The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

[Finn McCool]

How many people believe that North Korea is a puppet of China and everything North Korea does is under orders from Beijing? Many.

People seem to be easily insensed by the mere suggestion that this incident is a conspiracy and that many innocent lives would be sacrificed. Like I mentioned before, former US presidential candidate and said to be the US leading expert on North Korea, Bill Richardson, said that all of North Korea's antics are actually a cry for help to the US to save them from the Chinese. No matter who's responsible, no matter the reason for this incident, it shows that innocent lives can be sacrificed under conspiracy to impress the US.

This is an example of how one side's paranoia comes back around and bites them in the ass. Too bad politicians and the media don't shoot down the ridiculousness coming from their end. Never saw anyone tell Bill Richardson how crazy that sounds but its a big ego boost to believe someone will go to that extreme, including killing those South Korea sailors, just to impress Americans. That's why it doesn't get called out.

So who's the one being absurd?

Some random American bureaucrat said an incorrect thing about North Korea. Gasp! THE CHEONAN WAS SUNK BY A US SUB!

Yep, that seems about right to me.

Planeman is right. While the investigation and explanation of the sinking have certainly been less than perfect, there is just not a motive for a conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't fit with the timeline of known events either: the SK government tried to blame the sinking on an accident first and was actively trying to suppress speculation about NK responsibility until the evidence that it was not an accident became too large to be ignored.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Some random American bureaucrat said an incorrect thing about North Korea. Gasp! THE CHEONAN WAS SUNK BY A US SUB!

Yep, that seems about right to me.

Planeman is right. While the investigation and explanation of the sinking have certainly been less than perfect, there is just not a motive for a conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't fit with the timeline of known events either: the SK government tried to blame the sinking on an accident first and was actively trying to suppress speculation about NK responsibility until the evidence that it was not an accident became too large to be ignored.

Never said the US was behind it but I know many countries would do it just to impress the US. Bill Richardson, who is not some willy-nilly politician from the back woods of America, believes North Korea would threaten to use nukes on South Korea and Japan all to get the US's attention to help save them from the Chinese. And like I said, no one calls him out on it unlike accusations of conspiracies involving Western allies. He's still used as an expert on North Korea. Like I said from the beginning South Koreans are not devoid of crazies. The Asia Times article I posted shows excitement how much rewards South Korea can reap because of this incident. And that article wasn't written from a belief of conspiracy and anti-South sentiment. Another US allies in the region too fabricated an event for sympathy during an election where he was polling low and it worked.

 

[Finn McCool]

Never said the US was behind it but I know many countries would do it just to impress the US. Bill Richardson, who is not some willy-nilly politician from the back woods of America, believes North Korea would threaten to use nukes on South Korea and Japan all to get the US's attention to help save them from the Chinese. And like I said, no one calls him out on it unlike accusations of conspiracies involving Western allies. He's still used as an expert on North Korea. Like I said from the beginning South Koreans are not devoid of crazies. The Asia Times article I posted shows excitement how much rewards South Korea can reap because of this incident. And that article wasn't written from a belief of conspiracy and anti-South sentiment. Another US allies in the region too fabricated an event for sympathy during an election where he was polling low and it worked.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. You DO realize that the ruling party in South Korea LOST the recent elections right? And that this is generally believed to be because of their mishandling of the Cheonan incident? So how is that "fabricating an event for sympathy during an election where he was polling low and it worked"?

And maybe I'm just being dense here but what do you mean that "many countries would do it just to impress the US." Are you suggesting that Japan or SK sank the Cheonan to frame North Korea and curry favor with the US? Why would they do that? Why not just do something thats not criminal and could possibly start a nuclear war, like...I don't know lowering the tariff on bike tires or something?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but you're just not stating your points clearly.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. You DO realize that the ruling party in South Korea LOST the recent elections right? And that this is generally believed to be because of their mishandling of the Cheonan incident? So how is that "fabricating an event for sympathy during an election where he was polling low and it worked"?

And maybe I'm just being dense here but what do you mean that "many countries would do it just to impress the US." Are you suggesting that Japan or SK sank the Cheonan to frame North Korea and curry favor with the US? Why would they do that? Why not just do something thats not criminal and could possibly start a nuclear war, like...I don't know lowering the tariff on bike tires or something?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but you're just not stating your points clearly.

They lost because it was a miscalculation on their part. But like I pointed to that Asia Times article that had little to do with elections but how this incident was going create epic change in the Far East in favor of South Korea.

Any one of them and more are capable of it. My money is in fact on some accident whether explosion or a Kursk-type incident and they just exploited it. No misunderstanding. Yeah I do believe Japan, even though I don't believe it in this case, and South Korea are very capable of creating a lie for some geo-political end. During the 80s all I heard by Americans was how Japan was plotting to take over and enslave the world but somehow this is far-fetched?

This is the prejudice I'm talking about. You think it unthinkable that Japan and South Korea would lie. Guess what? All their regional political maneuvering is about putting the US in between China and them. The US is a free army they don't have to pay for. Plenty of countries in the region playing up the China threat. Why? To curry economic and military favors. And again the US will defend them at no cost because they know they can exploit US paranoia over China. How many news articles do we read about how all of China's neighbors are nervous and need the US to protect them? You seem to keep avoiding the fact the number one expert on North Korea, Bill Ricahrdson, too believes countries will go to great extremes to impress the US as I pointed to his belief all of North Korea's antics... building nukes, threatening nukes, this incident... is all about crying for the US's help to save them from China. Someone can believe that but you don't think these people will cross the lines and sacrifice innocent lives? What was first an ego boost to think people will go to these extremes to impress the US now looks like arrogance in my context? People don't bring it up to Bill Richardson that it sounds like arrogance to believe that because it's a boost to the ego at first glance. It's someone like me that puts it into the proper context and no one likes it because it's true. So by Bill Richardson's own logic, who still is looked upon in the US as the leading North Korean expert, my charge that other countries in the region will go to extremes to impress the US is confirmed by him. If people disagree with him, then maybe someone should've called him out on it but they didn't because they liked what they heard from him.

 

[Finn McCool]

They lost because it was a miscalculation on their part. But like I pointed to that Asia Times article that had little to do with elections but how this incident was going create epic change in the Far East in favor of South Korea.

Any one of them and more are capable of it. My money is in fact on some accident whether explosion or a Kursk-type incident and they just exploited it. No misunderstanding. Yeah I do believe Japan, even though I don't believe it in this case, and South Korea are very capable of creating a lie for some geo-political end. During the 80s all I heard by Americans was how Japan was plotting to take over and enslave the world but somehow this is far-fetched?

This is the prejudice I'm talking about. You think it unthinkable that Japan and South Korea would lie. Guess what? All their regional political maneuvering is about putting the US in between China and them. The US is a free army they don't have to pay for. Plenty of countries in the region playing up the China threat. Why? To curry economic and military favors. And again the US will defend them at no cost because they know they can exploit US paranoia over China. How many news articles do we read about how all of China's neighbors are nervous and need the US to protect them? You seem to keep avoiding the fact the number one expert on North Korea, Bill Ricahrdson, too believes countries will go to great extremes to impress the US as I pointed to his belief all of North Korea's antics... building nukes, threatening nukes, this incident... is all about crying for the US's help to save them from China. Someone can believe that but you don't think these people will cross the lines and sacrifice innocent lives? What was first an ego boost to think people will go to these extremes to impress the US now looks like arrogance in my context? People don't bring it up to Bill Richardson that it sounds like arrogance to believe that because it's a boost to the ego at first glance. It's someone like me that puts it into the proper context and no one likes it because it's true. So by Bill Richardson's own logic, who still is looked upon in the US as the leading North Korean expert, my charge that other countries in the region will go to extremes to impress the US is confirmed by him. If people disagree with him, then maybe someone should've called him out on it but they didn't because they liked what they heard from him.

You're starting at a conclusion and working backwards. You want to make this a manifestation of the "China threat" and you want to assume that I can't see the "grand truth". But I'm sorry, your contorted logic just doesn't work.

I don't care what Bill Richardson says. I don't care about what complex psychological motives you claim are at work here. What we have to ask is:

A) in a cost benefit analysis, is it reasonable that the South Korean government would fabricate an incident in the hopes that it would persuade the United States to increase it's defense commitment to North Korea

B) That the fabrication would be done in such a way that it would leave doubt (something you yourself have admitted)

C) That the South Korean government would try to deepen its cover by failing to directly link the sinking to North Korea and first trying to say it was an accident

I think the answer to these questions is no. Furthermore, there simply isn't a direct enough link between increased US commitment to South Korea and the Cheonan incident. What I'm trying to say is that if the SK government sank the Cheonan and blamed in North Korea, it opens a can of worms with very real possible negative immediate consequences. Increased US commitment to Korea and East Asia in general would only be a long-term consequence, and an indirect one at that. There's too many possibilities at play to have a neat cause-effect relationship like "Cheonan sinks -> SK doesn't have to pay for it's defense and US protects it from China". I'm having a hard time defining the concept I'm getting at but basically what I'm saying is that even if SK did sink the Cheonan there's no guarantee at all that it would have the grand geopolitical effects you are asserting it would.

Lastly I take issue with the assertion that South Korea wants to be protected from China so badly. I think you have a predisposition to see everyone as out to get China. If anything South Korea has been trying to walk a line between the US and China in recent years. It's been South Korean policy to take over more responsibility for their own defense.

Like Planeman said, conspiracy theories fail at the macro level.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You're starting at a conclusion and working backwards. You want to make this a manifestation of the "China threat" and you want to assume that I can't see the "grand truth". But I'm sorry, your contorted logic just doesn't work.

I don't care what Bill Richardson says. I don't care about what complex psychological motives you claim are at work here. What we have to ask is:

A) in a cost benefit analysis, is it reasonable that the South Korean government would fabricate an incident in the hopes that it would persuade the United States to increase it's defense commitment to North Korea

B) That the fabrication would be done in such a way that it would leave doubt (something you yourself have admitted)

C) That the South Korean government would try to deepen its cover by failing to directly link the sinking to North Korea and first trying to say it was an accident

I think the answer to these questions is no. Furthermore, there simply isn't a direct enough link between increased US commitment to South Korea and the Cheonan incident. What I'm trying to say is that if the SK government sank the Cheonan and blamed in North Korea, it opens a can of worms with very real possible negative immediate consequences. Increased US commitment to Korea and East Asia in general would only be a long-term consequence, and an indirect one at that. There's too many possibilities at play to have a neat cause-effect relationship like "Cheonan sinks -> SK doesn't have to pay for it's defense and US protects it from China". I'm having a hard time defining the concept I'm getting at but basically what I'm saying is that even if SK did sink the Cheonan there's no guarantee at all that it would have the grand geopolitical effects you are asserting it would.

Lastly I take issue with the assertion that South Korea wants to be protected from China so badly. I think you have a predisposition to see everyone as out to get China. If anything South Korea has been trying to walk a line between the US and China in recent years. It's been South Korean policy to take over more responsibility for their own defense.

Like Planeman said, conspiracy theories fail at the macro level.

No, South Korean needs are more complex. They already have US protection. I was talking about as an example there are plenty of other nations that would love to have that kind of relationship that both Japan and South Korea have with the US and are crazy enough to pull some sort of stunt to get it as Bill Richardson has supported with his notion that other countries like North Korea will go to great lengths to get the US's attention. Don't tell me he's a lone wolf on that belief because up until now, I'm the only one that has called that belief full of bull. That article I posted is a great example of higher aspirations of South Korea which will need US support for that to happen. Plus I did not endorse that as "it." I merely used that as a possible example of motive. From the beginning I have always pointed out that the situation the way it's playing out and how the US, Japan, and South Korea have put this on China's lap is the least dangerous to them. The West believes sanctions and embargos work. I don't know if this incident is fabricated or not but those parties are certainly exploiting it. Get China, even if it's through deception that NK has committed this crime, to commit to sanctions because North Korea has gone too far and is threat to stability. If it works to what they expect... advantage to the US, South Korea and Japan and the North collapses and China has to deal with refugees on crossing its borders. If it doesn't work then now North Korea might get angry and start pointing those nukes at China now. Advantage again to the US, South Korea, and Japan. They lose and cost them virtually nothing from either scenario while China gets the shaft. If South Korea has the right to retaliate then why haven't they done it? China has already said it's not going protect those responsible which means it recognized South Korea's right to retaliate. So what's stopping them? Everything on the South Korean allies side they say want done because of this incident is what they've always wanted done without the torpedo incident. The ultimate goal has always been to collapse the North. If this was about righting a wrong done committed by the North then the South would strike militarily. But all they're doing is the same plan of sanctions and embargos as usual. It doesn't sound like they're that angry over their sunken ship that much. All it sounds like is the plan as always to choke the North to cause a collapse. Am I definitely for conspiracy? No. It's just as likely as how the people who side with South Korea so easily believe in conspiracy against them. But definitely there is exploitation going on here. Which is why China should not be baited and follow. If the South believes it has the right to retaliate, then do so and face the consequences. It should not come at only China's expense which is what they're trying to do.

 

[SampanViking]

Conspiracy theories need you to believe:

a) that either ROK or USA wants a potentially nuclear war with DPRK
b) or, is willing to risk that to...
c) because USA wants to remain in Japan/Okinawa/wherever
d) and that the cost of a warship and the lives of half its crew were expendable
e) and that the torpedo is a ROK/USN/Western type yet none of the thousands of personnel or foreign governments has recognised the model of torpedo...
f) or that the torpedo was coincidentally there from some past incident
g) or that a US submarine did the dirty deed but no-one has leaked this from within US military.... or the people re-arming the sub etc etc
h) that despite being innocent DPRK hasn't got any evidence to prove it
g) and that no third power with satellites active over DPRK (China, Russia, France, UK, commercial??) has refuted the claim that three DPRK subs put to sea before the incident etc
i) that ROK planned it.... and yet ROK government pretends to be caught off-guard and flounders in PR, is indecisive of outcome, waits a month before formally accusing DPRK, prefers to take the matter to the UN and ask for an apology...


Micro-analysing fragments of an investigation/media reporting does not make a credible conspiracy theory unless there is a credible motive on the part of the conspirator which is plausible when considering the cost-benefit-risk profile of the action. Who uses your own citizens to kill 46 other of your own citizens at the risk of it leaking, just to influence a local election???

Very much strawman territory and rather disappointing to read from you.
As has been said previously, the conspiracy is seldom in the accident but in the cover up that follows it.

Much has been speculated upon regarding the need to cover up a possible friendly fire incident if it involved a USN ship of any description, due the to the very extreme sensitivity of the presence of US forces in East Asian Countries. For anyone that has any doubt about this, simply look at how an election pledge to close the Marine Base on Okinawa has brought down the Government of Yukio Hatayama. It raises very serious questions about how the US can defy the democratic mandate of one of the worlds most powerful nations and bring down its Prime Minister. It reminds us perhaps that behind the spin and velvet, that these are still countries under military occupation and that bad things can happen to those politicians that forget it.

 

[peperez]

The torpedo remains were too rusty to be a recently launched weapon. I would like to know what is the seabed level. In my opinion, it could be an old torpedo that explode incidently when Cheonan navigates over it. This torpedo type has magnetic fuse.

Cheers

Pepe

 

[Pointblank]

The torpedo remains were too rusty to be a recently launched weapon. I would like to know what is the seabed level. In my opinion, it could be an old torpedo that explode incidently when Cheonan navigates over it. This torpedo type has magnetic fuse.

Cheers

Pepe

The rust can be accounted for by the conditions it endured. A multi hundred kg explosion was set off near it, which created a ton of heat and pressure on the metal parts, and heat and pressure are not known to be nice to metal in a salt water environment.

And for your second point, the water depth in the area is around 50-60m. If a old torpedo was laying on the seabed, it was too deep to A: detonate, and B: cause any significant damage to a surface ship, as the explosive power effect of an underwater explosion decreases with the distance cubed.

 

[Pointblank]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; talk about talking in circles. They are admitting that though the Cheonan was sunk by a 'external explosion' and said 'external explosion' could have only been caused by a torpedo, they 'never said that a torpedo sunk the ship.'

The only way the Russians could make this conclusion even more insulting is if they said: "there was no possibility that the external blast was caused by anything other than a North Korean torpedo, but we are not saying the Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo."

Russian team wraps up probe
Experts confirm that the Cheonan was sunk by an external explosion
June 08, 2010
The team conducting Russia’s probe of the Cheonan disaster have concluded that the ship was sunk by an external explosion, according to officials from the South Korean joint investigation team.

The three Russian experts returned home yesterday after an eight-day probe into the incident, which South Korea has concluded was caused by a North Korean torpedo attack.

“The Russian team admitted the Cheonan sank due to an external underwater blast at its left side,” said the official, who asked not to be named. “But while they admitted that there was no possibility that the external blast was caused by anything other than a torpedo, the Russians never said that a torpedo sunk the ship.”

The official also said he believed the Russian submarine and explosion experts “had detailed knowledge about the incident” even before they arrived in Seoul.

The Russian experts inspected the ship, watched computer simulations that showed how a torpedo destroyed it, and Seoul officials also offered them the computer file that detailed how the simulation was created.

The South Korean team also offered the Russians detailed records of the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole in the waters off of Yemen. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for that bombing.

During their investigation, the Russians also asked to see the combat information center of a South Korean warship similar to the Cheonan. The military refused that request because of security protocols, but offered a tour of the captain’s cabin.

“The Russian team members were very seasoned experts,” the source said. “Russia may have its own stance on North Korea...but the officials at least understood the results of our investigation.”