Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Cheonan: The other side of the story...
DarthAmerica    7/29/2010 6:04:12 AM
BEIJING - South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak has claimed "overwhelming evidence" that a North Korean torpedo sank the corvette Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that there’s "overwhelming evidence" in favor of the theory that North Korea sank the South Korean Navy warship Cheonan. But the articles of proof presented so far by military investigators to an official inquiry board have been scanty and inconsistent. There’s yet another possibility, that a U.S. rising mine sank the Cheonan in a friendly-fire accident. In the recent U.S.-China strategic talks in Shanghai and Beijing, the Chinese side dismissed the official scenario presented by the Americans and their South Korean allies as not credible. This conclusion was based on an independent technical assessment by the Chinese military, according to a Beijing-based military affairs consultant to the People Liberation Army. Hardly any of the relevant facts that counter the official verdict have made headline news in either South Korea or its senior ally, the United States. The first telltale sign of an official smokescreen involves the location of the Choenan sinking - Byeongnyeong Island (pronounced Pyongnang) in the Yellow Sea. On the westernmost fringe of South Korean territory, the island is dominated by a joint U.S.-Korean base for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The sea channel between Byeongnyeong and the North Korean coast is narrow enough for both sides to be in artillery range of each other. Anti-sub warfare is based on sonar and acoustic detection of underwater craft. Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it. North Korea admits it does not possess an underwater craft stealthy enough to slip past the advanced sonar and audio arrays around Byeongnyeong Island, explained North Korean intelligence analyst Kim Myong Chol in a news release. "The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology." The Cheonan sinking occurred in the aftermath of the March 11-18 Foal Eagle Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint U.S.-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. A mystery surrounds the continued presence of the U.S. missile cruisers for more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended. Only one reporter, Joohee Cho of ABC News, picked up the key fact that the Foal Eagle flotilla curiously included the USNS Salvor, a diving-support ship with a crew of 12 Navy divers. The lack of any minesweepers during the exercise leaves only one possibility: the Salvor was laying bottom mines. Ever since an American cruiser was damaged by one of Saddam Hussein's rising mines, also known as bottom mines, in the Iraq War, the U.S. Navy has pushed a crash program to develop a new generation of mines. The U.S. Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command has also been focused on developing counterparts to the fearsome Chinese naval "assassin's mace," which is propelled by a rocket engine. A rising mine, which is effective only in shallow waters, rests atop a small platform on the sea floor under a camouflage of sand and gravel. Its detection system uses acoustics and magnetic readings to pick up enemy ships and submarines. When activated, jets of compressed air or solid-fuel rockets lift the bomb, which self-guides toward the magnetic center of the target. The blast rips the keel, splitting the ship or submarine into two neat pieces, just as was done to the RKOS Cheonan. A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, "holes" the target's hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner. The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast. The initial South Korean review stated that the explosive was gunpowder, which would conform to North Korea's crude munitions. This claim was later overturned by the inquiry board, which found the chemical residues to be similar to German advanced explosives. Due to sanctions against Pyongyang and its few allies, it is hardly credible that North Korea could obtain NATO-grade ordnance. Thus, the mystery centers on the USNS Salvor, which happened to be yet right near Byeongyang Island at the time of the Cheonan sinking and far from its home base, Pearl Harbor. The inquiry board in Seoul has not questioned the officers and divers o
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
smitty237    Darth   8/13/2010 5:27:43 PM
Ok, I'll bite.  When the  Cheonan first sank you were pretty adamant that the NorK's didn't sink her, or at the very least you counseled very heavily against jumping to conclusions until there had been a thorough investigation.  Well, an investigation was completed, and after it was over the official conclusion was that a North Korean torpedo, probably launched from a submarine, sank the Cheonan.  Alas, war was not declared and South Korea has not retaliated in any appreciable way. 
 
Now you release this article that claims that the UNITED STATES might have been responsible for sinking the Cheonan, albeit accidentally.  Since almost no one outside the US believes that anything we do is an accident, if this story takes flight it will only further damage our image abroad, but especially in South Korea.  Also, if it could be proven (or at least proven to the satisfaction of all the America haters out there) that a US mine sank the Cheonan, this will hurt the Obama Administration.  I guess my question is this:  Do you believe that an American mine sank the Cheonan?  You are also a pretty big Obama booster, so if this is true what will it mean for the Obama Administration and his foreign policy initiatives, particularly regarding Korea?
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       8/13/2010 7:32:45 PM
>>
A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, "holes" the target's hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner. The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast.
<<
 
Aren't modern torpedoes (since the start of World War II) designed to run underneath a hull and break the keel? 
 

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/14/2010 4:27:25 AM

 
A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, "holes" the target's hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner. The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast.

Aren't modern torpedoes (since the start of World War II) designed to run underneath a hull and break the keel?

You beat me to it.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcry.gif" alt="" />
 
Another error is his claim that the drive shaft should have crumpled because of the impact on the ships hull.  This would only apply if the warhead did not detonate, but that obviously happened.  When the warhead detonated it would have been in line with the long axis of the driveshaft, so no bending moment would have been created, preventing crumpling.  It is the same principle by which a tornado can drive a piece of straw into a tree.
 
As for the rest:

Ever since an American cruiser was damaged by one of Saddam Hussein's rising mines, also known as bottom mines, in the Iraq War, the U.S. Navy has pushed a crash program to develop a new generation of mines. The U.S. Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command has also been focused on developing counterparts to the fearsome Chinese naval "assassin's mace," which is propelled by a rocket engine.

A rising mine, which is effective only in shallow waters, rests atop a small platform on the sea floor under a camouflage of sand and gravel. Its detection system uses acoustics and magnetic readings to pick up enemy ships and submarines. When activated, jets of compressed air or solid-fuel rockets lift the bomb, which self-guides toward the magnetic center of the target. The blast rips the keel, splitting the ship or submarine into two neat pieces, just as was done to the RKOS Cheonan.
 
Let me get this straight -- The US Navy was conducting a training exercise that included to deployment (and eventual recovery) of LIVE SEA MINES!?   Not <<EXPLETIVE>> likely, way to d**n dangerous.

The Cheonan sinking occurred in the aftermath of the March 11-18 Foal Eagle Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint U.S.-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. A mystery surrounds the continued presence of the U.S. missile cruisers for more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended.

Only one reporter, Joohee Cho of ABC News, picked up the key fact that the Foal Eagle flotilla curiously included the USNS Salvor, a diving-support ship with a crew of 12 Navy divers. The lack of any minesweepers during the exercise leaves only one possibility: the Salvor was laying bottom mines.
 
The US seldom deploys conventional minesweepers any more.  Minesweeping is now done with ROV's which can be deployed from many different types of vessels.  Aquatic ROV's were originally developed by the offshore construction industry where they are typically deployed from (wait for it) diving-support ships.  It is possible that the USNS Salvor was playing that role in the exercise, but a more likely assumption is that they were simply there to place and/or recover training devices such as fake mines and practice torpedoes.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       8/19/2010 10:55:45 PM

Ok, I'll bite.  When the  Cheonan first sank you were pretty adamant that the NorK's didn't sink her, or at the very least you counseled very heavily against jumping to conclusions until there had been a thorough investigation.  Well, an investigation was completed, and after it was over the official conclusion was that a North Korean torpedo, probably launched from a submarine, sank the Cheonan.  Alas, war was not declared and South Korea has not retaliated in any appreciable way. 

 
Smitty that's just plain not true. I tried to caution some of the others not to let the emotions of what happened cloud the fact that WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. There are plenty of reasons on both sides to conceal the truth.
 

Now you release this article that claims that the UNITED STATES might have been responsible for sinking the Cheonan, albeit accidentally.  Since almost no one outside the US believes that anything we do is an accident, if this story takes flight it will only further damage our image abroad, but especially in South Korea.  Also, if it could be proven (or at least proven to the satisfaction of all the America haters out there) that a US mine sank the Cheonan, this will hurt the Obama Administration.  I guess my question is this:  Do you believe that an American mine sank the Cheonan?  You are also a pretty big Obama booster, so if this is true what will it mean for the Obama Administration and his foreign policy initiatives, particularly regarding Korea?

   I released? No my friend. I posted an article that offers the point of view of the other side. Something necessary for objectivity. I believe it's possible a mine sank Cheonan and if so the origins of that mine could be from several different nations. Another thing, stop assuming I'm an "Obama booster". I'm a whats in the best interest of the USA booster. In fact Smitty rather than ask leading questions and assuming, just ask directly and make the point and we can talk about it. How would a US mine affect things? For the President it won't matter much. It could increase anti-US sentiment in South Korea briefly but that's not going to last long. In the end though this is going to help the USA because the Chinese failure to rebuke N Korea is driving Pacific nations into the US sphere of influence out of need for security patron. The damage to the Chinese position has been done and what really happened is no longer as important as what has happened subsequently. Just to give you an idea consider that the USA and Vietnam are conducting military exercises. That says a lot. And don't forget the US Carriers that have again insulted the Chinese be entering into the maritime avenue of approach to Beijing. At the end of the day it's a dick length contest and the Chinese just lost. They played into our strengths. To win that contest they would have needed to demonstrate a certain weapon system that they could have yet...

 


-DA 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/24/2010 9:11:25 PM
A UN panel found the culprit to be NK, not a US panel, a NK one. I don't know what more you want.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/24/2010 9:21:52 PM
Whoops type that a bit fast.
 
A UN panel found the culprit to be NK, not a US panel, a UN one. I don't know what more you want.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Darth   8/26/2010 1:34:50 AM

Ok, I'll bite.  When the  Cheonan first sank you were pretty adamant that the NorK's didn't sink her, or at the very least you counseled very heavily against jumping to conclusions until there had been a thorough investigation.  Well, an investigation was completed, and after it was over the official conclusion was that a North Korean torpedo, probably launched from a submarine, sank the Cheonan.  Alas, war was not declared and South Korea has not retaliated in any appreciable way. 

 
Smitty that's just plain not true. I tried to caution some of the others not to let the emotions of what happened cloud the fact that WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. There are plenty of reasons on both sides to conceal the truth.

 
Now you release this article that claims that the UNITED STATES might have been responsible for sinking the Cheonan, albeit accidentally.  Since almost no one outside the US believes that anything we do is an accident, if this story takes flight it will only further damage our image abroad, but especially in South Korea.  Also, if it could be proven (or at least proven to the satisfaction of all the America haters out there) that a US mine sank the Cheonan, this will hurt the Obama Administration.  I guess my question is this:  Do you believe that an American mine sank the Cheonan?  You are also a pretty big Obama booster, so if this is true what will it mean for the Obama Administration and his foreign policy initiatives, particularly regarding Korea?

   I released? No my friend. I posted an article that offers the point of view of the other side. Something necessary for objectivity. I believe it's possible a mine sank Cheonan and if so the origins of that mine could be from several different nations. Another thing, stop assuming I'm an "Obama booster". I'm a whats in the best interest of the USA booster. In fact Smitty rather than ask leading questions and assuming, just ask directly and make the point and we can talk about it. How would a US mine affect things? For the President it won't matter much. It could increase anti-US sentiment in South Korea briefly but that's not going to last long. In the end though this is going to help the USA because the Chinese failure to rebuke N Korea is driving Pacific nations into the US sphere of influence out of need for security patron. The damage to the Chinese position has been done and what really happened is no longer as important as what has happened subsequently. Just to give you an idea consider that the USA and Vietnam are conducting military exercises. That says a lot. And don't forget the US Carriers that have again insulted the Chinese be entering into the maritime avenue of approach to Beijing. At the end of the day it's a dick length contest and the Chinese just lost. They played into our strengths. To win that contest they would have needed to demonstrate a certain weapon system that they could have yet...

-DA 

 
You are lapsing back into some bad habits.  You highlighted and vigorously attacked part of a sentence, while ignoring the rest of it.  When this incident first took place you were pretty outspoken in your assertions that we shouldn't blame the NORKs before we had all the facts, and I certainly drew the inference from many of your posts at the time that you didn't think that the Cheonan was sunk by a NORK torpedo.  Since then we've had a pretty thorough and scientific examination of the incident, and in the judgement of the investigatory panel the Cheonan was sank as the result of torpedo attack, most likely launched from a NORK submarine.  As stated above, this was a UN panel, not simply an American or South Korean one.  Apparently this is not good enough for some folks, but like JFK or 9/11 conspiracy theorists, nothing will shake them from their strongly held beliefs.  Too much evidence pointing in one direction just proves a concerted effort to manipulate the facts, and the lack of evidence to refute the "official findings" just prove that the 'powers that be' covered their tracks well.  Sure, there might be reasons for both sides to cover the truth, but if that was the case why didn't they just bury the data and declare that the evidence provided no conclusive proof
 
Quote    Reply

LetsTry Reason    Conspiracy theory?    8/26/2010 10:30:13 PM
Conspiracy theory?  
 
That's begging the question, petitio principii. Is it "conspiracy theory"? Is it outlandishly false? Have you proven that?  
 
Is it "held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe," such as(?) the aforementioned physicist and professor in the American universities, and the millions and millions of South Korean and Korean-American citizens?  
 
Were Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post conspiracy theorists too?  
 
Maybe a false analogy.  
Rather, it may be  
"it certainly has echoes of conspiracy theories like those surrounding the 1972 Watergate Break-in of President Richard M. Nixon."  
 
 
The comparison to the Warren Commission seems absurd.  
Maybe a false analogy, once again.  
 
The South Korean JIG(Joint Investigation Group) was no Warren Commission.  
The JIG's chairman was not the Chief Justice  
of South Korea.  
The JIG's members were not at all filled with the South Korean National Assembly Members and legal counsels like the Warren Commission was.  
 
Quote    Reply

LetsTry Reason    Cheonan Incident   8/26/2010 10:45:27 PM

Re: "South Korean Probe Won't Settle Warship Dispute" By Mark Thompson
( http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2011507,00.html )

Time (and many other Western news media) should really stop repeating the misleading or false statement regarding Sweden, such as "The South Korean government, aided by experts from the U.S., Australia, the U.K., Canada and Sweden, alleges that a North Korean midget submarine fired a 500-lb. torpedo at the 1,200-ton Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 South Korean seamen."

Sweden was clearly NOT a member of the investigation group called "the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force" and
only that group did, WITHOUT Sweden, allegedly find that North Korea was to be blamed.

There were basically two groups.

Read for yourself the June 4th letter to the U.N. "report" -
"Letter dated 4 June 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council." (See http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/DPRK%20S%202010%20281%20SKorea%20Letter%20and%20Cheonan%20Report.pdf )

This June 4th letter to the U.N. "report" is not of Sweden, it is of the Republic of Korea; and this June 4th letter to the U.N. "report" is not signed by Sweden, but it is only signed by "(Signed) Park In-kook Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations."

Show me a report signed by Sweden that finds North Korea guilty.
From what I read so far, no such thing has ever EVEN been produced to the public.

Moreover, the June 4th letter to the U.N. "report" is not the original report; the original "report" is the JIG's 5-page statement(or "report") of May 20th. (See the bottom portion of http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372 )
Read for yourself that JIG's official "report" of May 20th.

Note that even the original - the JIG's statement(or "report") of May 20th - was NOT signed by Sweden.

"That?s it. That?s all their ?evidence? that the international investigators presented in their UNSIGNED report. That?s right, no one knows who the ?investigators? were since they didn?t take the time to sign their work." (See http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/ )

The JIG's statement(or "report") of May 20th states clearly:
"In addition, the findings of the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, comprised of 5 states including [of course, South Korea,] the US, Australia, Canada and the UK [and NO Sweden] and operating since May 4th, are as follows:

The North Korean military is in possession of a fleet of about 70 submarines,
...
Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.
THU. 20 MAY, 2010
The Joint Civilian-Military
Investigation Group"
(See http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372 )

The June 4th letter to the U.N. "report," unsigned by Sweden, states too that there were two groups including the JIG:
"the investigation conducted by the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group of the Republic of Korea with the participation of international experts from Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, comprising the Republic of Korea, Australia, [NOT Sweden], Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States,"

and that Sweden was clearly NOT a member of the group which allegedly found that North Korea was to be b

 
Quote    Reply

LetsTry Reason       8/26/2010 10:46:26 PM

To the ?outside? world intellectuals who don?t read Korean,

This is a remarkable story of people ? the governed(although they are in theory supposed to be the actual governor in democracy), not their government - making difference in the world (history).

1. Compare and contrast.
?More enlightened? American people, Congress and media; Bush; WMD; War (and huge suffering),
(http://whitehouser.com/war/CIA-confirms-Bush-WMD-lie )
and,
?Supposedly less so enlightened? Korean people; Korean President Lee; Cheonan; prevention of War (so far).
(I am including among ?the Korean people? the Korean-Americans.)

2. Also remarkable is that the ?inside? Korean people braved the government prosecution.
Caveat: Under the current South Korean regime, South Korean citizens can be sued for defamation by their own government officials, and defamation in South Korea is a crime (as well as a civil offense) prosecuted by the government?s own centrally controlled national prosecutors who selectively choose or choose not whom to prosecute.
Recently, Shin Sang-cheol, ?an expert placed on the JIG [Joint Investigation Group] by? the National Assembly, got (criminally) sued for defamation by a government official for expressing disagreement over the current South Korean regime?s version of the Cheonan Incident. (http://www.zimbio.com/Mizuho+Fukushima/articles/BvIMjqn_oLw/South+Korean+Investigation+Team+Member+Mr )

(South Korean people?s firsthand knowledge about the pro-government polls is that they are ridiculously overinflated.
A proof: war-fear-mongering South Korean President Lee Myung-bak got unexpectedly humiliated on the June 2 election by the ?Supposedly less so enlightened? Korean people,
when ?survey conducted by the major daily [pro-government]Dong-A Ilbo and the Korea Research Center from May 24 to 26[7-days-before] forecast[ed] that Oh would beat Han by 20.8 percent.?
Actual election result: 0.6 percent(=?47.4 percent?-?46.8 percent.?)
Source: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921960 )

3. A list of early English publications on Questions on the Cheonan Incident and the Power of South Korean Netizens can be found at http://korea.true.ws/ (by LetsTry Reason) and newer writings at http://letstryreason.wordpress.com/ .

Also, look at: ?the U.S, South Korea, the U.K, Canada and Australia, but not Sweden [NOT Sweden], contributed to the second-statement findings [claiming that North Korea might be guilty]? ? ?Five reasons why the the JIG?s 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ? ?international??
http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372 ;
?Russian Probe Sees No North Korea Hand In Cheonan Sinking! Russia Says Sea Mine Sunk Cheonan?
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/russian-probe-sees-no-north-korea-hand-in-cheonan-sinking/ ;
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/pcc-772-cheonan-south-korean-government-admits-the-deception-and-then-lies-about-it/ ;
http://nature.com/news/2010/080710/full/news.2010.343.html ;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-torpedo-20100724,0,4196801,full.story

4. Compare and contrast.
9/11; Al-Qaeda; brags We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; brags We didn?t do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it). (Why the difference?)
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says ?We didn?t do it,? because either (a) the North didn?t do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but ?We didn?t do it? basically implies ?We will not do it.?
(This particular ?it? hardly gives the North any payoff.)
*If you don?t get scared of us, how can We become the terrorist, and if yo

 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics