PDA

View Full Version : North Korea attacks South


Goose
20-05-10, 18:03
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7743830/North-Korea-condemned-by-world-powers-over-torpedo-attack.html

Its been found that the sinking of a south korean boat was caused by the North, who are still officially at war with the south.

"An official investigation has concluded that a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean warship, prompting condemnation of the Pyongyang regime by America, Britain and the United Nations.

"The prospect of dangerous instability on the Korean peninsula grew after South Korea vowed "resolute countermeasures" against its neighbour for the unprovoked attack.

The Cheonan, a 300 ft-long corvette, sank off the southern coast of Baengnyeong Island on March 26, within South Korean waters. Of the 104 men on board, 58 were rescued.

An official report found that a North Korean vessel had fired upon the Cheonan in the night before retreating back into North Korean waters.

The report was greeted with outrage by the US, Britain, Japan and the UN.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "The United States strongly condemns the act of aggression that led to their deaths.

"This act of aggression is one more instance of North Korea's unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law.... Such unacceptable behavior only deepens North Korea's isolation."

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, condemned what he called North Korea's "total indifference to human life".

Britain "and international partners are committed to working closely with the Republic of Korea (South Korea) as they consider an appropriate multilateral response to this callous act," he added.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who is South Korean himself, described the investigation results as "deeply troubling", while the Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama strongly condemned the attack on the Cheonan, describing it as "unforgivable".

The report itself read: "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine..

"There is no other plausible explanation."

The attack on the Cheonan is the worst apparent provocation by the North since the bombing of a Korean Air flight in 1987 with the loss of 115 lives.

The investigators unveiled large parts of the torpedo that had been salvaged from the scene, including its propellers, propulsion motor and steering section. They said these parts, some of which were inscribed with Korean lettering, "perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes".

The South Korean Defence ministry also noted that a "few small submarines and a mother ship supporting them left a North Korean naval base in the West Sea two to three days prior to the attack and returned to port two to three days after the attack."

North Korea has reacted angrily to the accusation, saying that the report was a "fabrication" and that it would wage "all-out war" if there was even a minor retaliation. North Korea has a history of sabre-rattling, but is also a nuclear-armed state, having tested an atomic bomb last year.

China, which is North Korea's strongest ally, and which could use its veto at the United Nations Security Council to block any further sanctions against Pyongyang, reacted cautiously to the news.

The sinking of the South Korean ship was "unfortunate", said Cui Tiankai, the deputy Foreign minister, without acknowledging that North Korea may be responsible for the incident.

Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, visited Beijing earlier this month, perhaps in an attempt to gauge whether the Chinese would continue to support him in the wake of the aggression.

"China is not directly involved, so it should not take a stance on either side or express views on the incident," said Zhang Liangui, a North Korean expert at the Central Party School, where Communist Party leaders are trained.

"South Korea's submission of its report to the UN will clearly force China into making a stance and this will be a challenge. This will be handled by the Foreign ministry, but my view is that China, in accordance with its rising status as a major country, should not go against the rest of the world, but should consider its interests in line with the majority," he added.

In Seoul, the long weeks of mourning since the attack and the personal stories of the young men who lost their lives have deepened the sense of outrage, piling pressure on the government not to allow the lost lives to pass unavenged.

However, military retaliation against North Korea seems to have already been ruled out. "Nobody wants a war on the Korean peninsula and the truth is that it is not easy to take revenge after the event," said Choi Jong-min, whose brother-in-law, Petty Officer First Class Jo Jin-young, was among the dead.

"Military reprisals should have been taken there and then [at the time of the sinking], or not at all," he added.

South Korea has called an emergency meeting of its National Security Council on Friday to discuss its options. However, experts said that most of the punitive actions on offer stand to hurt Seoul at least as much as Pyongyang.

"There really are few good options out there for South Korea," said Daniel Pinkston, a North Korea expert at the International Crisis Group. "They can go to the UN, but in reality China is very unlikely to back serious economic measures against the North which is already in economic crisis.

"Anything too drastic, such as military retaliation or real moves to destabilize the North's economy risks regional instability that could trigger market crashes, capital flight and an overnight loss of regional confidence. It is really hard to see how the South ends up better off after this."

igonge
20-05-10, 18:13
Ugh.

Laralissa
20-05-10, 18:14
Oh damn o_O

Cochrane
20-05-10, 18:16
The best option for South Korea seems to be to wait until Kim Jong Il dies. North Korea has long ago lost anything it ever had to loose, so any retribution, military or economic, won’t help and may end up hurting the South more.

Goose
20-05-10, 18:22
The best option for South Korea seems to be to wait until Kim Jong Il dies. North Korea has long ago lost anything it ever had to loose, so any retribution, military or economic, won’t help and may end up hurting the South more.

His son takes over, its not a democratic thing, so it continues as it does now.

I think it would be stupid to sit back while the north becomes a nuclear power, then makes pretty blatant attacks against the south.

Cochrane
20-05-10, 18:45
His son takes over, its not a democratic thing, so it continues as it does now.

I think it would be stupid to sit back while the north becomes a nuclear power, then makes pretty blatant attacks against the south.

I figure that if he dies, there will be a power vacuum for a short time as powerful generals and so on try to expand their power at the expense of the son. That may be an opening where outside governments can exert influence. At least I don’t see any better option at the moment.

What are you going to do instead of sitting back? Economic embargos won’t help when the country is already this poor and the people are already this oppressed. It would be very, very difficult to get China’s approval to a military strike, and China is a country that I want to anger far less than North Korea. Also, most western militaries are currently extremely strained with the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea’s military is old and outdated, but huge, so going in there with only a skeleton force seems like a very risky proposition to me.

Goose
20-05-10, 18:57
What are you going to do instead of sitting back? Economic embargos won’t help when the country is already this poor and the people are already this oppressed. It would be very, very difficult to get China’s approval to a military strike, and China is a country that I want to anger far less than North Korea. Also, most western militaries are currently extremely strained with the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea’s military is old and outdated, but huge, so going in there with only a skeleton force seems like a very risky proposition to me.

Western nations on the whole have little to no engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan, theres only around 5 who have sufficient enough troop levels in Afghanistan to class themselves as involved in the conflict in my opinion. China couldnt handle a conflict against the EU or NATO at all.

Chinas current economic progress is on Western buyers, its not selfcontained, there worried about this as much as we are.

Alpharaider47
20-05-10, 19:06
If I remember correctly, we've only got a truce with the North, so aren't we still technically at war as well?

Cochrane
20-05-10, 19:13
Western nations on the whole have little to no engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan, theres only around 5 who have sufficient enough troop levels in Afghanistan to class themselves as involved in the conflict in my opinion. China couldnt handle a conflict against the EU or NATO at all.

Chinas current economic progress is on Western buyers, its not selfcontained, there worried about this as much as we are.

Little to no engagement? I have no idea how things are looking in general, but the german military for example has no capacities left to assist in any other real war in any meaningful way, unless we seriously increase military spending. Likewise, the stress on the british army in Afghanistan and Iraq seems (from what I read) to be so high that they could not join an attack on North Korea without reducing their presence in the other conflicts noticeably. Both France and Germany would probably be extremely unwilling to join any such war — more than in Iraq, I guess, but the population is going to object strongly, so counting on these and many other european countries is probably not possible. Most other countries really don’t matter, you won’t overthrow Kim Jong Il with the army of Belgium (no offense to any belgians here).

The only real option would be if the Russian and Chinese military were willing to do this, but neither is directly threatened by North Korean nuclear weapons. The North Korean leadership would have to become a whole lot madder for something like this to happen (which is always a possibility, of course).

China is becoming more and more assertive in its foreign politics and in its economic politics. I seriously doubt they would start a war because Korea or Japan or even the US feel threatened by North Korea.

Edit to add:If I remember correctly, we've only got a truce with the North, so aren't we still technically at war as well?

Technically, you and almost everyone else are still at war with us, Germany, as well, since there has never been a formal peace treaty after the second world war. Really interesting is the de-facto state, and in that respect yes, it’s still very much like a war with truce with North Korea.

Johnnay
20-05-10, 19:48
His son takes over, its not a democratic thing, so it continues as it does now.

I think it would be stupid to sit back while the north becomes a nuclear power, then makes pretty blatant attacks against the south.

I would imagine NK being a dictatorship country.

I do hope WW3 doesn't start though

robm_2007
20-05-10, 19:57
NK is a dumbass (the Govt, not the citizens)

i cant but help laughing whenever i see or think of Kim Jong Il. he wears high heels, grandma glasses :p

and also becuase of this: http://fdrnepal.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/kim-jong-il.jpg

"I'm so ronrey."

i wonder if NK will say it was an "accident" or simply say "Yes, we did it."

Alpharaider47
20-05-10, 19:59
^^ We must suspect the worthress Arec Bawrin!

You know I think that if N Korea started WW III it'd probably be fairly short =/

Mad Tony
20-05-10, 20:02
I reckon Britain, the US and South Korea (I doubt the EU would commit any troops) could probably defeat North Korea even quicker than the coalition defeated Iraq. They've got a big army but it's severely outdated and I expect a lot of the soldiers are probably half-starving.

Alpharaider47
20-05-10, 20:08
I reckon Britain, the US and South Korea (I doubt the EU would commit any troops) could probably defeat North Korea even quicker than the coalition defeated Iraq. They've got a big army but it's severely outdated and I expect a lot of the soldiers are probably half-starving.

I'm sure the South has a revenge factor as well, that's got to figure in somehow.

Catapharact
20-05-10, 20:11
What are you going to do instead of sitting back? Economic embargos won’t help when the country is already this poor and the people are already this oppressed.

But it would create reasonable grounds for a revolution to happen. Iraq was on the verge of such a revolution even before the invasion occured. If the invasion didn't happen, the Iraqi people would have eventually toppled Saddam themselves and there would have been little chance of a viable anti-west insurgency. Furthermore it would have opted support from many of the UN security council members who would have gladly signed on for a peacekeeping mission to make sure that any illegal trading and deeds are kept to a minimum and you can sure bet that the SC would have extended the Peacekeeping mission if it was deemed necessary.

This particular case however extends beyond harrasment. A South korean military ship was blatently attacked and destroyed in international waters. It is an open violation of UN international law and it must be dealt with clear cut penalties.

I personally think that the South Korean SEALs should give one of the NK harbours a visit and give it a healthy dose of the C4 treatment... And offcourse, deny any connection to the attack :whi:.

lara c. fan
20-05-10, 20:13
I would imagine NK being a dictatorship country.

I do hope WW3 doesn't start though

I don't think World War 3 would start from this.

Mad Tony
20-05-10, 20:16
I'm sure the South has a revenge factor as well, that's got to figure in somehow.They have every right to be angry. I think the only thing that's stopping them from invading is not knowing what weapons North Korea have. That's the problem with North Korea - you just don't know. They might have every missile of theirs aimed at Seoul. Equally, they might not.

Cochrane
20-05-10, 20:25
But it would create reasonable grounds for a revolution to happen. Iraq was on the verge of such a revolution even before the invasion occured. If the invasion didn't happen, the Iraqi people would have eventually toppled Saddam themselves and there would have been little chance of a viable anti-west insurgency. Furthermore it would have opted support from many of the UN security council members who would have gladly signed on for a peacekeeping mission to make sure that any illegal trading and deeds are kept to a minimum and you can sure bet that the SC would have extended the Peacekeeping mission if it was deemed necessary.

This particular case however even extends beyond harrasment. A South korean military ship was blatently attacked and destroyed in international waters. It is an open violation of UN international law and it must be dealt with clear cut penalties.

I personally think that the South Korean SEALs should give one of the NK harbours a visit and give it a healthy dose of the C4 treatment... And offcourse, deny any connection to the attack :whi:.

I don't think there is room for a revolution in North Korea right now. Sure, "they have nothing to loose but their chains". On the other hand, if we look at the successful revolutions in the east bloc, those were generally based on a population that got more rights and more wealth, together with a government that became less willing to crack down hard on the people, not the other way around. I am fairly certain that any embargo on NK right now would only weaken the people. The government, though, does not need a lot of money to continue its oppression, just a lot of people, ideology, and the ability to give those who are higher up just a little more food than the rest.

Twilight
22-05-10, 00:46
Again?
Weird timing, I just finished writing a paper about it happening in the past and here it repeats. History does rhyme.

Draco
22-05-10, 02:32
Do the North Koreans want to be liberated?

Glaçon
22-05-10, 07:20
Do the North Koreans want to be liberated?

I saw a documentary on North Korea a while ago; and a lot of the citizens have absolutely no idea about the outside world. If you don't live in the capital (which is a privilege), you live and work your whole life in the country side trying to feed that same city.

Scio
22-05-10, 07:23
Oh how mature, like violence ever solved anything. This may sound very weak but I don't understand why there can't be peace discussions between all nations?

robm_2007
22-05-10, 07:24
NK is very secluded and cut off.

im not sure, but i think that they teach their students that Americans are the enemy, or something.:confused:

but it might be another country.

Glaçon
22-05-10, 07:32
Oh how mature, like violence ever solved anything. This may sound very weak but I don't understand why there can't be peace discussions between all nations?

I know, right? Every time I get into a discussion about NK I want to epic face palm on their behalf. They're government is so unbelievably backwards, it's so frustrating to hear and think about.

It's literally like watching someone trying to use a computer when they REALLY have no freaking idea, and you know exactly what they're trying to do and cringe at each retarded mistake they make.

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 07:54
Oh how mature, like violence ever solved anything. This may sound very weak but I don't understand why there can't be peace discussions between all nations?

There will pretty much always be conflict, that much is unavoidable.

And besides, you expect them to sit on a pile of guns and not blow the living hell out of each other? :p

almayah
22-05-10, 07:57
Oh God :rolleyes:

Glaçon
22-05-10, 07:58
There will pretty much always be conflict, that much is unavoidable.

And besides, you expect them to sit on a pile of guns and not blow the living hell out of each other? :p

I disagree with you, actually - I've always wondered what would happen if North Koreans had more of an idea of what the outside world was like. I suppose that's why their government tries so, so, hard to police what the population is allowed to learn about the world.

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 08:00
I disagree with you, actually - I've always wondered what would happen if North Koreans had more of an idea of what the outside world was like. I suppose that's why their government tries so, so, hard to police what information comes into the country.

Still, peace talks and no conflicts could not happen, really. There's always going to be something they disagree on. And surely it would be the Government that would be having the peace talks? Although, I guess the general population could try and influence the Government, but that could have only varying degrees of success.

Glaçon
22-05-10, 08:03
Still, peace talks and no conflicts could not happen, really. There's always going to be something they disagree on. And surely it would be the Government that would be having the peace talks? Although, I guess the general population could try and influence the Government, but that could have only varying degrees of success.

You're totally right, it's NK's government that would be involved in the peace talks, and of course they would disagree to anything but reclaiming the entirety of Korea for themselves.

Which is just really retarded, surely, Kim Jong Il can see how much more progressive and flourishing the South is.

TAKE A HINT! You're a terrible leader! Take a hike; and take the rest of your government with you.

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 08:09
You're totally right, it's NK's government that would be involved in the peace talks, and of course they would disagree to anything but reclaiming the entirety of Korea for themselves.

Which is just really retarded, surely, Kim Jong Il can see how much more progressive and flourishing the South is.

TAKE A HINT! You're a terrible leader! Take a hike; and take the rest of your government with you.

I'm not going to pretend I know much about Kim Jong Il, because I really don't, but I get the impression he's a rather bad leader! :p

Some people just want all the power, they don't care what they put there country through, as long as they hold on to that power. They're willing to ignore any signs that they are a bad leader as well, which is part of this. Him wanting the entirety of Korea is really just a classic example of people wanting more power.

tonyme
22-05-10, 08:11
I've lived my share of wars. Words fail to describe how hard it is but it's a reality that can't be escaped. Man has a natural tendency to fight and compete, anger is the foundation of what causes war... I just wish the best of luck to the people of Korea, both North and South, and I hope they finally find a proper way to solve this and not to resort to violence, like always.

Glaçon
22-05-10, 08:11
I'm not going to pretend I know much about Kim Jong Il, because I really don't, but I get the impression he's a rather bad leader! :p

Some people just want all the power, they don't care what they put there country through, as long as they hold on to that power. They're willing to ignore any signs that they are a bad leader as well, which is part of this. Him wanting the entirety of Korea is really just a classic example of people wanting more power.


Doesn't it just make you want to scream?! It makes me feel so frustrated that someone like that was even allowed to reign! Ughhh! *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm*

Scio
22-05-10, 12:01
There will pretty much always be conflict, that much is unavoidable.

And besides, you expect them to sit on a pile of guns and not blow the living hell out of each other? :p

Still, peace talks and no conflicts could not happen, really. There's always going to be something they disagree on. And surely it would be the Government that would be having the peace talks? Although, I guess the general population could try and influence the Government, but that could have only varying degrees of success.

You speak a lot of negatives, there won't always be conflict, when humans actually come to the realisation that we are all together despite imaginary divisions of race, colour, sexuality, religion, political affiliation and country that we construct.

We all have one common purpose and that is the survival of our race and we could achieve a lot more together than we could do apart.

If people disagree, there are two ways about it; either one person is wrong and the other is right or they're both wrong and the correct view is held by a third party or yet to be discovered. Either way you can disprove illogical and rational points of view that cause tension and conflict with empirical data (facts), that's all these people need, to be taught how the world is and broken free of the shackles of their distorted perceptions.

I, Tomb Raider
22-05-10, 14:34
Damn. :hea:

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 14:42
You speak a lot of negatives, there won't always be conflict, when humans actually come to the realisation that we are all together despite imaginary divisions of race, colour, sexuality, religion, political affiliation and country that we construct.

We all have one common purpose and that is the survival of our race and we could achieve a lot more together than we could do apart.

If people disagree, there are two ways about it; either one person is wrong and the other is right or they're both wrong and the correct view is held by a third party or yet to be discovered. Either way you can disprove illogical and rational points of view that cause tension and conflict with empirical data (facts), that's all these people need, to be taught how the world is and broken free of the shackles of their distorted perceptions.

I speak in a lot of negatives because the occasion demands I do. I'm not one to hide the flaws in what we are, the world we live in. And the reason I say that there will always be conflict is because there will be. There's always going to be someone who fights for their point, either violently or with only words. Hence, conflict.

BOLDED- People could also view it from the perspective that the human race has survived as long as it has (A couple of hundred thousand years, I think) even without all of the different people in it being one happy family. This could probably well go on.

ITALICIZED- Not everyone in the world is going to be able to do that. Although we may be wrong and/or deluded, there will probably be even just one person who refuses to give up what they believe is right, and accept the "new" way of thinking.

freeze10108
22-05-10, 18:16
Which is just really retarded, surely, Kim Jong Il can see how much more progressive and flourishing the South is.

TAKE A HINT! You're a terrible leader! Take a hike; and take the rest of your government with you.

The thing is, I don't think he cares about how his country does; he's probably just "leading" for the power, money, fame, etc. that comes with the position.

Draco
23-05-10, 02:11
I saw a documentary on North Korea a while ago; and a lot of the citizens have absolutely no idea about the outside world. If you don't live in the capital (which is a privilege), you live and work your whole life in the country side trying to feed that same city.

NK is what China wanted to be.

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:27
As much as people don't like NK, no one is going to attack it because it has the bomb and it could easily launch at Japan and South Korea, wrecking two of the world largest economies.

I'm hoping there is a non violent solution to liberate the people of NK, from within the society.

Glaçon
23-05-10, 04:22
The thing is, I don't think he cares about how his country does; he's probably just "leading" for the power, money, fame, etc. that comes with the position.

Yup. Gotta love ego trips :rolleyes:

NK is what China wanted to be.

=/ Well let's hope they don't keep travelling down that road.


I'm hoping there is a non violent solution to liberate the people of NK, from within the society.

This is sort of what I meant by my comment on wondering what would happen with NKoreans were able to learn of life in the outside world, surely some stronghearted people would realise something was wrong, and start asking questions.

Mad Tony
23-05-10, 10:28
As much as people don't like NK, no one is going to attack it because it has the bomb and it could easily launch at Japan and South Korea, wrecking two of the world largest economies.But does it, and how long do we wait? If we knew for certain they didn't have any nuclear weapons and weren't ready to launch thousands of missiles into South Korea I'd be perfectly fine with an invasion of North Korea since we'd win it easily. Problem is nobody knows.

The Great Chi
23-05-10, 11:24
....I'm hoping there is a non violent solution to liberate the people of NK, from within the society.First of all we infiltrate from the south, cross the border at night and set up McDonald burger bars and KFC's in every North korean city.

Then the population of North korea get a taste of fast food, till their hooked, and then the borders open and they cry out for Mercedes cars, Nike shoes and I-pods.

They overthrow their nasty leaders.

Democracy rules, happy ending :D