http://www.news.com.au/world/north-korea-sunk-south-korean-warship-killing-46-sailors/story-e6frfkyi-1225856989612
Quote
AN elite North Korean suicide squad of human torpedoes may have been involved in the sinking of a South Korean ship in mysterious circumstances.
South Korea's Defence Intelligence Command had alerted the Navy weeks ahead of the sinking that North Korean suicide squads were being deployed, according to reports in Seoul, Sky News reports
The "Human torpedo" squads were said to involve small submarines, Sky News reports.
They are navigated so close to the target that their torpedoes or explosives blow up both target and the attackers.
They can also be timed to explode while the attackers escape from the vessel, the mass-circulation South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported.
The attack by North Korea on the 1200-tonne Cheonan claimed the lives of more than 40 sailors and was in retaliation for an earlier naval defeat, the report added.
"It is the military intelligence's assessment that the North attacked with a heavy torpedo," a military source was quoted as saying by the news agency Yonhap.
"The military intelligence has made the report to the Blue House - the Presidential residence - and to the Defence Ministry immediately after the sinking of the Cheonan that it is clearly the work of North Korea's military," the source added.
South Korea now plans to raise the front half of the Cheonan, which went down near a disputed sea border with North Korea.
It will issue its verdict on the cause of the explosion that sank the warship after that.
If Pyongyang did carry out the attack it would be the deadliest confrontation between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.
The North has denied it had anything to do with the sinking.
(http://msnsmileys.net/y/smileys/Yolks/wut.png)
Two things.
1. I wouldn't think impossible for the N.Koreans to use some form a kamikazes. Also they are indeed the first suspect after the sinking of the boat.
But...
2. The idea of using a kamikaze on this day and age would suggest an extremely underdeveloped military program on part of the N.Koreans and that is incredibly hard to believe considering that they have been starving their own people to fund the military.
My main hypothesis would be that the hard liners in S.Korea want to paint the north in the same light as the Japanese 70 years before (ie: The Bogeyman) after what could possibly may have been a mine or even possibly a torpedo.
It wouldn't be the first time the N.Koreans probe the tolerance of the west and frankly until China decides that it doesn't want to deal with them anymore they will keep trying to use said stunts as leverage. Not an easy problem to solve.
I had heard it was a Korean-war era mine, which seemed a little suspicious. SK didn't seem to want to make a big deal of it at the time.
@ 2. Considering they have little international trade, Soviet aid is pretty much dried up and force military service is universal for men and extremely long in duration, that massive military spending may consist largely of rations, guns and fuel (plus whatever money gets thrown down the nuclear warhead and missile development program hole).
North Korea loves mini-subs. They seem to be one of the main means for infiltrating the South. I also believe that manned torpedos (with or without a warhead) are still part of the standard naval arsenal of many nations (for use by special forces, SEALs, Kampfschwimmer etc.).
I would not fully exclude scenario #2 but consider #1 to be quite consistent with the North's typical behaviour. The North also has the means to 'motivate' even kamikaze actions ("die quickly and a hero or suffer the (slow and painful) fate of a traitor together with your loved ones"). Not all Japanese kamikaze pilots were volunteers either (not to forget German and Russian equivalents).
How did they not hear a torpedo coming?
In case of manned torpedos the typical high-pitched sounds may be missing. If it was torpedos fired from a mini-sub at close (selfdestructive) range there might not have been time to react (minis can run pretty silent and may approch undetected). Also no idea whether the ship in question would have hydrophones manned round the clock. Pure speculation on my part.
They should have been listening since there were "torpedo" threats made before this happened. I can't see any torpedo hitting a ship that's "manned" or "unmanned" without making noise. If the ship was underway the torpedo would have to be making noise to catch the ship. I think they hit a mine are just turning the whole thing into propaganda.
At slow speeds non-nuclear subs can be close to undetectable by passive means. And it is implied that, if it was a manned attack, it was close range enough to destroy the attacker too. In that case a fired torpedo would be below the victim before practical countermeasures could be taken.
There was no statement about how fast (if at all) the South Korean boat was going, so I can't say whether a sneak attack was possible.
If you were able to sneak in without been detected wouldn't it make more sense to plant a bomb in a critical part of the hull? That would have the advantage of enough time to get away to a safe distance.
Hmmm.... Those ships were ASW equipped, they were listening. Couldn't have been a submarine. Had to have been a mine. You might not have heard the sub, but you would have certainly heard the torpedo. As far as I know you can't slow a torpedo, unless it has a ninja mode for slow targets. :D
Certainly the crew knows what happened. If the boat got lifted out of the water with no warning it was a mine.Quote"There was the sound of an explosion and the ship keeled to the right. We lost power and telecommunications," Yonhap quoted Choi Won-il as saying.
Must have been a mine. The ship split in half.
I have to dissent on the torpedo speed question at least in general. Some (esp. older) models can be tuned down to walking speed (and a consequently vastly increased range/endurance).
Just to be clear I have no preferred opinion in this case. I just come up with possible scenarios.
If the ship was moving in any significant way (let's say above 3 knots), only mine or torpedo are possible. And with the ship split in half it could not even be a moored mine. Rule of thumbs: direct hits tear holes, explosions at a distance* break.
This would also likely exclude a bomb attached to the ship.
*below the keel
Yup, you're right. Those sneaky bastards! I never heard of that. Changing a torpedo's speed I mean. I was a surface guy so I know about ASW, not so much about subs and torpedoes. If I was in water where there was a threat of such things I'd be moving fast all the time.
Sounds like the ship sank in shallow water. A great place to put influence mines. I'll bet it was the same kind of mine that damaged the Princeton and the Tripoli in Gulf I.
The German navy in 1944 modified one of their standard electric torpedoes to become essentially a moving minefield. It would run at slow speed for several hours following a programmed 'search' pattern. It was used in the aftermath of the Normandy landings. Literature gives a range of 57 km at 9 kn (about 3.5 hours). It would run 27 km straight, then switch to search pattern. Of the first batch of 90 (fired at night) 30 seem to have hit something since explosions were detected.
The minimum speed is limited only by the need to keep the depth (torpedos have neghative buoyancy) and the rudder still working.
---
Let's see with what result the South Koreans will come up.
How about a scuba diver with a rebreather? Wouldn't that be silent enough?
Works only against static targets (and the diver has to get there first). And see remarks above about the effects of attached charges as opposed to 'backbreaker' explosions at a distance.
Now they are saying something about a torpedo being the cause. I guess they weren't listening and/or going to slow.
A short notice in yesterdays's papers read as if the ship got a surface hit.
Really? I'm beginning to think it was aliens since there's so much confusion.
It is the Korean equivalent of the Kennedy assassination. If all theories were true, a lot of the bullets would not have hit the president because they would have hit each other.
LOL! So it's the magic torpedo theory?
I saw in the press that they fired on a flock of birds earlier. That's a classic implanted memory from alien abduction, seeing an animal I mean.
Wait, the about-to-be-sunken boat fired on a flock of birds? Oh, they had it coming!!
But they had to assume the birds were communist agents with anti-ship capabilities. Can't afford to take chances. :mrgreen:
Knowing Koreans, it's more likely that the birds looked tasty... ::)
Yup, they would make a change from dogs, I suppose.
Quote from: DavidH on April 27, 2010, 12:47:17 PM
But they had to assume the birds were communist agents with anti-ship capabilities. Can't afford to take chances. :mrgreen:
[youtube=425,350]ZeSHH8DFkf0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeSHH8DFkf0
That was just quackers. :mrgreen:
Quote from: DavidH on April 27, 2010, 01:25:13 PM
Yup, they would make a change from dogs, I suppose.
Too early in the season, bo shin tang is best for the hottest days of summer. Besides, that stuff is too expensive for military rations.
Yes, the navy works for chicken feed as usual :mrgreen:
Btw. don't play chicken with a live torpedo!
Unless you close on it before it arms...
I would not bet on that.
A) 'They' probably have seen "Hunt for Red October" (iirc it was not in the book. There the sub survives the torpedo hit* and fatally rams the opponent)
B) as the first article said, North Koreans are expected to even stay within kill range
*the Typhoon class is about the only sub that could actually pull that off
Oh! This is weird!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507
I still find it quite amazing that both submarine and torpedo went undetected in waters covered by American sonar nets and South Korean ASW ships. There's something fishy going on here.
The UN (tactfully or cowardly, depending on one's perspective) condemned the attack but did not specify the attacker. ::)
Yeah, that's weird too and the Russian experts said they didn't know what caused the blast. I wonder if it was a remote controlled American mine that accidentally went off and this is the cover story.
I didn't know this before but they were in an area covered by an American sonar net. There's no way they would have missed a submarine and a torpedo... And, no doubt the whole thing is on tape somewhere and if they did miss it before they could go back and listen to it again to identify the sub and the torpedo. There wouldn't need to be a huge investigation with such a "meh" outcome...
Seems to me that South Korea would be at pains not to falsely accuse the North. The Americans? Who knows... I'm sure there are elements in the military who are all for engaging North Korea once and for all (Seoul would be devastated, but it'd be a definite victory otherwise - America's military must be pining for action against an under-armed standing army, after facing all these insurgencies lately). I think even China would wash their hands of the North if they attempted nuclear use.
Sounds like the recent case with the Iranian guy who claimed he was abducted by the CIA, was found in the US and then came back to Iran as a 'hero'. I don't believe anyone's side of the story, and I frankly doubt the actual details will surface anytime soon if at all.
Aaand now the US and South Korea are doing war exercises and North Korea is threatening war...someone I know, and who's opinion I trust, says the threat is more about Kim Jon Il's son proving a point to his generals than anything else.
I have a friend who works in the American embassy in Seoul and he says it's very tense there.
Militarily I don't think North Korea has a chance. But if we get into it I don't know what side China will fall on. Maybe somebody want this to happen so we can get in a war, China falls on the North Korean side and we just say, "Buh Bye", to a trillion dollars in debt.
I know one thing for sure. If North Korea has a virtually silent submarine and torpedo then the US Aircraft carrier out there is bait. I can't believe that is true though. Certainly the US wouldn't do that...
Carthage must be destroyed! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War) ::)
The guy who said the threat is really directed at the generals suspects that if nukes came out, or were threatened to be brought out, China would drop North Korea like a bad habit. And yeah, North Korea would be stomped flat, so I kind of don't think anything will come of it.
I also don't think that the resulting (extremely tense) political situation if they side with NK would end up with us dropping the debt like that because it wouldn't end with us going to war against North Korea. If we did drop the debt, we'd be screwed, since the current wars now cost more than the US brings in in taxes every year for the last few years and no one would pick up where China left off. We might *gasp* have to raise taxes! We'd still be over our heads, but we'd be closer to making ends meet.
Totally agreed. You just never know what's running through these peoples minds...
The important thing is that they fire the first shot. (FDR, giving rise to even more undying conspiracy theories)
Regardless of hawks in all sides I still want to believe that Obama wouldn't pursue a war the same way dubya did, and I wonder what would take to force his hand.
Unless I've been misreading him all along...
---
One thing that popped into my mind during the latest Iran crisis (the 'new' undeclared reactor, etc) was that the reluctance of Russia and China to go along sanctions is purely economical: they have invested heavily there and would lose either payments (for weapons and reactors, Russia), or a source of energy (oil, China). IOW, apart from a face saving act (there was one with China already) with enough money/investment opportunities, you could convince them to go along and play ball.
In principle it should be the same thing with N. Korea but the problem is that it isn't, NK doesn't have as many resources and China's main fear is a massive refugee migration. I doubt that the idea of completely sealing the border is politically palatable for Beijing, plus the obvious interference in it's area of influence.
My point would be that I don't see an easy way for China to look the other way in case of a conflict.
I'll bet we find out here in a bit... :mrgreen:
Whatever one thinks of Obama, I don't think he would voluntarily start another war, esp. since those started by his predecessor are still hot and costly.
I would not dismiss the possibility of a modern-day Jack D. Ripper provoking one. In the case of Iran that could of course be a Yahu de Netanya forcing his hand. I would not put it past the Israeli government to go rogue during the hot phase of the US election campaign.
In the case of Korea, we know from their own words that US hardliners give a halfsolid digestive final product about the life of Koreans and would willingly sacifice a few million of them to solve the NK 'problem' (eggs, omelette, you know the drill).
How sure are we that the US gov. would be truly unhappy to see the Israelis zap the Iranian reactors? It cuts both ways; they would publicly throw up their hands in horror even as they ship fresh ammo to Israel.
The wise ones (OK, we are talking about the US government) would know that this would breed more trouble than it's worth.
But for pragmatism nuking Israel would probably the least harmful longterm solution :devil:
This might possibly attract some criticism. :mrgreen:
My remark or the nuking of Israel?
Unfortunately some nasty guys in the past were likely right about 'successful' genocides being viable longterm solutions, if one can weather the immediate aftermath.
Where are the original Prussians to complain about the German Order, the Tasmanians about the British, the Caribes about Europeans in general?
Speaking of 'complaining' or failing to, I was listening to Deuchevella Radio [sp]--- or maybe it was BBC international? on my NPR feed the other day.
Among other things, they talked about the international court of justice's decision about a breakaway country's split more or less along ethnic lines. As it turned out, the court focused on the legitimacy of the document of independence, and not on the legitimacy of the split itself, instead pushing that back onto the general assembly.
That's not my comment-- this is: as the various commentators spoke about it, they kept mentioning that the breakaway itself, if legitimized, would open the door for chaos and allow parts of countries to split off willy-nilly. Or so they implied.
And it struck me as odd: if the majority of the citizens of a fragment of a larger nation, conclude they would be better off going it alone, rather than remaining under the rule of the larger, remaining pieces of that nation-- who is to say they do not have the right to split?
I mean-- what "rule" can anyone point to, and allow that any means-- including violent suppression-- is the more legitimate actions to take, to force-keep that fragment within the larger whole?
I look at the USA's violent history-- where exactly that happened: a major fraction desired to split, but the remaining fraction used it's army to violently force it to stay. "Civil war" (an oxymoron, if ever there was-- yes it was war, but it was far from civil on either side...)
In history, we are taught that Lincoln did the correct thing, using violence to suppress the split, even though the majority of the folk living in the south wanted it. This is stated as if Lincoln's use of violence should not be questioned.
Of course, the results were better for most of the folk involved--apart from any civilian who died for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time-- and certainly better for the benighted folk who were property under the rules of the south at the time. And we have a single (more or less) country as a result.
But, it struck me that the commentators all assumed that the whole nation is always superior to two or three independent countries, each going their own way in the international venue.
Yet, the US assisted the two Koreas to split, and took an active part in the failed attempt of Vietnam to split. And nobody spoke of any hypocrisy, considering the US's history.
Furthermore, few people lament the disintegration of the old USSR, when Russian Communism self-destructed, and permitted the various parts to revert to their former independent country status.
Clearly, the individual countries was superior than what was happening under the old USSR; yet I reflected it's not entirely cut-and-dried-- you could walk the streets safely in most major cities under the old USSR without fear of petty or organized criminals harassing your person-- apart from the biggest criminal gang of all (KGB), obviously.
I dunno-- it seems to me, if a major group of people can get a clear sort of 'super-majority'-- some number much greater than 50% say, to agree that they want to split off from their parent nation, who's to say both won't be better off in the long run?
As humankind moves forward towards the 22nd century (since we started formally keeping track) it seems to me that national borders are becoming less important with regards to war, and more a cultural/economic distinction instead.
That is, the idea of "nationality" may someday fade, and everyone lives within small, "state-like" regional semi-local governments, as national merges into the international, with each "super-region" having it's own group to argue that interest.
Oh, I'm not saying it very well-- but it struck me as odd, that the commentators would so quickly presume that keeping a larger country together was automatically superior to allowing it to fracture into pieces.
Nations are dialects with armies as the old saying says. The pragmatic answer is that longterm the legitimacy lies in the ability to defend against other claimants.
Prussia took Silesia from Austria (a majority of Silesians was quite happy about that btw) and defended the spoils in three wars including WW0 (aka the 7 Years War).
As a result Silesia remained in Prussian (later German) hands until 1945 when it was taken, again by force, and added to Poland. Since the population was not happy this time it was evicted.
The proto-US declared themselves independent and were able to defend it against British power => The US became a 'legitimate' country.
Today treaties may be more common but as we see with Georgia, might still makes right in most cases.
Comes a point where it just gets silly. If Wales or Scotland ever left the UK - as many would like - they would be far too small to survive without the cooperation of the parent nation, or in their case, within the EU. But as for fighting a war to keep them - no way!
I've always said Lincoln should have allowed the USA to split and let tempers cool. In time, slavery would most likely have fizzled out for economic reasons and there was in reality precious little to quarrel about except slavery.
Check this out:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-55107-2.html
The Cheonan ran aground. The props were still turning...
Oh! And the surviving crew was sequestered for two weeks!
Where is the engine room on that boat, and, are those propellers electric powered (I don't see any shaft to transmit power)?
---
The one with power makes the rules, it seemed convenient if the Soviet Union dissolved making it less likely to recover, but you don't want allies like Turkey losing all the Kurd inhabited territory.
As for US secession a GOPher (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/23/tennessee-republican-floats-secession/?fbid=DgTLtsHonwq) from TN was talking about it the other day...
It's a gas turbine/diesel if the torpedo hit first it would have died immediately.
"an explosion (or two explosions) occurred for 1~2 seconds at the stern of the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), causing a power stoppage and inflow of oil and seawater, and the ship heeled 90 degrees to the right very fast. When the crew went out to the deck, they found the stern already submerged."
There's no way that shaft kept spinning for more than a few seconds but all the propellers are bent like it was underway when it ran aground. The water depth was around than 30 meters according to some. There's no way those props are still spinning when it went down that far. Both props are bent so it was nearly level laterally when the propellers struck. It just doesn't make sense...
I haven't the knowledge to understand what I see in those pictures. Where was the torpedo supposed to have struck? The stern of the ship is mostly covered in the photos, but in #2 there seems to be no damage visible except for the bending of the blades.
And what the hell are we seeing in #3?
Modern (i.e. less than 50 years old ;)) torpedos tend not to 'strike' at all. They explode close to (and best under) the target which is much more effective.
Are you telling us that in all those submarine movies they have been misrepresenting facts? ;)
In those set after WW2 this would indeed be the case. The sinking of the General Belgrano in the Falkland War was an exception. The Brits took the chance to get rid of some old WW2 straight run torpedos with impact fuses (designed 1925!) on that occasion.
Submarine on submarine action differs slightly. Those torpedos also would explode at a short distance but it does not matter in what relative position to the sub. But there are only one or two types of subs that would survive even a single hit (the Russian Typhoons and maybe the Oscars).
A patrol boat like the Korean one would almost not be worth a torpedo (overkill).
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on July 29, 2010, 09:16:54 AM
I haven't the knowledge to understand what I see in those pictures. Where was the torpedo supposed to have struck? The stern of the ship is mostly covered in the photos, but in #2 there seems to be no damage visible except for the bending of the blades.
And what the hell are we seeing in #3?
The torpedo or mine supposedly struck aft and port directly under the engine room. The torpedo wouldn't have bent the blades most likely, especially not forward like they are.
Photo three looks like the stack pancaked. It might have just collapsed from the vibration of the explosion.
I just don't understand why they left out the grounding. The Russian's, I think, were the only ones that brought it up.
Wait a second, what are the chances of the explosion happening on the inside of the hull? Would a small charge be able to sink the boat without damaging the engine room enough for the propellers to keep running? Pic No 3 looks as if the explosion happened on the inside, or am I reading it wrong?
None. The hull is bent up like a bubble jet torpedo or mine hit it. I just think there is a cover up of some sort going on. Initially they said it was a German torpedo that hit the ship and the South Koreans have German subs and torpedoes. Why would they torpedo their own ship? Because it ran aground and they didn't want it to fall in enemy hands? I wouldn't think it would move much with those props bent up like that. Maybe in circles...
Stacks can collapse like that. It's pretty common. They can collapse like that if they get old and weak so I don't think that's anything.
Those engines would have to still be running at least 25m underwater when the explosion occurred directly under the engine room. I highly doubt that as I doubt that a North Korean "ghost" submarine and "ghost" torpedo went undetected...
Ok, let's think this thoroughly, let's consider for a second that there is a cover up, and that NK didn't sink the boat. Apart from hawks in Korea/US, who or how would blaming them for it benefit anything? Lowering the public opinion of NK isn't really a goal as it can hardly go lower, making them guilty in the eyes of the world doesn't really change their willingness to negotiate, so the only possible target is China by suggesting that NK can't be trusted and that action against them is becoming the only possible avenue, but I have some trouble imagining China looking the other way just because of an incident like this one.
The whole thing is indeed puzzling.
What if it was accidental? Say the Americans or the South Koreans accidentally torepedoed the ship or an American mine accidentally blew it up? The ship would definitely sound different with the props all bent up. That would be embarrassing.... Embarrassing enough to blame North Korea, rattle the saber and then forget about it?
That's plausible enough although it begs the question, if the propellers were accidentally bent, who shot and why? Even if the boat is on the wrong side of the border to take aggressive action sounds very provocative, specially considering who are we talking about.
The mine scenario would work better except for the decision of blaming NK for it, unless a low rank took the decision and once it was out the brass decided to play along.
Maybe the props bent the way they were it sounded like a torpedo or a sub. Certainly crazy but who knows.
All it takes is one dummy to screw things up and another dummy to cover his ass with a dumber story. I don't know. I'm just saying something is fishy here.
I want to see the Nova investigation on this. :mrgreen: I'm sure there won't be a follow-up investigation and everything will be buried. The wreckage will be destroyed. That's how we'll know there was a cover up.
An early analysis I read that was very critical of the torpedo theory claimed that in the area the boat operated in there is a lot of old ordnance on the bottom including mines. Sunk by your own mines is not something one would want on one's resume.
Really? The Russians were saying something about the Cheonan having her props fouled by a old fish net. I wonder if the dredged up an old mine when they did that? If they did that?