Korean Situation.

I remember you on boards once defending the shooting down of Flight 655. Apparently there was a 'requirement ' to shoot down Flight 655 but no requirement to fire a torpedo in disputed waters?

Hardly an identical situation. In the one case there was an active shooting war going on. Indeed, at the time 655 was shot down, both Vincennes and Montgomery were engaged in a surface action against Iranian gunboats. (Vincennes helicopter shot at at by gunboats 0612Z, first rounds fired at gunboats 0643Z, 655 shot down 0654Z, last of the 5" rounds fired 0706Z).
Secondly, the US at least made an effort to transmit on the international air distress frequency before launching.

The US Navy may have screwed up, but at least it was an understandable screw-up in fairly stressful circumstances. Such cannot apparently be said for the Cheonan incident.

Right, so if Russia and China decided to have 3/4's of their entire fleets take part in naval training off the coast of hawaii or the mainland states, where the 'pretend' enemy was the states and the wargames were designed as training to wipe them out, then that'd be perfectly fine with the yank government ?

I don't believe that the world at large would consider the coast of Hawaii or California to be Chinese or Russian territorial waters. The world at large does consider the waters Cheonan was in to be ROK's. Drills would routinely be conducted in Germany within a few miles of the inter-German border on the land that was expected to be fought over without people freaking out.

[ETA: It is also instructive to look at DPRK's statements on the issue. When the USSR shot down KAL 007, they said it was in defence of their territorial integrity. DPRK does not claim that they sank Cheonan because it was in their waters. DPRK does not claim that they sank Cheonan in response to 'Acts of aggression' such as carrying out exercises. Unlike the Vincennes incident, they have not claimed that it was a tragic misunderstanding of the situation. They have not even said 'It was a whoops, negligent discharge, sorry about that.' They are claiming to have had nothing to do with it whatsoever.]

NTM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Rubbish, what about the shots fired by SK before the sinking? Later blamed on a "flock of birds"?

DPRK isn't claiming those to be the justification for the attack either. In fact, I don't think DPRK ever mentioned them.

Looking at the bay on a map, i see a very large superpower country that sits on the UN Security Council in close proximity. I'd say that bay is within that country's "sphere of influence". If China was so bothered, they could make life particularly difficult for both SK and NK in those waters.
They'll have the final say, "world opinion" be damned.

I can't find an official statement on NLL from China online, but their fishing vessels operating in NK waters have always respected it. On the larger sphere, there are 200-mile exclusive economic zones of both China and South Korea in the area, which obviously overlap a fair bit. By agreement, both Chinese and ROK vessels patrol the overlapping areas, but only enforce against their own-flagged vessels. In the event of, say, a ROK vessel observing a Chinese fishing vessel breaching regulations, they contact the Chinese who send a ship over to deal with it. I can't find any incidents of clashes between ROKN and PLAN vessels since this agreement took effect in the late 1980s.

The Chinese seem fairly satisfied with the current state of affairs and apparently have no desire to make life particularly difficult for anyone.

NTM

At least have the decency to own up to what you've done.

Forgive me, but did the US ever deny shooting down the Airbus?

As you said merely a few posts ago, isn't it best to train in areas you are more likely to fight in ?

Absolutely. But surely you would agree that maneuvers in your own territory are far less controversial than maneuvers several thousand miles from home?

Normally they'd be shouting about an incident like this proclaiming a great victory while simultaneously claiming they were provoked, lies or not.

The most notable incident was the raid on the Blue House. DPRK denied all knowledge, and said that if they were North Koreans, they were 'left-wing adventurers'. The Ulchin and Samchok commando infiltrations were, according to DPRK, "South Korean revolutionary armed guerillas". Claims that DPRK were responsible for the assasination attempt on President Chun in Burma were dismissed as "preposterous slander", despite the capture of the two NK agents responsible. They also said "We had already made it clear that we had nothing to do with the incident. We, by nature, have never resorted to individual terrorism and assassination and such thing is alien to us". I guess we'll leave aside a couple of hijackings and other failed attempts such as when they had a second crack at President Park, killing his wife. Or, of course, KAL 858 which DPRK denies involvement in.
Then you have the escape of an infiltration boat in 1998, 'premeditated anti-North Korean slander.'

Now, in fairness, after three weeks of discussions, the DPRK did finally express 'deep regret' at the 1996 submarine infiltration incident. That said, DPRK did vow revenge for the incidident, and are believed to have killed a ROK diplomat in Russia the following month. They also did admit to the clash in 1999, their official statement on the matter being "South Korean warships bumped against warships of the navy of the Korean People's Army (KPA) and fired bullets and shells at them and sank one of them in the North side's territorial waters.... The armed provocation committed against our warships by the South Korean authorities, who have aggravated the situation in the territorial waters of the North's side in the Yellow Sea of Korea almost every day from June 4, is an unbearable insult and military challenge to us. It is entirely thanks to the high patience and self-restraint of our people's army soldiers that the enemy's armed provocations in the Yellow Sea of Korea have not developed into an overall war." Similar to 1996 was the DPRK statement after the 2002 clash, which left sailors in both navies dead: "Feeling regretful for the unforeseen armed clash that occurred in the west sea recently, we are of the view that both sides should make joint efforts to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in future"

Indeed, the only indication of a claim of victory I can find easily happened after the Nov 2009 clash. Responding to a "grave armed provocation" the NK vessel "lost no time to deal a prompt retaliatory blow at the provokers. Much flurried by this, the group of warships of the South Korean forces hastily took to flight to the waters of their side." No ROK Personnel were killed, one NK may have been.

NTM