Korean Situation.

Wolfe Tone

I just have to chip in here and say that there is some fascinating information and debate in this thread and as a result of it have learnt a bit more than I knew about the complexities of the Korean region. All in all it has gone excellently for my first thread here on boards, so glad I steered away from AH this was just the type of discussion I was looking for. Keep it up guys!

BluePlanet

deadtiger wrote: »

Based on some of the history of this area I would say that they are prudent to carry out these types of training exercises myself.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nll.htm

I wouldn't expect GlobalSecurity.org to take any other POV tbh.

Can't see NK having anything to gain through an unprovoked attack.
Seems more like a Gulf of Tonkin incident to me.

Discourse over the events leading to the sinking of the Cheonan is tightly controlled by the South Korean government.

On May 8, 2010, a former senior presidential secretary who served under Roh Moo-hyun, Park Seon-won[63], was charged with libel by South Korea's Defense Minister, Kim Tae-young, over comments he made during an April 22 interview on MBC radio asking for greater disclosure from the military and government. Park Seon-won's response to the suit: "I asked for the disclosure of information for a transparent and impartial investigation into the cause of the Cheonan sinking," adding, "the libel suit seeks to silence public suspicion over the incident."[64]
South Korea's Minister of Public Administration and Security, Maeng Hyung-kyu, has also announced on May 20, 2010, that the government was stepping up efforts to prosecute people who spread "groundless rumors" over the internet: "Anyone who makes false reports or articles about the incident could seriously damage national security. We will not let these be the basis of any risks the nation faces." Moreover, he announced the government will step up efforts to prevent "illegal gatherings" regarding the sinking of the Cheonan.

Jeez, one would think thats the stuff coming from NK, not SK.

gandalf

Oh I am aware that GlobalSecurity have a bias. I used them to demonstrate that these waters have been a source of tension for years.

Given that I am sure you would agree that with that shakey history between the two sides and the extremely erratic behaviour by the leadership of North Korea it is prudent for South Korea and their allies to maintain a fully training military force and therefore necessitates holding training exercises.

BluePlanet

There certainly is, i totally agree.
But in disputed territory? No.

Manic Moran

It makes sense to train in areas you are more likely to fight in. You can't just say 'the sea's the sea' as the place is likely to have its own acoustic and magnetic conditions.

Regardless, there was no requirement to fire a warshot torpedo. Disputed though the waters may be, there was a process in place to prevent such incidents from occurring, one which DPRK has just announced it will no longer be following. Might as well have announced it before as well, since they obviously didn't follow it then either.

NTM

WakeUp

Thought you guys might be interested in this, North Korean air defense's, work is c/o planeman over at militaryphotos.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?128528-Bluffer-s-guide-Fortress-North-Korea

Wolfe Tone

Catching up on the news today I see that China is still refusing to condemn NK but appears to be positioning itself as a neutral figure.(Or at least to come across as one)

China "will not protect" whoever sank a South Korean warship in March, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has said.

"China objects to and condemns any act that destroys the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula," Mr Wen was quoted as saying after talks in Seoul.

Full article-BBC

monosharp

BluePlanet wrote: »

Can't see NK having anything to gain through an unprovoked attack.
Seems more like a Gulf of Tonkin incident to me.

Plus they'd be far, far more likely to admit singing one of the 'enemies' ships and claim it as a great victory to their own people while subcutaneously claim they were provoked/fired at/whatever by the South.

Jeez, one would think thats the stuff coming from NK, not SK.

Last year they arrested people who had posted predictions of financial problems.

I wouldn't be overly surprised if the current president were to try to stay in power after his term, Park Chun-hee style.

You must remember its only been 15-20 years since SK was very totalitarian itself. The younger generations (25+) grew up with patriotic music playing out of loudspeakers on the street every day during which time you had a stop and put your hand on your chest.

monosharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

It makes sense to train in areas you are more likely to fight in. You can't just say 'the sea's the sea' as the place is likely to have its own acoustic and magnetic conditions.

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 ? Bollox.

Obviously NK is a evil totalitarian state run by an evil little man, but your trying to tell me its not provocative to have its 2 major enemies, one a nuclear power, partake in wargames in disputed waters off its coast not that far from its capital city ?

monosharp

Korean Newspaper (English) with article with alleged details of the sinking. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/21/2010052100698.html

The official report (English) http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf

And the minisub apparently responsible. Used by DPRK and Iran

monosharp

Not exactly on topic but a very interesting documentary about the North.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj9uNKT07xs

North Korean fast food
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4v0NU8QREU&feature=fvw

North Korean Pizzaeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7afMfaK9U8

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

It makes sense to train in areas you are more likely to fight in. You can't just say 'the sea's the sea' as the place is likely to have its own acoustic and magnetic conditions.

Regardless, there was no requirement to fire a warshot torpedo. Disputed though the waters may be, there was a process in place to prevent such incidents from occurring, one which DPRK has just announced it will no longer be following. Might as well have announced it before as well, since they obviously didn't follow it then either.

NTM

I don't get your logic at times. 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?

BluePlanet

karma_ wrote: »

I don't get your logic at times. 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?

It's actually absurdly simple!
Any action/reaction that remotely has anything to do with the USA is always "right", and if it's not "right", it's to be defended.

When SK fires on NK boats in disputed waters, they "deserved it", but if NK fires it's always wrong.

monosharp

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's actually absurdly simple!
Any action/reaction that remotely has anything to do with the USA is always "right", and if it's not "right", it's to be defended.

Ah yes, the yankee "your wrong, we're (always) right" defense.

Quite funny how they talk about N. Koreans as brainwashed when most Americans I've ever met have a very similar outlook on everything. The 'Dear leader' is instead a weird combination of country + religion. The 'sleeping giant' bs really annoys me, as if theres something magic or special about america or been american. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

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

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Rubbish, what about the shots fired by SK before the sinking? Later blamed on a "flock of birds"?
We don't know the specifics.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The world at large does consider the waters Cheonan was in to be ROK's

Do they?
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.

Manic Moran

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

monosharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hardly an identical situation.

Don't think they were been compared, it was your logic that was in question.

The US Navy may have screwed up, but at least it was an understandable screw-up in fairly stressful circumstances.

Screwed up ? Plain and simple murder would be more accurate and what makes this incident even worse is the amount of lies and denial of responsibility that the US preached. At least have the decency to own up to what you've done.

At very best this was a case of gross incompetence, which says a lot about the quality of officer in the US armed forces actually.

I don't believe that the world at large would consider the coast of Hawaii or California to be Chinese or Russian territorial waters.

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

They are claiming to have had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Which makes me think they actually mightn't have had anything to do with it. Normally they'd be shouting about an incident like this proclaiming a great victory while simultaneously claiming they were provoked, lies or not.

Manic Moran

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

BluePlanet

Here, a picture is worth a thousand words.

monosharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

No they didn't deny murdering a plane load of civilians, they just deny it was wrong and they deny responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of innocent human life. The government never admitted wrongdoing, and did not accept responsibility nor submit an apology to the Iranian government.

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

Oh sorry when exactly did Korea join the USA ? I must have missed that.

If the Russians have joint exercises with the Chinese off Alaska where the scenario is an attack against the US would that be 'okey dokey' to the yanks ? it would be of course in Russian waters.

The most notable incident was the......

Bit of a difference between claiming responsibility for a failed assassination attempt against the president of a country and destruction of an enemy military craft. They may be masters of propaganda but twisting an assassination attempt to be 'heroic' is a bit too much, especially when it failed.

Although I get your point, its still strange though.

monosharp

North Korea condemns South over warship claims
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/north.korea.warship/index.html?npt=NP1

<snip> Pak (North Korean Maj. Gen) said people who disagreed with the investigators' assertions were expelled from the investigation team. He said the changes in investigation results as the case moved forward cast suspicion on the review, according to the state-run news agency's account.
For example, the North Koreans say, the warship captain said at first there wasn't outside provocation but later said there was.

And they say the military said at first there were no grounds to say it was an attack by the North but later changed that viewpoint.
The North Koreans say the South is attempting to undermine efforts to promote reconciliation and North Korea's progress. They argue that the claim has served to rally conservative forces in South Korea and help them politically in upcoming elections.

Elections are here in Korea next week and to be honest the North Koreans have got one thing spot on, this incident will probably be the winning or losing of the election for the current government.

Arsenal1986

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Adding to that America is a demoracy and senators are unlikely to vote for a war that will see thousands brought home in a plastic bag needlessly. It's not good for votes.

.

Apologies if its already been stated but this is really not an issue as to whether or not America would go to war if North Korea crossed the DMZ. While the War Powers Act was meant to give the Legislature an effective Veto over the Executives ability to wage war, this has not been the reality over the 30 + years since its passage – basically the executive decides when and against who to deploy the US military and the legislature is basically ignored as can be seen time and again – Panama, Haiti, Grenada, first Gulf War – none preceded by a declaration of war. Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom also not preceded by a specific declaration of war against those named countries. Therefore the views of the senate/congress initially anyway would be irrelevant to a degree. Of course as per the War Powers act they could theoretically cut funding to the war but that is just not realistic – in a midterm election year what senator would cut funding to soldiers fighting for their lives.

Also, as has surely been stated, many of the 2nd Infantry divisions soldiers are based quiet near the border, they are a ‘trip wire’ for all intents and purposes. Cynical though it may be, they are not there primarily to stop the first NK waves but to reassure the South and Japan that America will be in the fight.

gandalf

Given todays big story I wonder will NK try anything to get the limelight back on this situation?

BluePlanet

deadtiger wrote: »

Given todays big story I wonder will NK try anything to get the limelight back on this situation?

Previous to this story NK had nothing to gain by sinking a SK warship, i can't see how anything has changed?

orourkeda

What is China's role in all this?

monosharp

orourkeda wrote: »

What is China's role in all this?

Benevolent over Lords.

China are North Korea's ally out of necessity. They cannot allow the US to control or have active bases on the entire Korean peninsula, right up to their borders, under any circumstances.

On top of that, the Korean ethnic issues which I highlighted earlier should not be ignored. If Korea were united it could cause serious problems for the Chinese regarding ethnic Koreans in Manchuria and other ethnic groups throughout China.

Thomas828

So as far as I can work out: the only reason why the DPRK still exists is because it's a buffer between the Chinese in Manchuria and the US in South Korea. And it has been that way ever since the Korean war fizzled out. What a sorry position! And all the while the economy is rotting and the people remain hungry, brainwashed and paranoid.

Wolfe Tone

And also another reason is that the Chinese don't want a bucket load of NK immigrants either.

ARGINITE

Thomas828 wrote:

So as far as I can work out: the only reason why the DPRK still exists is because it's a buffer between the Chinese in Manchuria and the US in South Korea. And it has been that way ever since the Korean war fizzled out. What a sorry position!

It does have something to do with China, but I think it's more the fact that China don't want a few million refugees flooding across the border into China if(when) North Korea collapsed.