Second Korean War?

[swerve]

US may not involved directly in the second Korean War or they'll risk provoking Chinese response.

If North Korea invades South Korea, it will be impossible for the USA to keep out of the war. There are US troops in South Korea, deliberately placed so that they will be in the path of a North Korean invasion, & USAF fighters based on airfields shared with ROKAF units.

The Chinese know that. They will therefore not react to US forces fighting to defend S. Korea. They would certainly react if US forces invaded North Korea, but that will not happen, so there is no reason to consider any possible Chinese reaction.

The only possible scenario which could provoke a Chinese reaction is a failed N. Korean invasion of the south, followed by victorious S. Korean & US forces advancing into the North. In that case, I would expect S. Koreans to lead the advance, for sound political & military reasons, & the USA to limit its participation to support of the S. Koreans.

I've already described what I think the Chinese might do in that case. I am sure they would not seek to fight S. Korea & the USA, but would try to keep US forces away from the Chinese border.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

What's important is that the UN has already authorised the use of force. As the first korean war never officially ended, interested parties in the UN can actually aid South Korea under existing UN resolution 84 which has no end date.

One potential participant that did not engage in the 1950s conflict would be Japan.

Another potential participant is Taiwan (which similarly was not directly involved in the 1950s conflict). This is interesting to consider cos Taiwan does not have official country status within the UN.

On the North Korean side, the only potential ally of any significance (and capability to intervene) is China. Russia is unlikely to intervene considering NK has already gone into the chinese sphere of influence.

If North Korea does pre-emptively start another war, there will be a north korea left. A rational North Korea will not start a war. However, the weakening control of Kim might spark an unintended war.

It is interesting to speculate if the attack on the Cheonan actually had the NK leader's approval. It is equally likely that diversive elements within the NK military may have acted on their own with primary intent of forcing NK into the military corner ie forcing the political establishment to back the military as the only choice.

 

[aricho87]

Any future war on the Korean peninsular will only involve a hand full of countries and i don't think you would see too many countries getting involved other than those in the immediate region.

The US has bases in the South and it has always been there since the end of the Korean war to protect the south. The South Korean's and US would make up the vast majority of forces for the Southern side, however you might have japan being involved but limited to naval & air operations along with maybe Australia. I don't think Taiwan would risk involvement as it could aggravate china.

On the northern side Korea would be all by its lonesome. After recent events even the Chinese realize that the northern regime isn't logically thinking and there not going to ruin there prosperity over there despot neighbors.

Any ground war incurring into the north would be a very politically sensitive issue with the Chinese who would see a swamp of refugee's on there boarder.

 

[swerve]

What's important is that the UN has already authorised the use of force. As the first korean war never officially ended, interested parties in the UN can actually aid South Korea under existing UN resolution 84 which has no end date.

One potential participant that did not engage in the 1950s conflict would be Japan.

Another potential participant is Taiwan...

On the North Korean side, the only potential ally of any significance (and capability to intervene) is China. .

As aricho87 says, there are very few countries which might intervene.

I cannot imagine Taiwan joining in. For what purpose? I can, perhaps, envisage Taiwan escorting merchant ships in case of N. Korean submarine attack, but that is merely extended self-defence.

Ditto Japan. I would expect Japan to put its forces on full alert, to escort merchant shipping up to the edge of the war zone, & to permit the USA to use bases in Japan to support S. Korea - but no more. That would be plenty. Providing a secure rear area would be an immense help to the ROK/US war effort.

No doubt other friendly countries would assist by keeping lines of credit open for the purchase by the ROK of essential materials, & expediting supply of whatever is asked for.

China would be faced with a dilemma, It has no desire for outright war with the USA, or war with S. Korea. N. Korea is a combination of annoyance, source of pressure on the USA, & buffer zone - but the last is also a problem, as removing N. Korea would make the valuable trade with S. Korea easier. I am sure that China would not assist or condone any N. Korean invasion of the South, & doubt if China would render any assistance to a collapsing N. Korean regime. Assistance to the territory & people of N. Korea, yes - delivered by the PLA, & aimed at preventing a flood of refugees, keeping US & allied forces away from China, & giving China a bargaining chip in the post-war Korean settlement.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Military intervention occurs for various reasons.

For example, why would ethiopia, luxembourg or columbia intervene in the 1950 korean war? Yet they did.

In Taiwan's case, it could be as simple as sending a message that military invasion should not be internationally condoned and instead condemned and resisted.

Does Taiwan fear military invasion? Of course it does and we know from whom.

Others may sympathise with Taiwan and thus may wish to send the same message.

US may force Japan into the war.

Article IV of the US-Japan security treaty may be invoked to allow use of US bases (as they did in 1950) to defend Korea (which is in the far east).

"For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan."

 

[swerve]

US may force Japan into the war.

Article IV of the US-Japan security treaty may be invoked to allow use of US bases (as they did in 1950) to defend Korea (which is in the far east).

"For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan."

Er - yes. That's what I said - and a bit more. I'm sure that Japan would see North Korean control of the entire peninsula as a danger to its security.

I would expect Japan to put its forces on full alert, to escort merchant shipping up to the edge of the war zone, & to permit the USA to use bases in Japan to support S. Korea - but no more. That would be plenty. Providing a secure rear area would be an immense help to the ROK/US war effort.

 

[Sampanviking]

I find some of the assumptions in this thread rather amusing.

Tensions have been building over the last few weeks with concerns over the intentions of the US/ROK in their use of the Cheonan incident to pursue strategic change on the Korean peninsular.

Has anybody actually read the International report on this subject?

I have, it is a very unconvincing 5 page document that simply state unsupported conclusions, provide no evidence whatsoever and which is held in such high regard by its authors that none of them seem to want to have their names associated with it, let alone actually sign the thing.

I think now most in the region are actually convinced that the sinking was a Blue on Blue caused by the malfunction of a German made Torpedo fired from one of South Korea's own AEG built 209 Attack Subs, during the annual Foal Eagle exercises that were currently taking place and in that vicinity. This is a highly credible option given the metal and explosive signatures returned from the wreck, gave a German origin of the materials and the very complex littoral underwater geography of the entire area.

In the last week both China and their SCO allies Russia have been conducting massive live fire
exercises in the Western Pacific. China have been in the East China Sea and Russia in the Sea of Japan. It seems likely that the exercises included China testing its DF21D ASBM in protest to the possible inclusion of the George Washington in the upcoming US/ROK exercises in the Yellow Sea.

China and Russia are unlikely to have little love for the Kim regime, but value the buffer zone it represents and have no interest in seeing reunification under any terms but the ones they prefer.
China has recently "revised" who it blames for starting the Korean War by agreeing that North Korea was the aggressor. This though is more a warning to all parties in the here and now, rather than an academic muse on history.
Read it as such: We want to see Peace and Stability maintained on the Peninsular and will blame the side that started hostilities if they break out, for undoing them.

This means that if North Korea starts up, that there would no be assistance to them, although China with Russian support would ensure the re-establishment of the buffer to at least as far as the 38th Parallel, but not on terms that the current regime would like.

To the US and ROK the message is equally blunt: Start the shooting and expect massive immediate intervention to expel you from the Peninsular.

Anyhow things appear to winding down as the UN Resolution expected today which is the starting gun for the US/ROK exercises, has been downgraded to Presidential Statement which condemns the Cheonans sinking and the loss of life, but does not actually blame any country for the actions and acknowledges North Korea's continued denial of involvement.

In Kennedy speak, is this the US blinking first

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I think now most in the region are actually convinced that the sinking was a Blue on Blue caused by the malfunction of a German made Torpedo fired from one of South Korea's own AEG built 209 Attack Subs, during the annual Foal Eagle exercises that were currently taking place and in that vicinity. This is a highly credible option given the metal and explosive signatures returned from the wreck, gave a German origin of the materials and the very complex littoral underwater geography of the entire area.

The only region thinking that is North Korea.

Anyone who has served would have known how tightly controlled live firings are. One doesn't fire live submarine torpedoes during an anti-submarine drill.

Questioning whether it was actually North Korea is one thing. Suggesting a blue on blue incident involving a SK sub is unfathomable.

If one is going to forward NK propaganda, at least try to make it more believable.

 

[Sampanviking]

The only region thinking that is North Korea.

Anyone who has served would have known how tightly controlled live firings are. One doesn't fire live submarine torpedoes during an anti-submarine drill.

Questioning whether it was actually North Korea is one thing. Suggesting a blue on blue incident involving a SK sub is unfathomable.

If one is going to forward NK propaganda, at least try to make it more believable.

That's a pretty rich comment considering the unexpurgated rubbish that was the International Report and the Official back up reasoning that you seem to be swallowing hook line and sinker.

How many other countries involved or in the reason operate German built subs?

As for Only North Korea claiming Blue on Blue, I would respectfully point out there are not exactly a multitude of options (assuming it was a torpedo at all). China and Russia have clearly not bought the official story, nor indeed have the South Koreans themselves. Lee used the Cheonan incident heavily in the recent mid term elections and was hammered in the polls.

As to what was really going on, you can speculate as much as you like about the nature of the actual exercise, but I trust the official description of that as much as I do the official description of the sinking.

There was a minority report from a South Korean expert who left the initial investigation claiming a cover up. He published his own report. His view was that it was a collision. Irrespective of this - his very large report was very detailed and gave a significant amount of information about the marine environment. It showed a very difficult littoral environment, shallow, narrow, jagged with strong currents, and turbulence. In other words, very easy for a torp to lose its target in transit and then reacquire the wrong one.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

That's a pretty rich comment considering the unexpurgated rubbish that was the International Report and the Official back up reasoning that you seem to be swallowing hook line and sinker.

How many other countries involved or in the reason operate German built subs?

As for Only North Korea claiming Blue on Blue, I would respectfully point out there are not exactly a multitude of options (assuming it was a torpedo at all). China and Russia have clearly not bought the official story, nor indeed have the South Koreans themselves. Lee used the Cheonan incident heavily in the recent mid term elections and was hammered in the polls.

As to what was really going on, you can speculate as much as you like about the nature of the actual exercise, but I trust the official description of that as much as I do the official description of the sinking.

There was a minority report from a South Korean expert who left the initial investigation claiming a cover up. He published his own report. His view was that it was a collision. Irrespective of this - his very large report was very detailed and gave a significant amount of information about the marine environment. It showed a very difficult littoral environment, shallow, narrow, jagged with strong currents, and turbulence. In other words, very easy for a torp to lose its target in transit and then reacquire the wrong one.

Like I said, the cause may be debatable but to state that its a South Korean sub who torpedoed it, is not a plausible explanation. That explanation can only be a north korean one.

Nothing rich or poor there. Just common knowledge arising from experience with handling live munitions. How many submarines fires live torpedoes at 9.30pm in the night in an ant-submarine exercise?

As to collision, its again a different set of structural impact points which can be evidenced from the wreckage. People may disagree with the eventual findings.

For South Korea to fabricate the evidence would require co-opting the experts from Canada, Britain, Sweden and Australia besides their own.

Further, the UN security council has already acknowledged it is an attack.

I think it is pretty rich to suggest the experts can't tell the difference between a collision, grounding and explosion. To add the UN security council to that list (they did acknowledge it was an attack...) would not be rational.

Sorry, I don't swallow the NK propaganda either.

 

[Sampanviking]

Like I said, the cause may be debatable but to state that its a South Korean sub who torpedoed it, is not a plausible explanation. That explanation can only be a north korean one.

Nothing rich or poor there. Just common knowledge arising from experience with handling live munitions. How many submarines fires live torpedoes at 9.30pm in the night in an ant-submarine exercise?

As to collision, its again a different set of structural impact points which can be evidenced from the wreckage. People may disagree with the eventual findings.

For South Korea to fabricate the evidence would require co-opting the experts from Canada, Britain, Sweden and Australia besides their own.

Further, the UN security council has already acknowledged it is an attack.

I think it is pretty rich to suggest the experts can't tell the difference between a collision, grounding and explosion. To add the UN security council to that list (they did acknowledge it was an attack...) would not be rational.

Sorry, I don't swallow the NK propaganda either.

I think you seem to want to have your cake and eat it and btw I do need the DPRK Office of Public Information to teach what a rat smells like. The official story rang hollow from day one and nothing factual that came to light did anything but reinforce that notion.

Personally I not claiming any preference to the cause of the sinking. The Minority report was produced by one of South Korea's top Marine Architects who was a member of the Investigation Team. His report is useful for the wealth of detail that it provides, something that stands in utter contrast to the rather sad joke that is the report. Again I ask, have you actually read it?
I can provide links to both if you are really interested.

No, the main story is that it was a Torpedo and either you believe the cock and bull story of North Korea acquiring German Torpedo materials and paddling one of its Geriatric mini subs across one of the most heavily secured maritime lines in the world to sink a State of the Art Corvette supposedly engaged in anti sub operations or we look at something simpler and far more sensible.

No doubt as an expert, you will agree that the term anti submarine exercise can be so generic as to be almost worthless. Also I am sure you will concede that not all navies conduct exercises the same way your country does, especially along danger zones at times of heightened tension.

So again, what other navy in the region actually operates German built Subs that fire German made heavy torpedoes? If you can name anything other than South Korea's type 209's please share.

I also recall that at the time the exercises were being described more as Amphibious, and to do with taking or preventing the loss of the various Islands in that area. So here is a notion that took me all of 5 minutes to think up. Could it be that a 209 was being used to find its effectiveness in disrupting an Amphibious landing despite them taking place in littoral waters way to shallow for it to operate? Could it have been a live fire exercise at distance from deep water into a target in the shallow water where the the very adverse conditions caused the weapon to lose its target and then reacquire the Cheonan instead?

One thing is clear whatever the evidence that the US had, it was not enough to convince the entire UNSC and given the total lack of media and Diplomatic retaliation against the PRC for its scepticism, I think it is safe to conclude that the PLA knew exactly what did really happen and had enough proof to prevail, plus make a credible threat to go public. This is supported by the fact that the US/ROK exercises scheduled to follow the resolution have now been considerably downgraded and moved to the South of the Korean peninsular.

Still the US should not be too down hearted, as the incident and the subsequent North Korea threat circus, was very successful at destroying the former Japanese President Hatayama and saved the US Marine presence on Okinawa.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

If North Korea invades South Korea, it will be impossible for the USA to keep out of the war. There are US troops in South Korea, deliberately placed so that they will be in the path of a North Korean invasion, & USAF fighters based on airfields shared with ROKAF units.

The Chinese know that. They will therefore not react to US forces fighting to defend S. Korea. They would certainly react if US forces invaded North Korea, but that will not happen, so there is no reason to consider any possible Chinese reaction.

The only possible scenario which could provoke a Chinese reaction is a failed N. Korean invasion of the south, followed by victorious S. Korean & US forces advancing into the North. In that case, I would expect S. Koreans to lead the advance, for sound political & military reasons, & the USA to limit its participation to support of the S. Koreans.

I've already described what I think the Chinese might do in that case. I am sure they would not seek to fight S. Korea & the USA, but would try to keep US forces away from the Chinese border.

I dont think China will want to end its economic relationship with the USA and possibly Europe on a war footing by supporting N Korea. N Korea is not worth that much to China and China realizes that there is no danger of an attack by the USA by the few troops that USA might have to station in N Koreal. Really there is no one on the planet that does not realize that N Korea day of reckoning is past due..

 

[weasel1962]

No, the main story is that it was a Torpedo....

So again, what other navy in the region actually operates German built Subs that fire German made heavy torpedoes? If you can name anything other than South Korea's type 209's please share.

No need. The pics released by the South Koreans shows 5x5 propeller blades (and I think they also mentioned that in the report). As far as I understand, German HWTs such as the DM2A4 uses 7 propeller blades which there are pics on the web.

Managed to find one here which has clearly 7x7 blades.
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/dti_images/large/DT_03_01_2008_239_L.jpg

Torp design is very much basically the same so I can understand the confusion.

But unless you are claiming the South Koreans, Americans, Chinese, Russians, English, Swedes, Australians etc can't count and require me to believe that, pls at least allow me to continue refusing to swallow the NK propaganda crap.

 

[Locarnus]

[...]

Personally I not claiming any preference to the cause of the sinking. The Minority report was produced by one of South Korea's top Marine Architects who was a member of the Investigation Team. His report is useful for the wealth of detail that it provides, something that stands in utter contrast to the rather sad joke that is the report. Again I ask, have you actually read it?
I can provide links to both if you are really interested.

[...]

I did not read the reports and I m not a specialist in this matter, but out of curiosity I d like to take a look.
Actually I m more interested in the comparison of the report with the articles and headlines regarding it, by the various media. The art of this secondary spin control can sometimes tell more then the primary spin control (eg the report itself).

 

[Sampanviking]

I did not read the reports and I m not a specialist in this matter, but out of curiosity I d like to take a look.
Actually I m more interested in the comparison of the report with the articles and headlines regarding it, by the various media. The art of this secondary spin control can sometimes tell more then the primary spin control (eg the report itself).

Only too happy to be of help

Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report | Reuters

This was a press release during the investigation on May 6th which talks about German made metal and chemical residues.

The following are links relate to the Minority report.

Link 1 just gives proof that he was a part of the investigation team and that the Govt wanted him out due to his "uncooperative attitude".and also gives a bit of bio.

Gov’t seeks to replace Cheonan investigator

The minority report itself

[¼­ÇÁ¶óÀÌÁî] Letter to Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of state (µ¶°íŹ)

Make what you like of his allegations, but what nobody can deny is the wealth of detail, especially Oceanographic, which he provides. This is the kind of level of detail you would expect as a minimum for a report which has such serious potential consequences.

Imagine therefore my surprise; to put it mildly, when I read the official International report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf

All I can say is read for yourself and judge.

Ask yourself seriously, which document you you want to take with you if you had to argue your case in court?

No need. The pics released by the South Koreans shows 5x5 propeller blades (and I think they also mentioned that in the report). As far as I understand, German HWTs such as the DM2A4 uses 7 propeller blades which there are pics on the web.

Managed to find one here which has clearly 7x7 blades.
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/im...2008_239_L.jpg

Torp design is very much basically the same so I can understand the confusion.

But unless you are claiming the South Koreans, Americans, Chinese, Russians, English, Swedes, Australians etc can't count and require me to believe that, pls at least allow me to continue refusing to swallow the NK propaganda crap.

Bur where is the Provenance? The photographic evidence does not even make it into the Final report. We are asked to the take its provenance on trust, but given the woeful state of the chain of evidence, that is a huge ask and one that I certainly am not prepared to give.

People commented on the highly corroded state of the shaft presented and while a reasonable enough answer of the heat of combustion accelerating the corrosion process was given, this makes all the more remarkable that a plain blue paint mark managed to survive intact.

Still read the Official report as your faith in it may be considerable shaken. If it is, don't feel bad as you will not be the first to be so affected.

Don't forget that the report is a legal case for the prosecution as submitted to the UN for a judgement. IT is stunning that so much "evidence" discussed so prominently in the media during the release of the report does not actually make it into the report, not even as an exhibit and does not therefore actually form part of the official case.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

lol. Look how the issue is side-stepped.

5x5 blade is definitely not a 7-bladed torpedo. Do I really need a 9000 page report to show that. So what happened to the "must be south korean sub" theory? lol.

1st link = torpedo did it.
2nd link = collision with US warship.
3rd link = grounding.

Now the propaganda shifts to the grounding/collision story... still clutching straws. Ever seen a ship break amidship due to grounding without any damage in the front? lol. That means the ship must move sideways! It must take a very good North Korean civil engineer to achieve that.

They can't all be right....but it sure is entertaining. Reminds me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

 

[Locarnus]

Ok, read the articles and some more for background knowledge.
So here are my 2cents.

[...]

Now the propaganda shifts to the grounding/collision story... still clutching straws. Ever seen a ship break amidship due to grounding without any damage in the front? lol. That means the ship must move sideways! It must take a very good North Korean civil engineer to achieve that.

[...]

Moving sideways is actually very simple for a ship. It happens when changing course or turning is conducted. Just inertia.
And thats also the reason why "no damage to sonar dome" is no conclusive indicator of the absence of grounding. On the other hand the scratches on the side of Cheonan are no conclusive indicator of grounding, since they may as well be obtained when the 2 parts scratched the ground after sinking, due to inertia or currents or a combination.

Only too happy to be of help

Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report | Reuters

This was a press release during the investigation on May 6th which talks about German made metal and chemical residues.

The following are links relate to the Minority report.

Link 1 just gives proof that he was a part of the investigation team and that the Govt wanted him out due to his "uncooperative attitude".and also gives a bit of bio.

Gov’t seeks to replace Cheonan investigator

The minority report itself

[¼*ÇÁ¶óÀÌÁî] Letter to Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of state (µ¶°íŹ)

Make what you like of his allegations, but what nobody can deny is the wealth of detail, especially Oceanographic, which he provides. This is the kind of level of detail you would expect as a minimum for a report which has such serious potential consequences.

Imagine therefore my surprise; to put it mildly, when I read the official International report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf

All I can say is read for yourself and judge.

Ask yourself seriously, which document you you want to take with you if you had to argue your case in court?



Bur where is the Provenance? The photographic evidence does not even make it into the Final report. We are asked to the take its provenance on trust, but given the woeful state of the chain of evidence, that is a huge ask and one that I certainly am not prepared to give.

People commented on the highly corroded state of the shaft presented and while a reasonable enough answer of the heat of combustion accelerating the corrosion process was given, this makes all the more remarkable that a plain blue paint mark managed to survive intact.

Still read the Official report as your faith in it may be considerable shaken. If it is, don't feel bad as you will not be the first to be so affected.

Don't forget that the report is a legal case for the prosecution as submitted to the UN for a judgement. IT is stunning that so much "evidence" discussed so prominently in the media during the release of the report does not actually make it into the report, not even as an exhibit and does not therefore actually form part of the official case.

Link 1:
"The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying."

Ally russia! , that says a lot about the credibility of the official, and also about the quoter when uncommented.
And note the formulation. It implies to some extend that it is already proven that North Korea is responsible, whereas in the previous paragraph "belief" is used. Spin control for newbies.

Link 3:
Yep, that oceanographic detail is really missing in the official report (among lots of other things).

However most of the arguments are, well, not convincing.
As stated above, the scratches may have been obtained after the split in two parts and the subsequent sinking.
The forward dented screw blades are convincing evidence for ground contact, while the hull is in backward motion and the screw is rotating. Not more, not less.

About the last statement of a collision. The damage of the 2 parts is clearly the type of damage from a shockwave & bubble effect, not a collision.

Link 4:
I found this link to be very unsatisfying. And the release of that document as a "report" is, well, not appropriate. If I would present something like that as a pupil in 7th grade, I d be ashamed.
So shame on bbc and the Joint... group and everyone else involved.

I used that presentation for reference after some search time:
Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group Cheonan Presentation

As stated above the damage at the breaking point is certainly due to a shockwave & bubble effect as stated in the presentation/report.
Which leaves a torpedo or a mine.

The mine case is dismissed by the JIG for the following reasons:
Moored mine: unlikely
because of fast currents and no anchor found

Bottom mine: not possible because of depth of 47m

my 2cents:
Moored mine: unlikely is not impossible
Bottom mine: without seacharts provided and so on the statement of 47m is not verifyable and thus the "not possible" is subject to credible doubts

With the torpedo case the contact version can be rightfully ruled out, because it would not create the bubble effect.

Then comes an interesting part. The analysis of hull damage is conducted, before the last open possibility is stated, the torpedo detonating somewhere beneath the ship.
For scientists thats a strange order. Because the damage obtained by such a torpedo can also be caused by a mine. So the analysis of hull damage, from a scientific perspective, has to be conducted before the mine & torpedo case, or after both, if one of them cant be rule out (unlikely is not impossible). Putting it in between indicates an agenda to drastically highlight one possiblity (aka spin control). That makes the whole paper very dubious.

It is also dubious, that the mine case is so easily dismissed, whereas the restrictions to the torpedo case are not mentioned at all.
Like Shallow water, angle of attack, precise positions, courses, position relative to the island, currents and all of that. Extremely dubious.

Then a lot of space is reserved for the linking of the torpedo to North Korea, but the linking of the torpedo to the incident is based on 2 statements.
1. The recovery of the torpedo parts.
2. The analysis of chemicals.

ad 1. Special net slide. Useless information concerning the recovery ships aso are an indicator of distraction. Long picture gallery from the recovery also such an indicator (only 2 pictures show the torp out of 6). Distraction from what? No seacharts of the operations, no statement of neutral observers on board and so on.

ad 2. Nice graphs, but some questions remain. Where were those chemicals found and what are the names of the neutral (non allied) observers involved?

Without the explicit involvement of neutral observers in those two critical links between the specific torpedo and the Cheonan, all that following linking of the torpedo to North Korea is utterly useless.

So what happend? I dont know!
All I know is:
1. There are scratches on the side of the Cheonan parts. And the screw blades are bent forward.
2. The breaking apart was caused by a shockwave and bubble effect, leaving a mine or a torpedo as a cause for it.
3. The overall credibility of the official report is extremely dubious because of very obvious spin control elements, like leaving out many important, certainly unclassified details, creating unsupported implications by stylistic tweaking aso.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

http://www.freekorea.us/2010/07/10/debunking-the-326-conspiracy-science-3/

 

[Locarnus]

http://www.freekorea.us/2010/07/10/debunking-the-326-conspiracy-science-3/

Lots of flaming, little arguments whats o ever.
And that a ramming can not be the cause of the splitting, I agree, as stated above.

I never said or implied that North Korea wasn t responsible.
In fact I not even commented on the topic of linking the torpedo parts to North Korea.
Because this is irrelevant as long as the link of the torpedo to the incident is not to some extend credibly established (=> involvement of neutral observers in the analysis of the 2 links).

 

[nicole61]

korean War

Hi,
I'm Nicole, In my point of view war means there is no coincidence between the two country's. If ones the war begins then it takes way to 3rd world war. If it begin then no one live on the earth means that much type explosions are occurred. So to make them as peace.