| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| China-Japan-Koreas | ||
| Skor Starting To Suspect Nork Minisub Torpedo Attack | ||
| 2010-04-02 | ||
Military insiders believe there is mounting evidence that the Navy corvette Cheonan was hit by a North Korean torpedo before it broke in two and sank in waters near the de-facto inter-Korean border.
He based his speculation on indications that the ship was sunk by an external explosion and that a torpedo was in his view a more likely cause than an old mine from the days of the Korean War, a possibility that has also been floated. When he visited Baeknyeong Island near the scene of accident on Tuesday, President Lee Myung-bak asked Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Kim Sung-chan whether there would be identifiable traces left behind in a mine explosion, and Kim said it is hard to tell but there is also the possibility of a torpedo attack. Kim added it is fairly certain that the ship's ammunition storage did not blow up. At a recent session of the National Assembly Defense Committee, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said North Korea has semi-submersibles that can carry two torpedoes and can fire them from a certain distance." Right after the accident, the Second Navy Fleet Command elevated the maritime alert to the highest level, Grade A, and sent the Navy vessel Sokcho near the Northern Limit Line, the de-facto maritime border. When an unidentified object appeared on the radar screen around 10:55 p.m. on March 26, the Sokcho believed it to be a North Korean semi-submersible and fired about 130 shells from 76 mm guns. But other experts say that the North has no reason to launch such a reckless provocation with the approach of its leader Kim Jong-il's imminent visit to China and the resumption of the six-party nuclear talks. But a retired chief of naval operations said, "In 2002 when the World Cup reached its climax, the North unexpectedly provoked the second battle of Yeonpyeong in the West Sea. The North has done many things that are inexplicable by common sense." | ||
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #17 They can always say it was a magazine explosion. Right before some Nork assets disappear. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-04-02 22:52 |
| #16 They could have known if the explosion was of internal or external origin within hours. I'm sure THEY know, but unknown when WE will know. Probably a secret until they figure the best thing to do, may or may not include publicity. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-04-02 21:01 |
| #15 50-65 feet. I suddenly find myself not buying into the waiting to get evidence thing as much as I did before. I gotta think that if they really, really wanted to know what happened and wanted to know in a hurry, they could just send some divers down with cameras. They could have known if the explosion was of internal or external origin within hours. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2010-04-02 20:46 |
| #14 The big question is...how deep? 50-65 feet. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-04-02 19:48 |
| #13 I should think that losing Seoul being all but a lock is a reasonable incentive to avoid all out war. What the Norks do or don't want likely have nil to do with the Souths response. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2010-04-02 19:31 |
| #12 It's fairly simple, an internal explosion have the pieces of the wreck blown OUT.. A mine or torpedo have it blown IN. The debris would tell if this is a mine or a torpedo. And whose it is. The big question is...how deep? |
| Posted by: Hotspur666 2010-04-02 19:28 |
| #11 His Name is BOND - KIM IL-BOND! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-02 18:58 |
| #10 Whoa, what a week, so Kimmie's Boyz allegedly sank an enemy SOKOR warship + blamed the US-SOKORS + stole their fish [missing SK fishing boat]??? Uh, uh, SLAM DUNK!?? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-02 18:56 |
| #9 A senior military officer on Thursday said, "There is a 60 to 70 percent chance that the ship was hit" by a North Korean torpedo. But he added the question remains whether any evidence was left behind Ummm"You mean something like two halves of a ship? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-04-02 15:06 |
| #8 What a dilemma for the SKORs. If you retaliate, the tensions escalate, potentially helping unify the staving masses in the north, but avoiding actual War, you do nothing, NORKs are emboldened and act even more rashly (rinse and repeat above issues) or you actually go to War, huge casualties and destruction, and then you have to feed, house, clothe and employ the skeletal survivors of the NORK gulag-state, and no buffer with the ChiCOMS who still loom on your doorstep, and now don't have to prop up the NORKs. No wonder the SKORs are tiptoeing around this obvious act of War. Maybe they could get some expert advice from Oblahblah or Billary? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2010-04-02 13:24 |
| #7 At a recent session of the National Assembly Defense Committee, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said North Korea has semi-submersibles that can carry two torpedoes and can fire them from a certain distance." Solve the problem. Make them permanently submerisable |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2010-04-02 12:02 |
| #6 Electricity? I thought they were in a perpetual celebration of earth night. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-04-02 11:00 |
| #5 If it was a torpedo attack, the Skor response is a good one, as the Norks probably figured out that they would *benefit* from a US and China collision. This way, the Skor won't be forced into a war, but *can* retaliate, and with plausible deniability. The obvious target would be to knock down a Nork hydroelectric dam, which were in all three major cases built to store up water and flood the South. While knocking down one of them would still cause flooding, it could be done when the water level was low. This would eliminate the threat, knock out a big chunk of the North's electricity, and generally be a major pain in the butt to that regime. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-04-02 10:06 |
| #4 Well gosh, isn't that an act of war, to be answered with... a war? Hmmm...there wasn't a peace treaty to end the Korean War. There's an armistice with varying degrees of compliance. Technically, the 'war' is still on going. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-02 09:05 |
| #3 give the Norks something they want - something to unite against. That's all very well, but how united would they remain once they lost? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-04-02 07:48 |
| #2 I agree a war would give the Norks something they want - something to unite against. I suspect the 'Evil americans' and 'sea-of-fire' story is beginning to grow a bit stale after what - 50 years? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-04-02 01:07 |
| #1 Norks sure have been quiet about it, if it wuz them. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-04-02 00:50 |