a conventional military aircraft, right?

and aren't there supposed to be a bunch of procedural safeguards in place to make sure a target is verified friend/foe before firing??

[Statistical]

57. Targets beyond visual can never be identified foe.

The term IFF (Identify Friendly or Foe) is a misnomer. It can only ID friendlies. So everything is friendly or possibly hostile.

Given that a fellow ship was sinking and initial conclusion was an enemy attack I could see someone launching on an incomplete signature.

Generally in modern naval warfare the ship who fires first wins.

[Phoonzang]

46. Was a weather balloon and Venus involved as well?

Weird.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. This is one reason why we should NEVER have been in Iraq!

If this starts things swirling the drain on the Korean peninsula, we will HAVE TO support the South with all possible speed, something that's kinda hard to do when you have half of your available armed forces tied up in Iraq.

[Pavulon]

40. There are resources available to deal with this

both on the peninsula and in Germany and the conus.

[ColesCountyDem]

48. Perhaps, but perhaps not.

It really depends on what transpires, doesn't it?

[Pavulon]

49. No, no matter what they do they will loose.

the only variable is how many are killed in the process. We don't paint schools, or broker peace with sunnis and shias, we do destroy nations and their armies. Saddam had a very large standing army, 2 months later he had nothing. In gw1.

[ColesCountyDem]

53. I never said they wouldn't lose.

With whom and about what are you arguing?

[Statistical]

58. The troops in South Korea are essentially a speed bump

I say this will all respect for men in Uniform and as someone who spent a year in Camp Casey.

Most optomisitic projections is land forces would be overwhelmed (mainly due to ammunition depletion) within 2-3 hours of a full scale invasion.

The 16,000 troops on the Peninsula exists as the most powerful insurance policy in the world.

No possible way North Korea can invade with out killing Americans soldiers by the thousands.
We know this. They know this.
The public outrage (imagine CNN showing photos of burning American tanks and troops lying in mud) would give President the political cover to do anything that is necessary.
This would be everything up to and include authorization for nuclear release.
We know this. They know this.

North Korea can invade South Korea at any time and we can't stop them. At best we can delay them. However doing so would be signing their own death warrants.

[davidthegnome]

31. Let's hope this is an accident or misunderstanding

A war we actually would truly have to fight is in no one's best interests now. Especially ours. Considering that we're already fighting two, facing a massive deficit on top of political and social unrest, the unemployment rate....

If North Korea and South Korea go to war, the US is indeed obligated to act in support of the South. My concern is what China would do. If there's a greater power in the universe, I hope it has an interest in preventing this kind of absolute disaster.

[tekisui]

35. Dammit. This is a horrible devlopment. Another link:

AP saying there was an explosion prior to the ship taking on water.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

[CLANG]

38. Don't worry about this

Both sides have too much at stake for this to get out of hand.

[Pavulon]

42. Game theory relies on both parties being sane

dealing with a stroked out old man may does not fit that model. this is dangerous and could end in a war with nato.

[CLANG]

44. Of course it's possible, but not very likely

[Statistical]

59. I think for the 40+ who already died it has already gotten out of hand. n/t

[Snazzy]

51. AP: SKorean naval ship sinks near NKorea; 46 missing (10 pm)

SKorean naval ship sinks near NKorea; 46 missing

By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer


SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korean authorities were stepping up the search for sailors still missing hours after a naval ship sank near the disputed sea border with North Korea.

Navy and coast guard vessels as well as air force planes were searching the waters near South Korea's Baeknyeong Island where the 1,200-ton "Cheonan" sank earlier Saturday during a routine patrolling mission.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff said rescuers have picked up 58 sailors but 46 others are missing. Presidential spokeswoman Kim Eun-hye said President Lee Myung-bak ordered officials to quickly find the exact cause of the accident by keeping in mind all possibilities.

The president also reconvened a security meeting and instructed officials to make utmost rescue efforts.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_SKOREA_SHIP_SINKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-26-22-03-21

[Snazzy]

52. NKorea threatens 'nuclear strikes' on SKorea, US (6am Friday)

NKorea threatens 'nuclear strikes' on SKorea, US

By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea's military threatened South Korea and the United States on Friday with "unprecedented nuclear strikes" as it expressed anger over a report the two countries plan to prepare for possible instability in the totalitarian country, a scenario it dismissed as a "pipe dream."

The North routinely issues such warnings. Diplomats in South Korea and the U.S. have repeatedly called on Pyongyang to return to international negotiations aimed at ending its nuclear programs.

"Those who seek to bring down the system in the (North), whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army," North Korea's military said in comments carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The North, believed have enough weaponized plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs, conducted its second atomic test last year, drawing tighter U.N. sanctions.

....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-26-06-34-59

[struggle4progress]

60. ... But by dawn, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said they could not conclude that the reclusive

North was behind the sinking of the 1,200-ton patrol boat Cheonan, which was on routine duty near Baengnyeong Island with 104 crew members when it began taking on water. An official from the president's office said satellite pictures showed no sign of hostile military activity in the area. Other officials, noting that the area was known to be rocky, speculated that the ship may have had an accident ...
46 South Korean sailors missing after naval ship sinks
Fears of possible warfare with North Korea spread overnight, but officials later back away from claims that there was an attack on the vessel.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-south-korean-ship27-2010mar27,0,302430.story

... “With all possibilities in mind, we should thoroughly and promptly ascertain the truth,” Lee was quoted by his spokesperson as saying during the meeting. “I call on the military to make all-out efforts to save survivors.” Due to lack of evidence to verify the exact cause of the incident, the president deferred the discussion on the cause of the incident to the next meeting which is yet to be scheduled ...
Military strives to verify cause of vessel sinking
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/03/27/201003270055.asp

[struggle4progress]

61. 'U.S. has no evidence on N.K.'s involvement'

The United States Friday said it has no evidence that North Korea is involved in the tragic sinking earlier in the day of a South Korean warship in waters near the sea border with the North, Yonhap News reported. "Let's not jump to conclusions here," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said. "I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect. But I think the authoritative source here would be the South Korean government" ...

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/03/27/201003270057.asp

[Pavulon]

65. Sounds pretty reasonable. Best to be sure.. Norks already threatening

nuclear war. So no reason to start a chain of events that may lead to having to kill a nation full of people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Did you fashion that term yourself? "Norks"?

Lovely.

[CLANG]

76. It's a british term for North Koreans.

At least I've heard it from brits/aussies.

[Pavulon]

78. NORth + Korea

was in popular use in the Army in the 90's I assume it still is.

[tedk_355]

79. god i hope this doesn't mean war