Article

2007-07-29 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US Sinks North Korean Ship Bound for Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 That article makes absolutely no sense. We didn't want to risk a confrontation by boarding it so we torpedoed it? Huh? And we didn't want to risk possible contamination by boarding so we blast the contamination all over the ocean bottom and THEN go down and recover what we were to afraid to recover on the surface?

"Extremely Dubious" is an understatement. I now know where all the Weekly World News people went.

Posted by crosspatch 2007-07-29 00:21|| 2007-07-29 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Riiiiiiiiiiight.....

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-29 00:32|| 2007-07-29 00:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Please oh please oh please let this be true. These are the sort of measures that will be required in the coming years. America can no longer tolerate the collusion of rogue regimes and Islamic tyrannies as they seek to undermine what is already a fragile global security.

If Bush truly had the wisdom to do this, he has recovered a lot of recently lost luster. So long as Europe persists in doing their best "What me worry?" Alfred E. Neuman impersonation, it'll be incumbent upon the USA to be the one who keeps pounding hot sand up Islam's coal chute.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-29 00:35|| 2007-07-29 00:35|| Front Page Top

#4 ...and in other news, front runner Obama carries Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-29 00:37|| 2007-07-29 00:37|| Front Page Top

#5 We didn't want to risk a confrontation by boarding it so we torpedoed it?

Leaving aside the all too interesting question of whether or not this happened, I can see Bush doing this, given the alternatives.

Torpedoing the ship takes it out with the advantage of somewhat plausible deniability. Hey, wasn't us. Prolly them accursed Joos.

Posted by SteveS 2007-07-29 00:42|| 2007-07-29 00:42|| Front Page Top

#6 It wuz 'em pirates. They're here, they're there, they're everywhere.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-07-29 00:50|| 2007-07-29 00:50|| Front Page Top

#7 Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida

Sounds more like a bad home stand in the SEC.

Posted by badanov 2007-07-29 00:56|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-07-29 00:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Sri Lankan collateral damage?

Posted by 3dc 2007-07-29 00:58|| 2007-07-29 00:58|| Front Page Top

#9 What ship?

Posted by gorb 2007-07-29 01:03|| 2007-07-29 01:03|| Front Page Top

#10 Off Topic: One of the things I find most attractive about Rantburg is the overall high quality level of snark. This thread has proven to be no exception, much to my personal gratification.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-29 01:19|| 2007-07-29 01:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Yes we certainly wouldn't want the world to see that type of evidence of Iran's plan. It had to be torps and a moonlight recovery. As if the Pentagon would choose a submarine attack. If the Pentagon is going to pull that type of trigger they will choose a method atha can be easily cancelled up to the very last split second ... i.e. not a submarine.

Posted by Super Hose 2007-07-29 01:20|| 2007-07-29 01:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Boarding on the high seas and confiscating plutonium would not initial a confrontation with Iran. They would probably deny knowing what the contents of the shipment were and pretend that North Korea must have been sending them a "gift". We would have held that stuff up for all the world to see and expose Iran (yet again) for exactly what they are.

And do you think they have moved their nuclear development to Venezuela yet?

Posted by crosspatch 2007-07-29 01:33|| 2007-07-29 01:33|| Front Page Top

#13 If the story is true, where are the injured North Korean sailors?

Posted by Bill Uleash5007 2007-07-29 03:37|| 2007-07-29 03:37|| Front Page Top

#14 It's bogus, just like the rest of the "DEBKA exclusive" reports are. Rest assured, if it says "DEBKA exclusive" it means "we made this up last night over drinks".

Honestly, I don't know why the mods here let those through.

Posted by crosspatch 2007-07-29 03:47|| 2007-07-29 03:47|| Front Page Top

#15 To shake it out, give it a viewing and then snark or critique it righteously.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-29 06:03|| 2007-07-29 06:03|| Front Page Top

#16 Debka is known for producing disinformation for the Mossad, and embarassing both when reports are proven to be fiction. It has become clear that the President is going to coast out of his service with the Iran problem not solved.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-29 06:10|| 2007-07-29 06:10|| Front Page Top

#17 It has become clear that the President is going to coast out of his service with the Iran problem not solved.

I wouldn't see it as "clear", but likely. The man had his chance for greatness, but elected the safe road of mediocrity after a promising start. The price, if he does not yet wake up from his slumber, would be very high. It won't be only him paying it, but all of us.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-07-29 07:24|| 2007-07-29 07:24|| Front Page Top

#18 It's a bit soon to give History's verdict on the man. He did put General Petraus on the job, give him the necessary tools, and is running interference until September -- mostly by repeatedly insisting on waiting until then to discuss it. As a result poll numbers pro-Iraq War are going up (as well as his own), even as Congress's continue to sink.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-07-29 08:08|| 2007-07-29 08:08|| Front Page Top

#19 Given the crowd W has to work with at the east end of the Mall, it is perhaps unfair to judge him so harshly at this point in time.

Although cutting a shamnesty deal with Kennedy was ... shall we say, intriguing.

Posted by Bobby 2007-07-29 08:20|| 2007-07-29 08:20|| Front Page Top

#20 ...Given that this is DEBKA, one should take this with a deer-lick sized grain of salt. However, there IS a precedent - during the Korean War, the CIA sank a Norwegian 'peace' vessel that was taking medical supplies to the Chinese, and there were, ahem, no survivors. It would be nice, however, if the sub story were true. I'd point out, however, that there would be absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be a 'up to the last minute' operation - an aircraft attack could (in theory) give them enough time to make a distress call. Don't forget that Nork 'merchant ships' are actually naval auxilaries, and they might indeed have fairly capable air search radars and ESM equipment, especially if it's carrying a high-value cargo.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-07-29 08:43|| 2007-07-29 08:43|| Front Page Top

#21 I would like to note that I originally posted this to "Opinion".

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-29 09:50|| 2007-07-29 09:50|| Front Page Top

#22 LOL - fair 'nuff, Moose :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-07-29 10:27|| 2007-07-29 10:27|| Front Page Top

#23 Two things wrong with this:

1) Its debka

And

2) its debka.

Heh.

The article claims two intercepts and one sinking.

All kidding aside, can anyone prove that these ships even existed? They rather studiously avoid the mention of the ship names and registry.

If there was a ship with fissiles on it that we needed to take out, then the US Navy would want to "disappear" the crew, without giving them a chance to call for help. That would mean no torpedoes or ASM. And if the President wants the ships seized quickly at sea, it would not be the Marines in a boarding party.

The Navy happens to have groups of men who are trained to clandestinely and quickly assault difficult targets from the sea. SEALs.

And that's why the article is BS. A SEAL raid would have been sent in - capturing the ship with cargo intact, and certain members of the crew available for interrogation would have been an intelligence bonanza.

If the ship existed, and if anyone torpedoed said imaginary ship, it was the Israelis.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-07-29 10:43|| 2007-07-29 10:43|| Front Page Top

#24 Mike, sea skimmer type ASM come in well under most anything the Norks would put on a tub like that.

The problem is that ships do take time to sink, and a distress call would have time to go out. You need something to take out the comms and then the crew one at a time, or else obliterate the entire ship. The first would be SEALs, the second would be a combination of time-on-target airburst and pop-n-plunge ASMs (or else aircraft hitting with airburst frag bombs to shear the antennas, and some napalm to keep people off the decks, followed nearly instantaneously by ASM). As you might think, such a ballet of timing for missiles or aircraft would be very difficult and have a very high risk of allowing comms, so you may as well use torpedoes at that point. Thats why SEALs would be better for such a mission.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-07-29 10:52|| 2007-07-29 10:52|| Front Page Top

#25 If the story is true, where are the injured North Korean sailors?

"What about the crew, Jack? Are you going to have them disappear, too?" asked 'Rear Admiral' Thompson

Posted by Almost Anonymous5839">Almost Anonymous5839 2007-07-29 11:53|| 2007-07-29 11:53|| Front Page Top

#26 I would think that a standard missile to the port bridge-wing would be the surest of preventing a distress call unless you have something to jam their transmission. I torpedo should work quickly as well, especially if the keel is constructed from stell made in NK or China.

I wouldn't necessarily worry about the transmission though. I'm sure that NK will know what happened in any case. If they protest, tell them we'll trade the ship and crew but not the cargo for the Pueblo.

That said - I would want the cargo intact, to see what it is. I would also want every piece of paper on board. To me that means Navy Seals on the mid-watch in a place where there is as few surface contacts as possible.

Posted by Super Hose 2007-07-29 12:41|| 2007-07-29 12:41|| Front Page Top

#27 Sighted Scam, Sank Same.

Posted by doc 2007-07-29 12:45|| 2007-07-29 12:45|| Front Page Top

#28 As an aside, if the US did sink the Nork ship, it seems we have a lot of company:

BBC - Australian bomber sinks NK ship

http://tinyurl.com/2l7smm

Telegraph - Japan sinks NK ship

http://tinyurl.com/3a4xvm

HT - Skor sinks NK ship

http://tinyurl.com/3cgen2

Storm sinks NK ship off of Syria

http://tinyurl.com/3438b9

Everybody's doin' it, doin' it, doin' it...

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-29 13:55|| 2007-07-29 13:55|| Front Page Top

#29 There are several parts of this article that I find intriguing. I can well believe the Norks would do this. I can also well believe that the US would do something to counter it. I have no idea what happened, but I'd bet that any attempt to photo Diego Garcia would be "prevented", and not just because of the B2s stationed there.

I believe many of you are basing your ideas of what US torpedos can do from WWII films. Current US torpedos can do things you wouldn't believe. Warheads range from 2200lb of the highest explosive material the US has manufactured to nukes. The US has several warheads that are specifically designed to penetrate the pressure hulls of Russian submarines; others are designed to take out the Russian missile cruisers. Most US submarines have two torpedo tubes, and the two can be fired almost simultaneously. The effects of two overkill torpedos on a NORK rust-bucket would probably be devastating beyond belief. While I don't believe this article for a minute, the possibility exists. Who knows, the data for this article may have even been planted by a US agent, in an attempt to let the NORKS know what WOULD happen if they DID try something like this...

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-07-29 13:57|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-07-29 13:57|| Front Page Top

#30 If the story is true, where are the injured North Korean sailors?

Obviously, the sub surfaced and proceeded to machinegun any survivors in lifeboats or floating on the surface.

After all, that's what the Nazi's used to do and since the evil McChimpyBushitler and Halliburton/Cheney are Nazi's, well...

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-07-29 14:55|| 2007-07-29 14:55|| Front Page Top

#31 Who knows, the data for this article may have even been planted by a US agent, in an attempt to let the NORKS know what WOULD happen if they DID try something like this...

Makes sense. Kim gets a ~~shot across the proverbial bow~~ sneak preview.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-29 15:01|| 2007-07-29 15:01|| Front Page Top

#32 A good catch, moose!

Posted by twobyfour 2007-07-29 17:56|| 2007-07-29 17:56|| Front Page Top

#33 Presuming that this article is correct, iff this NK ship was carrying weapons-grade nuke or radioactive materials, its Captain likely would NOT had stopped even iff properly demanded to under international = UNO rules by USN-Allied warships. *"DIRTY BOMB" MATERIALS > risk of excessive local contamination would be low to non-existent. COMMAND/POLITICAL DECISION comes down to sinking the ship or letting it proceed in its delivery [aiding proliferation, not stopping it.].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-07-29 19:13|| 2007-07-29 19:13|| Front Page Top

#34 One would thing a NKOR vessel with a very high value cargo would have picked up at least a rudimentary Iranian escort before it entered the Arabian Sea. The opportunity to destroy this vessel would have been way out in the Indian Ocean, sorta where Saddam's flotilla was hiding, once upon a time.

Posted by Skunky Glins5285">Skunky Glins5285 2007-07-29 19:21|| http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/]">[http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/] 2007-07-29 19:21|| Front Page Top

#35 Obviously, the sub surfaced and proceeded to machinegun any survivors in lifeboats or floating on the surface.

After all, that's what the Nazi's used to do

That's what the USN and USAAF used to do, too. "Mush" Morton killed the soldiers from a troop transport he sank. They would have joined the fight again if they had made shore. He got a medal for the patrol (if not specifically for that act).

Posted by Gary and the Samoyeds">Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-07-29 20:47|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-07-29 20:47|| Front Page Top

#36 Honestly, I don't know why the mods here let those through.

Probably for the same reason I still flip through the Weekly World News while waiting in checkout lines at the market. It's probably false but you just never know when someone will actually find Satan's skull in the New Mexico desert or when Batboy will go on a killing spree in Jersey.

Posted by AzCat 2007-07-29 22:15|| 2007-07-29 22:15|| Front Page Top

#37 You know, there is also the possibility that if the ship was carrying nuclear materials, that it might also have had a nuclear *weapon* on board.

In such a case, the standoff distance of a MK48 is considerable.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-29 22:32|| 2007-07-29 22:32|| Front Page Top

23:58 eltoroverde
23:53 eltoroverde
23:19 twobyfour
23:13 Boss Craising2882
23:09 Old Patriot
22:41 Boss Craising2882
22:32 Anonymoose
22:21 anymouse
22:15 AzCat
22:11 trailing wife
21:48 OldSpook
21:47 Carl in N.H.
21:47 trailing wife
21:47 Pappy
21:46 OldSpook
21:45 trailing wife
21:39 gorb
21:39 GK
21:35 gorb
21:31 gorb
21:24 Angleton 9
21:21 OyVey1
21:20 Free Radical
21:12 Free Radical