The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
An interesting news piece on this incident:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


S.Korea rejects North's offer for direct talks
Posted: 01 July 2010 1613 hrs

SEOUL : South Korea Thursday rejected North Korea's proposal for direct military talks on the sinking of a warship, saying the issue should be handled under the armistice which ended their 1950-53 war.

Tensions have been high since the South, citing findings of a multinational probe, accused the North of torpedoing a corvette with the loss of 46 sailors near the disputed sea border.

The South announced its own reprisals, including cutting off most trade, and is also asking the United Nations Security Council to censure the North.

The North, which has angrily denied any involvement in the sinking, has threatened a military response to any UN action.

"The (Seoul) government should focus on discussions at the Security Council," said foreign ministry spokesman Kim Young-Sun, in response to a new offer by Pyongyang to hold inter-Korean talks on the ship.

"It is more appropriate to hold general-level talks between the United Nations Command and North Korea's military and address the issue within the framework of the armistice agreement."

The North has refused to deal with the US-led UN Command based in the South.

In a letter dated Tuesday to the Security Council's Mexican presidency, North Korea proposed direct military talks with Seoul and urged the council to support Pyongyang's bid to conduct its own probe.

The North made a similar suggestion Sunday of direct talks.

South Korea earlier rejected the North's proposal to send its own investigators to examine the evidence on the warship.

Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said last month it would be "like a robber or a murderer insisting he must inspect the crime scene".

- AFP /ls
Click to expand...

Personally, I think DPRK's proposal for direct military talks is a very shrewd move. This proposal will probably go down well with all Koreans who would like to see re-unification of their peninsula. I suspect RoK's refusal for these direct talks is going to come back and hurt them in later elections....
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Sounds like the usual "we won't talk because it legitimizes them" argument the world heard so much in the last decade.

Did the DPRK threaten military retaliation to UN action, or is the article stretching things a bit?

Also, I cannot help notice this comparison:
Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said last month it would be "like a robber or a murderer insisting he must inspect the crime scene".
Click to expand...
So North Korea is an ordinary citizen (although, a criminal), while South Korea and its allies are the Police Dept, or the Court, i.e., they are the state, in this case, and not just ordinary citizens.
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
Did the DPRK threaten military retaliation to UN action, or is the article stretching things a bit?
Click to expand...

Nope. That is correct.

RoK refered the Cheonan incident to UN, and asked UN to censure DPRK. Thus, DPRK threatened military retaliation if UN censures DPRK.
 
T

TorpHistorian

New Member
Article in Russian newspaper. Translation is weak, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sergei Chekulaev

Part 1

The destruction on March, 26, 2010 South-Korean corvette Cheonan has excited all world. ROK asks Security Council of the United Nations to consider the problem on “armed attack of North Korea” on military ship. Under the order of the President of Russia, from May, 31 till June, 7 in South Korea the Russian military experts worked. In the comment the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia from June, 9 is spoken, that experts on a place have familiarized with materials of investigation of destruction Cheonan and after processing the received data they will report on the estimations and conclusions to the Russian government.
While experts prepare for the conclusions, we shall leave for a while political debate and we shall try to understand technical questions of destruction of the ship.

Circumstances

ROKS corvette Cheonan (the name is translated approximately as Heaven’s Peace) has been constructed in 1989 and since then carried out functions of a patrol ship of coastal action. The universal set of arms "for all occasions" included anti-ship missile Harpoon, 76 and 40 mm cannon, 324 mm ASW torpedoes Mk 46 and depth bombs. For supervision and managements of the weapon were available radar and sonar. The length of the ship made 88 meters, keel depth - 2,9 meters, displacement of 1200 tons. Crew 104 persons.

It is interesting, that Cheonan in June, 1999 already participated in the true sea battle, on the other site of sea border. And even has received small damages. In that engagement one of boats of North Korea has been sunk, and some have been seriously damaged. Was lost about 30 North Korean seamen.
Accident of corvette Cheonan has taken place at 21:22 on Seoul time. Navigation passed completely easy as suddenly strong explosion has broken off the ship half-and-half. The ship moved to this moment in a condensed twilight on northwest, bending around island Baeknyeong. The distance up to island was 2 km, up to sea border with NK remained about 15 km, water depth 47 meters. The stern part has sunk almost at once, and current has removed forward part at 6 kilometers from a place of explosion where it also has sunk. As a result of accident 46 seamen were lost.
In April both half of ship have been lifted on surface and are placed on naval base nearby Seoul. Began investigation. Significant event in Cheonan’s case has taken place on May, 10 at next sweeping - fragments of a unknown torpedo have been lifted.

The international commission

The ROK has created the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group from 50 Korean and 24 foreign (from the USA, the Great Britain, Australia and Sweden) experts who investigated materials accessible to them.
On the basis of the researches, the commission has come to conclusions, that the reason of destruction of corvette Cheonan was underwater explosion of 200-300 kg charge. Proceeding from character of destruction of the ship hull, coordinates of a point of explosion have been determined as 6-9 meters from the kiel downwards (so - on depth 9-12 м) and 3 meters to the left of the center of turbine section. That is classical non-contact explosion, it is characteristic for the modern sea weapon.

Having investigated the torpedo wreck submitted by the ROK side, experts have found depositions of aluminum oxides ("naval" explosives formed at explosion), to identical same depositions on corvette’s fragments. The design of the torpedo tail corresponded to drawing of North Korean torpedoes available in South Korea, and on one of details of a torpedo marks “№1” has been found out by made by “North Korean font”.

On assurances of the South-Korean side, at time of accident in frontier zone near island, situation controlled by radar-tracking and infra-red supervision, therefore any surface ships, boats or planes could not come for torpedo attack near to Cheonan. And the commission has drawn a unequivocal conclusion, that corvette has been sunk by North Korean torpedo which has been launch from North Korean submarine. Because “there is no other plausible explanation”.

Whether so it? And as far as conclusions of the commission actually are plausible?

Non-contact explosion

It is known, that explosion of a charge on some distance from the bottom of the ship usually is more effective, than contact explosion at board. The case of the ship is influenced all over again with a shock wave, and then the moving stream of the water which have received energy from a gas bubble. Therefore on torpedoes, and then on mines and underwater rockets began to install influence-actuated fuze which first samples have appeared in 1930th years. The action range of modern influence fuze reaches 8 meters. For Cheonan's beam in 10 meters, explosion in 3 meters from a diametrical plane (i.e. through 2 meters from an input of a torpedo in "shadow" of the ship) will quite be coordinated to algorithm of work of influence fuze. Installation of depth of the torpedo 6 meters lower keel depth of the ship is possible for antiship (ASuW) torpedoes with influence fuze.

Homing systems

Torpedo can hit a ship both at an aiming shot, and with help of homing system (HS). The aiming shot demands or exact definition of a target's distance and parameters of her movement, or a shot from close distance, from a "pistol range". So there was the last sinking a surface ship by a torpedo. On May, 2, 1982, during the British-Argentinean war, nuclear submarine Conqueror has fire from a distance less than 1300 meters 3 old torpedoes Mk VIII on ARA General Belgrano. Two torpedoes hit the cruiser and, despite of the considerable sizes (displacement of 13000 tons), the ship has quickly sunk. Was lost more than 300 Argentina seamen.

Homing systems for the first time have been applied in WWII. It were so-called “passive HS” based on definition on a source of noise which the moving ship is her screws and mechanisms. HS of active type with a sonar lidar a target or her wake have later appeared. The place of explosion under Cheonan's turbine section explains occurrence of the version of a torpedo with passive HS as one of the main sources of noise on corvette was the gas turbine. All is interesting, that during time of the same British-Argentinean war, the German export torpedo SST-4 started from ARS San Luis, has precisely struck … an acoustic decoy - a radiator of noise which was towed by British frigate. Cheonan such protection had no.

Mods note >>TorpHistorian welcome to SDF! Your post was moderated because anytime a new member with less than 15 post attempts to post with a link included in that post it automatically cues the anti-spam feature. I invite you to read the forum rules before you proceed.

 FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!

Thank you and welcome to SDF!!

bd popeye super moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Spartan95 said:
Nope. That is correct.

RoK refered the Cheonan incident to UN, and asked UN to censure DPRK. Thus, DPRK threatened military retaliation if UN censures DPRK.
Click to expand...

@Spartan95, I decided to check, and my conclusion is that the media is twisting stuff (for change). You can get North Korean statements at the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The clearest statement regarding UNSC sanctions is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

FM Accuses US of Creating Atmosphere of International Pressure
Pyongyang, May 28 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry Friday released the following statement in connection with the fact that the United States is becoming all the more reckless in its moves to create an atmosphere of international pressure upon the DPRK by referring the case of warship "Cheonan" to the UN Security Council:

Recently the U.S. secretary of State let loose a spate of sheer lies to brand the DPRK as the chief culprit of the warship sinking during her junkets to Japan, China and south Korea.

But a scrutiny into who is to benefit from the "story about a torpedo attack by north Korea" and what will be gained from it makes it clear that the case was orchestrated by the U.S. and the south Korean authorities. Firstly, the Obama administration is using the recent case for orchestrating with utmost efforts a farce to make it appear "strong" with the Congress mid-term election slated for coming November at hand as it was known to be weak externally in the first year of its administration. Secondly, the U.S. hyped the "threat from north Korea" to sound real, finally making the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, which had been keen to drive the U.S. forces out of Okinawa, yield to it. This is the reason why the "results of investigation" were announced within May. Thirdly, the U.S. has come to justify its policy of "strategic patience" designed to degrade the environment for international investment in the DPRK and steadily suffocate its economy. Fourthly, it became possible for the U.S. to put China into an awkward position and keep hold on Japan and south Korea as its servants.

The truth remains unchanged though the U.S. sticks to its own opinion. The U.S. is blustering that it would refer the said case to the UNSC, but the UNSC is the very forum which had already been besmirched due to Powell's lies about Iraq in February 2003. The U.S., branding the case as a "breach of the Armistice Agreement," instigated the south Korean authorities to spread the assertion that the case should be discussed at the "Military Armistice Commission" (MAC). This is also a self-contradiction. As far as the AA is concerned, it was reduced to a dead document long ago due to the U.S. The MAC has been defunct since the U.S. unilaterally recalled the senior member of the "UN Forces" side and replaced him with a "general" of the south Korean puppet army, not a signatory to the AA. As the MAC exists only in name, the U.S. government made a conclusion that the case is a "violation of the AA" before the "UN Forces" side of the MAC announced that it would make an investigation into the violation. Irony is that the U.S. secretary of State is vociferating about the AA, though she does not know in what shape the AA is.

The U.S. is pressurizing other countries to accept the "results of investigation" announced by south Korea, zealously supporting them but the "investigation team" formed by the U.S. and the south Korean authorities is vague and shady in its nature. What matters is that the team was made up with the south Korean military as the core and equally problematic was that the south Korean authorities included in that team some foreigners unilaterally chosen by them, letting it go by the name of "international investigation team." There is no knowing whether these foreigners participated in the investigation on behalf of the governments of their countries or in private capacity and whether they had any mandate to investigate or borrowed only name and an agreement was reached on the "results of investigation" by going through any procedure. We proposed more than once dispatching an inspection group to the spot, but the U.S. and the south Korean authorities persistently refused to receve it. The reason can be explained by the above-said attitudes of them.

No sooner had the U.S. and the south Korean authorities announced the "results of investigation" than they lost no time to threaten to slap additional sanctions and take counteractions regardless of whether the world understands those results or not. Herein lies an ulterior aim and this patently proves that they are acting according to the script already worked out.

The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks it can occupy the Korean Peninsula just as it did Iraq with sheer lies. If the UNSC is again taken in by U.S. lies and tables the "results of investigation" into the "Cheonan" warship and discusses them, then this will mean that the UNSC is misused for encroaching upon the dignity of the Korean people and the sovereignty of the DPRK. In case the DPRK takes toughest self-defensive counter-measures as already declared, the U.S. and its servants will be wholly to blame for their consequences.
Click to expand...

I've added boldface to the last paragraph because it is the most relevant one. A few days later, there is another statement where the last two paragraphs, taken in isolation, seem to come closer to the statement in the article you posted:
It will be irrefutably evident that the U.S. and its followers are seeking an ulterior intention if they refer the case to the UNSC only with their unilateral "results of investigation" while avoiding objective confirmation about its truth.

Then, the U.S. and the UNSC will find nothing to say about the toughest retaliation the DPRK is to take as it did in the past, and they will never shrug off the responsibility for having blocked the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and sparked off a conflict.
Click to expand...
But even here, it seems clear that the "retaliation" they are talking about is not to any "censure" or "sanctions", but to a hypothetical attack from the South Korean/US forces facilitated by the UNSC action.

A similar "threat" can be seen in a statement released just yesterday:
Should some forces persist in their anti-DPRK moves as evidenced by the G-8's hasty adoption of the declaration critical of the DPRK based on unilateral "results of investigation", not on objective confirmation of the truth, they will have to bear full responsibility for the ensuing consequences.
Click to expand...
But the paragraph prior to the one above contains the statement "What is of paramount importance at present is to... make correct judgment favorable for peace and stability of the region." That doesn't sound too threatening.
 
Last edited:
T

TorpHistorian

New Member
Article in Russian newspaper. Translation is weak, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sergei Chekulaev

Part 2

Torpedoes of North Korea

Shown on press conference in Seoul fragments of "torpedo-killer" contain a part of the electromotor, a shaft, a tail part so-called "flameless" type (with specific "clipped" lower rudder) and five-bladed screws of opposite rotation.

Under the statement of representatives of the South-Korean Ministry of Defence, North Korea is armed, makes and suggests on export of a torpedo of calibre 53 cm. Constantly called name «type CHT-02D» belongs to the export torpedo which description to valorous South-Korean special services managed to be got somehow.
The following characteristics of a torpedo are resulted: calibre - 53,4 cm; length - 7,35 m; weight - 1700 kg; a charge - 250 kg; range - 10-15 km. It is informed about an opportunity of homing of a torpedo as by a passive method, and ship wake. It is usually considered, that ASuW torpedoes with passive system of homing have speed up to 35 knots. ROK have declared, that they have a practice (exercise) sample of one of North Korean torpedoes which has been found at coast of South Korea 7 years ago. Probably, it is the origin of the exact drawing of a North Korean torpedo.

In connection with the deep privacy surrounding military programs of North Korea, there are only sketchy data on its torpedo weapon. The first, together with torpedo boats G-5, from the USSR in NK had been put non-homing air-steam torpedoes 53-38. With them North Korean torpedo boats on July, 2, 1950 attacked cruisers of interventionists - USS Juneau and HMS Jamaica. And though boats could not approach to distance of a confident shot and also torpedoes have not struck the enemy, this episode until recently was the most heroic page of North Korean Navy. Commander of group Kim Gun Ok and commander of one of boats Van Gyn was rank of Heroes of the Korean People's Democratic Republic. Who knows, whether new heroes will appear now.

Later, for arming of ships, boats and submarines, NK had receive torpedoes from the USSR and China. Among purchases of torpedos of calibre of 53 cm were Soviet air-steam torpedoes 53-51, 53-56V (non-homing, influence fuze) and 53VA (passive HS). Also electric torpedoes SAET-60 (ASuW, passive HS) and SET-53 (ASW, three-dimensional passive HS) were delivered. There are data on possible purchases of newer export samples SET-65E (ASW, active - passive HS) and 53-65KE (oxygen, ASuW, wake HS). In NK Navy could act Chinese torpedoes Yu-1, Yu-3 and Yu-4, representing copies and the modernized variants of the listed Soviet torpedoes.

In due course, North Korea, on the basis of available foreign samples, began to carry out own researches and development on torpedoes and has their batch production. Drawings of these North Korean torpedos, obviously, have been shown at press conference in Seoul. If to compare the submitted fragments directly they do not correspond to any Soviet torpedo though separate elements and remind our old samples.

Submarines

The international board has considered possible to connect with sinking of Cheonan two North Korean submarines - a 300-ton boat such as Sango and 130-ton such as Yeoneo, one of which could approach to corvette on a distance of shot and to fire a torpedo. These submarines have consist on arms NK Navy and can carry 53-cm heavy torpedo. Sinking of Cheonan has broken 14-years silence Lee Kwang Soo, the waterman of North Korean submarine in 1996. He is only of members of crew, was taken prisoner and now lives in South Korea. On his data if on Sango torpedoes are carry inside torpedo tubes, on smaller Yeoneo they can be placed outside of sub's boards as on German midget submarines of times of WWII. And its can be started practically silently, as against fire from torpedo tubes by air.

There is an opinion, that from small submarines it is impossible to apply "heavy" torpedoes. Certainly our submariners who use sub with displacement in thousands of tons are difficult to present opportunities a small torpedo sub and intuitively it seems that light torpedoes will better. However, battle experience of the WWII has shown, that absolutely small, even tiny, boats can apply heavy torpedoes with success. So, Italian CB (displacement of 50 tons) have been armed two 450 mm torpedoes, charge 200 kg. Japanese sub "type A" (50 tons) at an attack to Pearl Harbour carried 2 torpedoes of 450 mm, charge 350 kg. Despite of ridiculous displacement of German submarines (Biber - 4 tons, Molch - 9 tons, Seehund - 15 tons), all of them carried 2 torpedoes of 533 mm charge 300 kg. All of them sank enemy ships.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
@ Red Moon.
Interesting stuff you have uncovered. But not surprising at all. Those are news releases by the official DPRK mouth piece. This is the same mouth piece that doesn't report on basic shortages in DPRK, but glorifies weapons testing. And it is not surprising that they critical of RoK and western media/state.

In case the DPRK takes toughest self-defensive counter-measures as already declared, the U.S. and its servants will be wholly to blame for their consequences.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting statement, but it does not actually specifically refer to an attack from RoK/US forces on the DPRK. But that is what you interpreted it as:

But even here, it seems clear that the "retaliation" they are talking about is not to any "censure" or "sanctions", but to a hypothetical attack from the South Korean/US forces facilitated by the UNSC action.
Click to expand...

As for UNSC action, it will not necessarily result in a resolution that allows member states to attack DPRK, considering that such a resolution is likely to be vetoed by China and/or Russia.

Thus, while the matter has been brought to UN, the most likely outcome is that UN will issue a statement that:
1. condemns the attack,
2. urges all parties to act with restrain, and
3. seek a peaceful resolution.

In other words, fairly run of the mill UN statements that are issued countless times over incidents ranging from human rights violations (such as Israel's boarding of the aid convoy to Gaza) to territorial disputes to border skirmishes.
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Interesting stuff you have uncovered. But not surprising at all. Those are news releases by the official DPRK mouth piece. This is the same mouth piece that doesn't report on basic shortages in DPRK, but glorifies weapons testing. And it is not surprising that they critical of RoK and western media/state.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I posted it because the DPRK is obviously the ONLY TRUE SOURCE for what the DPRK believes! It is information "from the horses mouth".

As for UNSC action, it will not necessarily result in a resolution that allows member states to attack DPRK, considering that such a resolution is likely to be vetoed by China and/or Russia.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you here, but the statement I posted shows the DPRK does NOT AGREE. The DPRK is treating it as preparation for an attack. And indeed, the US has attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade, as well as Somalia, and has increased operations of various types in other places. You cannot blame them for believing this. The example of Iraq given in the DPRK article is also interesting because the UN DID NOT approve the Iraq war (although the statement seems to get its facts wrong on this).

One could argue also that the US is "busy" with Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows what other places, and once more, there is lots of speculation in the media about an attack on Iran. So yes, I don't think an attack will take place.

That said, if I was a DPRK military planner, I would not discount the possibility of an attack because, in fact, you never know. The media fuss about Iran could be a smokescreen, for example...
 
T

TorpHistorian

New Member
TorpHistorian said:
Article in Russian newspaper. Translation is weak, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sergei Chekulaev

Part 3

Questions

Perhaps, in destruction of the ship a mine is guilty? It was one of the first and most logical versions for first moment. The set of various mines has been laid in this area within war 1950-1953. Mine-laying by both sides the next years were quite possible, including secret mining. The variant of a bottom mine disappears because explosion has taken place in 35 meters up the bottom. An anchor mine in given area cannot keep constant depth because of strong tide (up to 6 knots, constantly changing a direction). Theoretically there is an opportunity that has worked more complex device: an floating-up mine either a jet-mine or even a mine-torpedo. In the latter case, the torpedo could be in mine container at sea bottom and to start therefrom after detection of corvette's noise. ASW mines are widely known: American Mk 60 Captor and Russian PMR and PMK. In case of Cheonan emerging mines KRM and RM, created in the USSR in 1957-1965, and also their Chinese analogues are most interesting. They could be put on depths from 40 meters, carried charge 200-300 kg and blew up at emersion on depth about 10 m. Against such version the difficult hydrology of area, and torpedo container or anchor of emerging mine should remain at the bottom.
Why fragments of torpedo look such old? At the first sight the impression is created, that they lain at sea bottom not one year and even have acquired with sea organisms. However, experts explain, that "shells" are the aluminium oxides of postponed on screws of torpedo formed at explosion. And the plentiful rust can be caused by electrochemical corrosion within 50 days, which fragments were in sea water. To the accelerated corrosion promoted full "peeling" of sheetings and high-temperature "burn" at explosion, and also presence of different metals in torpedo design. By the way, eyewitnesses mark, that process of corrosion is observed and on air and now fragments of the torpedo look even more rusty, than one month ago.
Why Cheonan has not found out underwater threat? The answer to this question is not present. “Under the theory”, the ship equipped with sonar should find out a submarine, especially, a torpedo and evades from them. However it was revealed nothing also explosion became completely unexpected. Perhaps, established on corvette old sonar has given failure. Perhaps, the hydrology, that day not in that side turning sound beams is guilty, or noise of tidal current and surf was too great. It is possible also, that sub silently laid on bottom, the torpedo not fire but left the sub "self-swimming" and went to the target on quiet speed.
Whether it was possible to find out and trace underwater objects other means? In materials of JIG there are data of seismic service of South Korea which four stations have fixed explosion. However, there are no records of hydroacoustic stations. The area has not been equipped with stationary systems of hydroacoustic supervision or they did not work? It causes natural questions to the South Korean side. Despite of technical difficulties connected to small depths, currents and the oozy bottom important boundary area it should be supervised in “underwater hemisphere”.
Whether small depths and bad hydrology to become an obstacle to torpedo attack could? Comparison of Cheonan’s destruction with a similar case sinking on December, 9, 1972 Indian frigate Khukri (1535 tons) is interesting. This remarkable episode of the Indian-Pakistan war has taken place in shallow area of Arabian sea, with depths less than 65 meters. Pakistan sub Hangor (1000 tons) attacked two Indian frigates from distance about 5000 meters consistently 3 torpedoes E15, one of which has hit Khukri. E15 - export French sample with passive HS. Characteristics of the torpedo (weight - 1650 kg, charge - 300 kg, speed 25 knots at range 12 km) obviously is not better, than at its North Korean analogue. And taking into account that HS of torpedo Е15 was a little bit improved system of German torpedo of the WWII, comparison and at all becomes not for the benefit of "French". Let's note, that passive systems of homing, as against active, with success work and on shallow water. So, the author observed delivery tests of export torpedoes 53VA on shallow range at lake Issyk Kul. The torpedo with the help passive HS always found its target - sound device, simulating enemy ship, and passed from it on distance sufficient for operation of influence fuze.

Let's sum up our consideration of some technical questions connected to sinking of Cheonan. It is possible to note, that obvious affectations and contradictions in the version of JIG are not visible. Or they are not found out yet? Can the Russian experts will give new food for thought? Wherefore they went to South Korea?
Click to expand...
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
Yes, but I posted it because the DPRK is obviously the ONLY TRUE SOURCE for what the DPRK believes! It is information "from the horses mouth".
Click to expand...

Fair point.

But that is also 1 of the avenues where DPRK does their sabre-rattling too.

Red Moon said:
I tend to agree with you here, but the statement I posted shows the DPRK does NOT AGREE. The DPRK is treating it as preparation for an attack. And indeed, the US has attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade, as well as Somalia, and has increased operations of various types in other places. You cannot blame them for believing this. The example of Iraq given in the DPRK article is also interesting because the UN DID NOT approve the Iraq war (although the statement seems to get its facts wrong on this).

One could argue also that the US is "busy" with Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows what other places, and once more, there is lots of speculation in the media about an attack on Iran. So yes, I don't think an attack will take place.

That said, if I was a DPRK military planner, I would not discount the possibility of an attack because, in fact, you never know. The media fuss about Iran could be a smokescreen, for example...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And that is how the DPRK keeps the populace in a siege mentality. Also provides a nice "excuse" for the shortages amongst the populace since defence takes priority during such "emergencies/external threats".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top