Korea - looking nasty

[Rob W 0]

A North Korean submarine's torpedo sank a South Korean navy ship on 26 March causing the deaths of 46 sailors, an international report has found.

 

Investigators said they had discovered part of the torpedo on the sea floor and it carried lettering that matched a North Korean design. Pyongyang rejected the claim as a "fabrication" and threatened war if sanctions were imposed, say reports.

 

China has urged both countries to show restraint.

 

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak pledged to take "stern action" against the North. The White House described the sinking of the ship as an "act of aggression" by North Korea that challenged peace. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the report was "deeply troubling".

 

Pyongyang said it would send its own inspection team to the South to "verify material evidence" behind the accusation. A North Korean defence spokesman said the country would "respond to reckless countermeasure with an all-out war of justice", the state KCNA news agency reported. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said Beijing had "noted" the report and would make its own assessment, but called on both sides to exercise restraint.

 

The Cheonan went down near the disputed inter-Korean maritime border, raising tension between the two nations, which technically remain at war.

 

The shattered wreck of the 1,200-tonne gunboat was later winched to the surface, in two pieces, for examination.

 

Perfect match'

 

The investigation was led by experts from the US, Australia, Britain and Sweden. It said: "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. "There is no other plausible explanation." The report said the torpedo parts found "perfectly match" a torpedo type that the North manufactures. Lettering found on one section matched that on a North Korean torpedo found by the South seven years ago.

 

There had earlier been a number of explanations suggested for the sinking, including an accidental collision with an unexploded sea mine left over from the Korean War. Mr Lee's presidential office said he had told Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: "We will be taking firm, responsive measures against the North, and through international co-operation, we have to make the North admit its wrongdoing and come back as a responsible member of the international community."

 

ANALYSIS

 

Adam Brookes BBC News, Washington

 

Absent from the White House statement is any call for retribution or military response. The US does not want fighting to break out on the Korean peninsula.

 

The White House, said one expert, will be looking for a response that deters, but does not provoke North Korea.

 

Sources here say the Obama administration is considering putting North Korea back on the list of countries which sponsor terrorism. That could mean sanctions. North Korea was removed from the list in 2008.

 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to travel to Japan, South Korea and China in the coming days. Managing this smouldering crisis between the two Koreas will no doubt occupy much of her time.

 

However, the BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says agreeing an international response will be difficult as the diplomatic options will be limited.

 

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai said on Thursday the sinking of the vessel was "unfortunate" but he would not comment on the international report. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said US President Barack Obama had expressed his "deep sympathy" to Mr Lee and the Korean people and that the US "strongly condemned" the action.

 

"This act of aggression is one more instance of North Korea's unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law," said Mr Gibbs, adding that it "only deepens North Korea's isolation". Mr Gibbs said the alleged attack was "a challenge to international peace and security and is a violation of the armistice agreement" which ended the Korean war. But he said it had reinforced the resolve of North Korea's neighbours "to intensify their co-operation to safeguard peace and stability in the region against all provocations".

 

Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said in a statement that North Korea's action was "unforgivable".

 

The British embassy in Seoul quoted Foreign Secretary William Hague as saying: "[North Korea's] actions will deepen the international community's mistrust. The attack demonstrates a total indifference to human life and a blatant disregard of international obligations."

[Park Life 71]

Probs a naughty third party involved.

[Toonpack 9298]

Probs a naughty third party involved.

 

I blame the Muslims, probably a Suicide-halibut from an extremist shoal

[Holden McGroin 6544]

Probs a naughty third party involved.

 

I blame the Muslims, probably a Suicide-halibut from an extremist shoal

 

[Rob W 0]

Hmmm - if the S Koreans take a slap at the N will the N go crazy - or maybe just collapse?

[Billy Castell 0]

Therein lies the problem for S. Korea. Which way would it go? Either Seoul, which is not too far from the border would be battered, or we'll see a monolith crumbling faster than the USSR. If the USA joined the party (though that is unlikely), I can only see one winner, as I don't think China will get involved as they did in the 50's. Why punch your best customer in the face as it were?

[Sonatine 11329]

Aid Groups Warn Of Famine In North Korea

 

As the US and South Korea push for fresh sanctions against North Korea, aid groups are warning that the country is on the brink of a catastrophic famine.

 

The US has given its "unequivocal" support to South Korea following the sinking of one of its warships and the deaths of 46 of its crew in March.

 

A multinational investigation recently concluded the vessel was struck by a North Korean torpedo.

 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the world has a duty to respond to the sinking of the ship.

 

After talks with South Korean leaders, Ms Clinton described the attack as an "unacceptable provocation" by the North.

 

The "international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond", she added.

 

Washington and Seoul have already announced plans for two joint military exercises in the waters off the Korean Peninsula.

 

A White House spokesman said the co-operation was intended to "deter future aggression" from Pyongyang. The US will also back Seoul when it goes to the United Nations asking for new sanctions against the North.

 

North Korea denies any involvement in the sinking of the warship and has threatened "all-out-war" if Seoul retaliates.

 

The rhetoric from both sides has unsettled financial markets and on Tuesday saw the South Korean won plunge to a 10-month low.

 

Mrs Clinton arrived in Seoul following a visit to Beijing during which she pressed the Chinese government to support tough measures against Pyongyang.

 

China is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which gives it veto power over any possible sanctions. China is also North Korea's only remaining ally and its biggest trading partner.

 

Critics accuse Beijing of failing to enforce existing sanctions against North Korea, effectively propping up its regime.

 

However, it is believed that during a recent visit to Beijing Kim Jong-il was rebuffed after asking for an increase in Chinese aid.

 

Experts say that the country's economic situation may now be as bad as the late 1990s when a famine killed as many as two million people.

 

Refugees crossing over North Korea's border with China have described worsening food shortages, while the World Food Programme says food aid will run out at the end of next month.

 

Some South Korean groups believe several hundred people may have already starved to death.

 

North Korean industry is crippled by a lack of fuel and the country is chronically short of arable farmland.

 

Food aid has dwindled in recent years as evidence has emerged that it is not getting through to the people most in need, and may instead be being diverted to the military and the governing elite.

 

The country's problems have been exacerbated by a government ordered currency revaluation in November which wiped out the savings of millions of ordinary Koreans.

 

The official held responsible for the disastrous currency reform was executed in March, but the move has crippled the small, privately run food markets that kept many North Koreans fed in recent years as the state-run economy faltered.

 

[Park Life 71]

N.Korea should just attack S Korea and get it over with. This would be a good time as America is stretched and bancrupt.

[Rob W 0]

They'd last about 5 minutes man...........

 

The USA are set up for this sort of war - cruise missiles on all bridges and power stations, napalm etc for the troops. Total air superiority, total sea superiority and damn near total ground superiority as well

 

Sending thousands of the PBI over the top may sound good but it would be mass murder

[Park Life 71]

They'd last about 5 minutes man...........

 

The USA are set up for this sort of war - cruise missiles on all bridges and power stations, napalm etc for the troops. Total air superiority, total sea superiority and damn near total ground superiority as well

 

Sending thousands of the PBI over the top may sound good but it would be mass murder

 

Isn't Napalm illegal under the Geneva convention? America couldn't sustain a total war with North Korea which would immediately start to get supplies from China.

[Rob W 0]

so is invading other peoples countries IIRC

 

And I can't see China getting involved TBH - why would they?

[Park Life 71]

so is invading other peoples countries IIRC

 

And I can't see China getting involved TBH - why would they?

 

For the same reason they are taking on Amrican in space and the rush for assets and supplies planet wide. They would love nothing more than a proxy war. YOu're also forgetting how much aid NK get from China via food and oil and the fact that NK have at least 2 nukes which they might use against SK.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Park Life

[Rob W 0]

oh really........................

 

spend 60 years building up your country to have it blitzed flat in a couple of days..... I don't think so

[Park Life 71]

oh really........................

 

spend 60 years building up your country to have it blitzed flat in a couple of days..... I don't think so

 

 

There is an old military saying Rob: The longer the arm reaches the weaker it gets. Seriously I would have run out of patience with Nike attired SK long ago and nuked it.

[Rob W 0]

yeah but the yanks don't have to invade China - they can use cruise missiles to take out bridges and power stations - a few months of that and authority will start to fray at the edges and it'll be back to Warlord-ism

 

Can't see the Party risking it

[BigChrisfgb 0]

North Korea's nuke are weak. If one went off at Central station then it would only kill those up to Eldon Square/Bigg Market area, those at the top of Northumberland street and around the Civic centre would be able to walk home with little or no harm. That how weak North Korea's nukes are.

 

North Korea has alot of militant man power though and they would be be able to defend rather well on land, and they could give a good fight in the air aswell, but S.Korea's air force is far better. They could be taken at a weak point regarding their Navy though. All in all I would expect a coalition with America and S.Korea to be able to topple N.Korea, things would be a lot more tricky if China steps in though.

Edited May 26, 2010 by BigChrisfgb

[Lazarus 0]

Sending thousands of the PBI over the top may sound good but it would be mass murder

 

Worked for us in WW1

 

No wait....

[Mr Lahey 0]

oh really........................

 

spend 60 years building up your country to have it blitzed flat in a couple of days..... I don't think so

 

But Kim is a bit of a mentalist is he not? Never underestimate anyone. Something's brewing here. I can feels it in my bones. Does anyone think there could actually be a good old ruck including the US, China, Russia etc in this day of age? Surely the nuclear threat is too much of a deterrant.

[AgentAxeman 174]

All in all I would expect a coalition with America and S.Korea to be able to topple N.Korea, things would be a lot more tricky if China steps in though.

 

 

isnt this the same kind of sentiment that was expressed before the Korea war in the 50's?

[Mr Lahey 0]

All in all I would expect a coalition with America and S.Korea to be able to topple N.Korea, things would be a lot more tricky if China steps in though.

 

 

isnt this the same kind of sentiment that was expressed before the Korea war in the 50's?

 

Were China as powerful then? /ignorance

[BigChrisfgb 0]

All in all I would expect a coalition with America and S.Korea to be able to topple N.Korea, things would be a lot more tricky if China steps in though.

 

 

isnt this the same kind of sentiment that was expressed before the Korea war in the 50's?

NK's forces are mostly out dated, they have hardly any weapons capable of hitting Seoul and only their mass numbers is their real force. I would safely say the USA and SK could topple NK within a month or so if the need ever arised. Like I said though the only thing to watch out for is China backing up NK, though you have to ask yourself would China really back up NK and go against the USA (and all the Europien nations that would back up the USA) when China's economy relies on exports to the west? Edited May 27, 2010 by BigChrisfgb

[sammynb 3353]

Fucking hell, not a remake of M.A.S.H as well!

[Ken 119]

NK's forces are mostly out dated, they have hardly any weapons capable of hitting Seoul and only their mass numbers is their real force. I would safely say the USA and SK could topple NK within a month or so if the need ever arised. Like I said though the only thing to watch out for is China backing up NK, though you have to ask yourself would China really back up NK and go against the USA (and all the Europien nations that would back up the USA) when China's economy relies on exports to the west?

It may be outdated, but any country's arsenal which includes 1000 tanks, 1500 planes, 2 or 3 low-yield nukes and a means to deliver them, and 6000 artillery pieces all able to reach SK's capital, Seoul, you would be a fool to sneeze and overlook their capabilities. Add to that 1.5 million soldiers willing to die to defend and/or attack, hungry or not. Plus a civilian population brainwashed into thinking that they are the ones being antagonised by outside elements (SK, USA) and who therefore would be hostile. The level of fanaticism both by the military and civilian population would almost be unprecedented, well not seen since the Pacific war by the Japanese.

 

There is no way anybody could topple NK and certainly not within a month as you believe.

 

That being said nobody wants full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. SK dreads it as Seoul, the hub of its economy would be annihilated in any attack with no means of defence against one. Once those missiles and artillery pieces launch there are only minutes to react to them.

 

The US would dread war as the first thing vapourised would be the 20,000 odd marines stationed in SK as they would be required in the frontline of any attack. Precision bombing would not win a war in Korea, and after such experiences as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the American civilian population would be dead set against any such thing and the resulting casualities. America's military is also stretched to the limit as it is now without the need of a new front. Also, China owns America's debt so they have in effect one arm tied behind their backs in that respect.

 

China would be against any such war as they would face a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of refuges swarming across the border into China. Also, China and NK are not as close as they once were (relations during the 1950's) and just a few weeks ago NK's dear leader cut short his trip to Beijing after having a request for financial aid (and perhaps even a commitment of solidarity if the shit hits the fan) rejected by the Chinese. China would also be against anything which would hurt its economy and a war would undoubtedly harm its progress.

 

And Japan would not favour war as no doubt NK would lob a few missiles at Tokyo in the name of revenge for being a former colonial ruler.

 

Nobody wants war, and I don't think there will be war, but if these naval blockades imposed on NK result in starving the army, Kimmie may want to lash out.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Ken

[Billy Castell 0]

Best case: Kim Jong Il dies, his son and the military get involved in a power struggle that destroys the regime's grip on power, and the people riot. Thousands will die, but North Korea will dissolve like East Germany.

 

Worst case: North Korea actually starts a war with South Korea, or vice versa and Seoul is pounded and nuked. The USA steps in to save the South whilst China props up the North fearing a humanitarian crisis. The relationship between China and the USA sours, and China calls in all the loans it has given to the western powers.

 

I think the fanaticism in the worker's paradise is quite low in reality. I think fear, hunger and tiredness is keeping Kim and co. in place. There are fanatics who do believe the crap, and they're the ones with the guns, but the masses are just going through the motions to try and keep out of the labour camps and the wrong end of a firing squad.

 

You should Youtube North Korean TV though. It is a laugh.

[Rob W 0]

best answer would be for a Romanian ending - the kims put against a wall............