The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

F

flyzies

Junior Member
So now we have proof it was NK that sank SK's naval vessel. And all SK is likely to do is take it to UNSC and ask for more economic sanctions against NK.....am i seriously the only one here who thinks that is just plain weak??

Imagine if it was a Russian frigate torpedoed by some country, do we all here think all Putin would do is ask for economic sanctions against that country at UNSC?
Or if it was a USN vessel...we all know how that would go down.

Yes stability is paramount and valued by all nations in the region, but purely from SK's point of view; their ships gets torpedoed, sailors die and all SK does in return is ask for economic sanctions? Cmon!
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
flyzies said:
So now we have proof it was NK that sank SK's naval vessel. And all SK is likely to do is take it to UNSC and ask for more economic sanctions against NK.....am i seriously the only one here who thinks that is just plain weak??

Imagine if it was a Russian frigate torpedoed by some country, do we all here think all Putin would do is ask for economic sanctions against that country at UNSC?
Or if it was a USN vessel...we all know how that would go down.

Yes stability is paramount and valued by all nations in the region, but purely from SK's point of view; their ships gets torpedoed, sailors die and all SK does in return is ask for economic sanctions? Cmon!
Click to expand...

That's actually my question from the beginning: what exactly can South Korea do? Risking war at this point would be disastrous for both SK and the US, and likely the entire region itself. What other options does SK have?
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
It's risky but I think that South Korea would be able to get away with proportional retaliation, i.e. sinking a North Korea ship or submarine. Look at what happened when the US did Operation Preying Mantis against Iran in the 1980s, it's a very similar situation. A radical regime surrounded by outside threats is being provocative on the high seas. So you slap them down a bit and show them that such things will not be tolerated by sinking smaller naval vessels. Iran clearly decided that it's better to whine about "American agression" internationally and use the incident for internal propaganda than actually risk their own survival by escalating. I think Kim would make the same calculation if SK sank 1 NK submarine or ship.

Here's the actual international report on the sinking if anyone wants to read it:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Finn McCool said:
It's risky but I think that South Korea would be able to get away with proportional retaliation, i.e. sinking a North Korea ship or submarine. Look at what happened when the US did Operation Preying Mantis against Iran in the 1980s, it's a very similar situation. A radical regime surrounded by outside threats is being provocative on the high seas. So you slap them down a bit and show them that such things will not be tolerated by sinking smaller naval vessels. Iran clearly decided that it's better to whine about "American agression" internationally and use the incident for internal propaganda than actually risk their own survival by escalating. I think Kim would make the same calculation if SK sank 1 NK submarine or ship.

Here's the actual international report on the sinking if anyone wants to read it:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Yeep. They could just regard it as a continuation of naval clashes which in most cases the SK had the better of.eg 1999, 2002 and nov 2009 when the SK badly damaged a NK boat.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I however have had difficulty with the official account and have been intrigued by speculation that first surfaced a few weeks ago, that in fact this was a Friendly Fire incident from a US sub.


Consider the details:

1) North Korea is never shy of trumpeting a military victory

2) DPRK Submarines are simple, small Green Water designs from the 60's or 70's at best (often older)

3) The Line of Maritime Control is a continuation of the Land DMZ and features the most intense and sophisticated anti Submarine Fixed detection systems probably anywhere in the world.

4) The Cheonan is a state of the art Corvette

5) The Cheonan was well inside the ROK line of control

6) The Cheonan was not alone but operating in a major exercise with large numbers of ROK and US major surface combatants and Hunter Killer Subs.

7) The US has an unfortunate history of Friendly Fire Incidents as we British know only too well to our cost.

8) The finding of the "evidence" is hardly transparent or even found inside the wreck itself.

In short, if a Geriatric North Korean sub had been able to cross the line of control, evade detection from a large fleet of some of the worlds most modern warships which were conducting a full range of exercises, successfully attack and sink a State of the Art Corvette and then escape unharmed, then Mr Kim would have ordered a month of holidays and public celebrations.

What is also true is that popular feelings against the US military presence in South Korea is just as high as they are on Okinawa or Guam and that a public admission of a US Friendly Fire incident would have the potential to not only to start Anti US riots (again) but also undermine the current Hawkish administration.

OK blaming the North may be expedient, but its hardly convincing and I suspect now the stakes have been raised, so will this lack of conviction.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
SampanViking said:
I however have had difficulty with the official account and have been intrigued by speculation that first surfaced a few weeks ago, that in fact this was a Friendly Fire incident from a US sub.


Consider the details:

1) North Korea is never shy of trumpeting a military victory

2) DPRK Submarines are simple, small Green Water designs from the 60's or 70's at best (often older)

3) The Line of Maritime Control is a continuation of the Land DMZ and features the most intense and sophisticated anti Submarine Fixed detection systems probably anywhere in the world.

4) The Cheonan is a state of the art Corvette

5) The Cheonan was well inside the ROK line of control

6) The Cheonan was not alone but operating in a major exercise with large numbers of ROK and US major surface combatants and Hunter Killer Subs.

7) The US has an unfortunate history of Friendly Fire Incidents as we British know only too well to our cost.

8) The finding of the "evidence" is hardly transparent or even found inside the wreck itself.

In short, if a Geriatric North Korean sub had been able to cross the line of control, evade detection from a large fleet of some of the worlds most modern warships which were conducting a full range of exercises, successfully attack and sink a State of the Art Corvette and then escape unharmed, then Mr Kim would have ordered a month of holidays and public celebrations.

What is also true is that popular feelings against the US military presence in South Korea is just as high as they are on Okinawa or Guam and that a public admission of a US Friendly Fire incident would have the potential to not only to start Anti US riots (again) but also undermine the current Hawkish administration.

OK blaming the North may be expedient, but its hardly convincing and I suspect now the stakes have been raised, so will this lack of conviction.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there to suggest that a US sub was responsible? The USN doesn't operate in the disputed zone or anywhere close to that. How could it be friendly fire if they had nothing to fire at since there are no active hostilities in the area? Are you suggesting that for some reason a US submarine was randomly in an area that they don't operate in, heard a large surface vessel on the SK side of the line that sounded like a South Korean corvette and decided to shoot at it? I could just as easily say it was a Chinese submarine. Or a UFO for that matter. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Do you realize that it's obvious that you are grasping at any possible way to blame the United States for this? I expect that next you'll be saying that Iceland volcano is an American plot to harm the European airline industry.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The Cheonan was taking part in a series of rolling exercises called Key Resolve/Foal Eagle, which continued in some shape or form from early March until late April.

Dozens of ships from both the South Korean Navy and USN were involved. Among the fleet were four Aegis ships: the USS Shiloh (CG-67), a 9,600-ton Ticonderoga class cruiser, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), a 6,800-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, the USS Lassen, a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and Sejong the Great, a 8,500-ton South Korean guided-missile destroyer.

Although not confirmed, it would be unlikely that such a gathering would not be supported by USN Nuclear Subs and the ROK's own type 214.

So ask yourselves what makes the most sense. A North Korean James Bond takes on impossible odds to sink a ship, but does it without any real objective or any chance of North Korea being able to claim it and use it for propaganda purposes, even though they know they are going to be blamed for it anyway. Or there is a highly embarrassing accident which is to sensitive to be able to admit too?

C'mon how hard can it be?
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
7) The US has an unfortunate history of Friendly Fire Incidents as we British know only too well to our cost.
Click to expand...

True.

However...If a USN sub sunk an ROKN sub it would hardly be a secret. We Americans have a hard time not telling the World what we've done. One of the sailors on the ship that did the sinking would have told someone not involved with the USN.Perhaps mom or dad. That person would have told one of the many major news sources in the US. The cover up required would be of enormous proportions.

By the way I agree with seven of your eight points S.Viking.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
SampanViking said:
The Cheonan was taking part in a series of rolling exercises called Key Resolve/Foal Eagle, which continued in some shape or form from early March until late April.

Dozens of ships from both the South Korean Navy and USN were involved. Among the fleet were four Aegis ships: the USS Shiloh (CG-67), a 9,600-ton Ticonderoga class cruiser, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), a 6,800-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, the USS Lassen, a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and Sejong the Great, a 8,500-ton South Korean guided-missile destroyer.
Click to expand...

If you can show that Foal Eagle exercises were conducted in the area of the disputed marine border, then you have a point. Without that information, I think its safer to assume that exercises were not held in the area where the Cheonan was sunk, given the sensitive nature of the geography.

Also, if the ship was sunk in a friendly fire incident, why go through the trouble of pinning the blame on North Korea? Anyone can see that it just puts the South Korean government in a political jam. Much better to just say it was an engine explosion or something. Or to leave it "unresolved". But instead they've gone as far as to produce parts of a torpedo. So why would they do that?
 
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
SampanViking said:
So ask yourselves what makes the most sense. A North Korean James Bond takes on impossible odds to sink a ship, but does it without any real objective or any chance of North Korea being able to claim it and use it for propaganda purposes, even though they know they are going to be blamed for it anyway. Or there is a highly embarrassing accident which is to sensitive to be able to admit too?

C'mon how hard can it be?
Click to expand...

This wasn't a case of a secret agent taking on an army of soldiers to blow up an impossibly well-defended target. It was of a torpedo being used to sink a modestly sized ship, which of course they can do. As much as it's fun for some people to mock the North Koreans, I don't see why it's impossible for them to have one working submarine (midget or conventional) that could have done the job.

Friendly-fire is always possible, but given the potential back-lash from the South Korean public in blaming Pyongyang and somehow fixing the result of the international investigation committee (how did they manage that?), is risking war worth it just to save face? I don't think so.

This has North Korea written all over it. They were either looking for revenge over some of their past naval defeats and believed, as all delusional fascist regimes do, that they could get away with it because no one would find out or dare accuse them. Or being paranoid the submarine took the corvette as being about to sink them so took "defensive" action and fired first. Of course once the North Koreans had done it and realised the significance of it - i.e. that the South Korean people wouldn't roll over and beg their government to give Pyongyang all that they wanted - they had to deny it.

solarz said:
That's actually my question from the beginning: what exactly can South Korea do? Risking war at this point would be disastrous for both SK and the US, and likely the entire region itself. What other options does SK have?
Click to expand...

Apart from a proportional response as Finn suggested, South Korea could suspend all aid and stop all economic cooperation projects until Pyongyang admitted its guilt, apologised and did something to make up for the deaths and damage. Would Pyongyang go to war over that? No. It would eventually have to cave in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top