S. Korea Navy ship sunk off the coast of disputed border.
-
Assuming that the SK crew was on heightened alert given that they were in disputed waters with an aggressive NK , it again goes to show that when conventional submarines attack they are extremely difficult to detect let alone take the necessary measures to foil the torpedo, especially when it is a wake homing type.
It is a lesson to be leanrt and I hope our navy has the necessary means to counter the submarine menace.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
hur...they were send to the "disputed area" this is NK vs SK they are technically at war.... is not a peace time patrol....
The USS Stark and USS Samuel B Roberts were both in hostile area even if they weren't directly involved in any action yet when they were hit by missiles and mine respectively.Unless you're on high alert 24/7 watching for specific threats, it really isn't easy to detect potential threats, and to be on max alert levels is not feasible for long periods of time.
-
especially when you're talking about an ''inside job''...................
-
it is a lose and lose situation for the SK regime. they lose if they go to war and destroy the SK economy. they lose the next election is all evidence pt to attack from NK and they do nothing about it.
the SK position is also depends on USA stands. does USA want another war in asia where the problems, of iRAQ, afgan and IRan already grinding the american war machine to its limits. without the USA backing, the SK could not possibly defend the NK assault let alone winning it nor even maintaining the current parallel lines.
i am also curious to see what kind of balls the SK has, or has it soap operas weaken the current generation kids that it could not even hold a rifle straight let alone shooting it.
-
some mines are meant to destroy the electronics, electrical or mechanical systems of the ship only and not all are design for direct hit.
if the north koreans meant to cause any harm by laying mines, they would have launch not just 1 but hundreds if not thousands in the trouble waterways. has the SK found any yet?
missiles corvetts the one shown in the pic by some bros are similar class to the one in RSN.it aint big and posibly less than 100m in length. i would say, could arm with mine hunting sonar and sonar. if they have a torpedo deck, they would have at least one of the above mention system, if not both. however in peace time or unprovoke kind of situation, the sonar that use to detect submarine are often inactive. thus making the ship easy target by submarine torpedoes.
i believe the chances of it hit by torpedoes fire from submarine are definitely more likely scenerio then it was hit by a floating mine.
-
well according to the news, it seemed to be hit by a torpedo, dunno is it human torp or one launched from a sub. but latest news suggest a general was promoted suddenly, out of the normal promotion rotation cycle, which suggests he may have a hand in orchestrating such an attack and are being rewarded by the Dear Leader for it.
well war is not a good thing for either side, if war breaks out... can the south take it? or would the north be able to exert control of its people amid poverty and insufficient food and war materials. not to mention China being the wild card here, how much will they aid the NK regime would determine the result of any conflict. if no one intervenes and consider this as a korean squabble though i think is not much of a chance, then both sides could end up being equal. South has tech superiority, north has numerical superiority which means quantity could be a quality on its own. tough fight, and in the end, every body hurts..
though from current standpoint, seems like it won't escalate to brink of war yet
-
yeah probably it is torpedoes. definitely chances are high. on each watches on the deck, most ship has lookout for floating objects. corvettes are mostly vulnerable against submarine coz they they launch sonar only when they are in a submarine exercise or wartime
-
I personally think e North r NOT behind e sinking of e ship reason being
1) If this is a attack, why no follow-on or contiunation of attacks
2) If this is a single attack, wat does they hope 2 achieve or gain from it
Untill proof can be found, i feel e newpapers shouldnt make such a suggestion , it just only adding oil 2 a teanse situ
-
but then again... the nOrth and South has a long history of border skirmishes that did not result in bigger clashes... think to the north now any form of damage or victory would be better than nothing at all.. i'm not surprised with speculations of attacks, cuz the north and south has been trading shots over the disputed sea border, even having north launching missiles at ships.
the incident highlights that the North, if they done it, has a capability to strike at the south's naval assets and this is an interesting thing to note. if they did strengthen their naval capability and able to enforce their sea borders strongly, then this will be just a precursor to more incidents. South K fishermen also admitted they sometimes violate the border to get better catches, thus this sea border skirmishes are not going to end any time soon. Escalation to Korean War II, i just don't think its possible. Historically speaking, North are not like their position in the 1st war, the lack the strategic backing by superpowers. China would nt be very interested in a war as well, since NK is the one providing them a buffer zone against the "capitalist" forces, any war could potentially result in changes to CHina's geostrategic plans.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
it is a lose and lose situation for the SK regime. they lose if they go to war and destroy the SK economy. they lose the next election is all evidence pt to attack from NK and they do nothing about it.
the SK position is also depends on USA stands. does USA want another war in asia where the problems, of iRAQ, afgan and IRan already grinding the american war machine to its limits. without the USA backing, the SK could not possibly defend the NK assault let alone winning it nor even maintaining the current parallel lines.
i am also curious to see what kind of balls the SK has, or has it soap operas weaken the current generation kids that it could not even hold a rifle straight let alone shooting it.
Thats rather outdated analysis. SK is able to hold off an NK assault without the Americans today. The RoK military has been built up and modernized to such an extent that it has dampened DPRK's quantitative advantage. So unless we're talking about DPRK's secret technologies and fighters that nobody knows about, the RoK's conventional military capability has pulled ahead.
Fortunately, their political and military leadership think with brains and not balls.
-
The north already claim the "resort project" without significant reaction from the south.
I think the next is to see how far they can push on the 6 party talks. At this stage NK probably see an opportunity to demand more during the 6 party talk.
-
????????????EATS PRAWN COCCKTAILS
-
Thats rather outdated analysis. SK is able to hold off an NK assault without the Americans today. The RoK military has been built up and modernized to such an extent that it has dampened DPRK's quantitative advantage. So unless we're talking about DPRK's secret technologies and fighters that nobody knows about, the RoK's conventional military capability has pulled ahead.
Fortunately, their political and military leadership think with brains and not balls.
i beg to differ. the north koreans do have nuclear which the south doesnt. if ROK is so good, why do they need american soldiers station along the parallel, for cosmetics? ROK has advance, neither DPRK has stagnant. if china has advance in its mimlitary technologies, i bet DPRK will benefits from it as well.
they need the americans to provide the air and sea cover so that the ROK can possibly hold off the DPRK land assault.
younger generations of ROK are neither the same as their fathers or grandfathers generation which i agree fought with valour in both the korean and vietnam war alongside americans. they watch too many SK soap operas.
-
I personally think e North r NOT behind e sinking of e ship reason being
1) If this is a attack, why no follow-on or contiunation of attacks
2) If this is a single attack, wat does they hope 2 achieve or gain from it
Untill proof can be found, i feel e newpapers shouldnt make such a suggestion , it just only adding oil 2 a teanse situ
well, contrary they may have reason to do the attack.
1. if SK retaliate, the NK could say it is SK provoke the war and divert ground tension into war tension.( widespread famine in NK)
That is the reason they dont follow up attack coz they wanted it to be deem as SK attack rather they initiate it.
afterall a short war is not afterall without merit to the NK koreans. they could gain the support from china again whose stands seem to be waivering and shifting towards the american in 3/6party talk. divert international attention from its nuclear program.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
i beg to differ. the north koreans do have nuclear which the south doesnt. if ROK is so good, why do they need american soldiers station along the parallel, for cosmetics? ROK has advance, neither DPRK has stagnant. if china has advance in its mimlitary technologies, i bet DPRK will benefits from it as well.
they need the americans to provide the air and sea cover so that the ROK can possibly hold off the DPRK land assault.
younger generations of ROK are neither the same as their fathers or grandfathers generation which i agree fought with valour in both the korean and vietnam war alongside americans. they watch too many SK soap operas.
not sure if the Russian nor the chinese would allow NK to launch any small nuke. I think the regime changed would come from the protector state rather than the US....
I think if war started ...NK may not be able to hold out for a long fight because lack of supplies. They need the Chinese to provide which I am not sure the chinese are so willing to supplies for the duration of war.
-
Wat u say do make sense
-
Originally posted by reyes:
i beg to differ. the north koreans do have nuclear which the south doesnt. if ROK is so good, why do they need american soldiers station along the parallel, for cosmetics? ROK has advance, neither DPRK has stagnant. if china has advance in its mimlitary technologies, i bet DPRK will benefits from it as well.
they need the americans to provide the air and sea cover so that the ROK can possibly hold off the DPRK land assault.
younger generations of ROK are neither the same as their fathers or grandfathers generation which i agree fought with valour in both the korean and vietnam war alongside americans. they watch too many SK soap operas.
Have nuclear "what"? They may or may not even have the detonation done correctly. The "so called" test barely generated a wheeze when the U.S. aircraft were sniffing. Even if they had the warhead, how were they going to deliver it? Mating a nuclear device to a missile is not that simple.
And that my friend is one of the reasons why the Americans are still there for. The ROK is more than capable of handling a NK conventional assault. However, it prefers to keep the Americans involved in the Korean peninsular for a few reasons, and one of them being nuclear deterrence. Deterrence against both DPRK and the PRC.
The South Koreans won't build nuclear weapons under the NPT. Take the Americans away from Korea, and the South will quickly acquire nukes. So yes, while the South relies on the Americans for nuclear deterrence under the Extended Nuclear Deterrence Policy, the Americans also have an interest in keeping the region as nuclear free as possible.
So your analysis of the RoK military capacity might have been correct in the 1960s, its no longer accurate today. The RoK can pretty much take DPRK to task in the event of a conventional war. However, if China decides to start marching down the Yalu, the Americans are there to balance the equation both conventionally and in terms of nuclear weapons.
-
most of your comment are base on assumptions such as
1. assuming the NK cannot detonation a nuclear bomb correctly. if yes, why bother to nego with NK about the abanding the nuclear test, certainly, they have reach certain stages of test which the american intelligenmce is correct.
2. where do the south acquire the nukes from apart from american? france? russia? china? maybe the backlash american for doing so is much higher.
3. american sent forces to deter, china forces march down yalu river? well... i never say china would ever sent forces to help NK. in the case of new korean war. i bet both china and american would probablyu sit out and force out a treaty or cease fire rather sending their own troops.
i cant see how you can rule out the might of DPRK military. obviously, DPRK is neither IRAQ nor afgans kind of standard. they are defintely better.
-
i can agree with the both of u somehow. Indeed South K has advanced much in conventional military capability, esp considering in Korean W I they were using hand me downs and at least now they had their own arms industry. Training wise, i think they would be somehow similar in quality since both nations are still in a warring stance, they would not reduce their wartime training quality.
But the nuclear question is still questionable. Till now, US has been claiming that DPRK has nukes or are going towards nuclear capability, but then we need to consider perspective. Can we always believe what the US says? even with NK belligerent behavior towards the US and other states, there is no way to concretely say that they have acquired nuclear capability. Chemical and Biological capability as well could be considered, esp with their new Nodong missiles, which are inaccurate but who cares about accuracy when using WMD which are more like AOE (area of effect) weps.
Back to the issue on superpowers, i think this time round, both China and US would stay put and view a new Korean war as a internal squabble of Koreas. Not to say that they would not support their respective allies/puppets but their extent of support will still be questionable. China i think will still be the same, do not challenge or threaten Chinese sovereignty or strategic interests and they will limit their participation to maybe strategic and logistical support
Us on the other hand are stretched with Iraq and Afghan fronts, even with the slated withdrawal from Iraq by end 2011, war fatigue is gaining ground in US. Its a question of how much they can commit. Also, international attention from all over the world would be focused on the conflict, not to mention condemning the aggressor. Not so bad for NK since they are isolated somewhat, but for SK it would be a Public Relations disaster, not to mention the one that is defending usually has a moral high ground.
-
Till now, US has been claiming that DPRK has nukes or are going towards nuclear capability, but then we need to consider perspective. Can we always believe what the US says?
This question reminded me of Pascal decision probability on GOD.
Are you willing to take a Gamble in your defence planning to assume that DPRK does not have Nuke? and came out on the wrong side and NK carry 1 nuke and detonated it on SK or Japan?
Or
Would you rather assume that DPRK have at least 1 and were wrong as there was zero nuke in NK, And there were no nuke detonation.
PS: Pascal suggest that it is better to believe in God so that when you are alive you do the right things. So when you die you go to heaven rather than if you don't believe in God and after you die you realized that there is a God but its too late to reverse how you spend your life.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
most of your comment are base on assumptions such as
1. assuming the NK cannot detonation a nuclear bomb correctly. if yes, why bother to nego with NK about the abanding the nuclear test, certainly, they have reach certain stages of test which the american intelligenmce is correct.
2. where do the south acquire the nukes from apart from american? france? russia? china? maybe the backlash american for doing so is much higher.
3. american sent forces to deter, china forces march down yalu river? well... i never say china would ever sent forces to help NK. in the case of new korean war. i bet both china and american would probablyu sit out and force out a treaty or cease fire rather sending their own troops.
i cant see how you can rule out the might of DPRK military. obviously, DPRK is neither IRAQ nor afgans kind of standard. they are defintely better.
Well, where did you get your assumption of the DPRK's military might then? I know for a fact that the South Korean air force is equipped with latest 4.5 gen fighters and at the very least 4th generation fighters. Its army is has also indigenously developed many effective armored vehicles and even its own Main Battle Tank. Economically, it is faring much better than the North.
The North has not been faring as well economically and that is an understatement. And the established relationship of between economics and military might requires a strong economy to support a strong military. That they do not have, and that is why I argue they have been left in the dust by the South's military modernizations. From what was known about them, they are still the cold-war era type of fighting force, relying on Chinese knock offs of 3rd generation soviet fighters.
Finally, I'm not ruling the North Korean military out. I'm fairly sure they retain the capability to decimate Seoul with their enormous number of cold-war era artillery pieces. But can they sustain such a campaign? Do they have the ammunition, fuel and supplies to keep their front line units fighting? Do they have the money to obtain fuel and supplies?
The reason why North Korea pursues nuclear weapons is because of the conventional power asymmetry that the South has achieved. North Korea, on their own, cannot possibly defeat the South in a conventional military campaign today. It needs the nukes to regain leverage. And this is what the US, China, and South Korea is concerned about. As much as it sounds ironic, the current divided peninsula is a good thing for all parties except maybe the North.
China gets to keep North Korea as a buffer between themselves and the U.S. South Korea doesn't want to have to pay for reunification, and the U.S. doesn't want be involved in war so near to another great power, China. It seems that everyone would rather the situation be what it has been for the past 2 or 3 decades. A nuclear armed North Korea would change that situation and upset the delicate balance there. With nuclear weapons, North Korea and its unpredictable leadership may be prone to strategic miscalculations that may trigger a war between the North and the South while dragging in regional powers like China, Japan and the U.S. as well.
Analysts in international security are concerned about the potentially nuclear capable North Korea triggering off something that nobody wants. Therefore, we'd rather North Korea not even get there, i.e. acquiring nuclear weapons. It is not because the North would win or the South would win, its because everybody might end up fighting and all LOSE.
-
with one exception that if the global economies is not recovering and risk of going down again or collapes than NK might choose a higher stake......that might be unpredictable.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Well, where did you get your assumption of the DPRK's military might then? I know for a fact that the South Korean air force is equipped with latest 4.5 gen fighters and at the very least 4th generation fighters. Its army is has also indigenously developed many effective armored vehicles and even its own Main Battle Tank. Economically, it is faring much better than the North.
The North has not been faring as well economically and that is an understatement. And the established relationship of between economics and military might requires a strong economy to support a strong military. That they do not have, and that is why I argue they have been left in the dust by the South's military modernizations. From what was known about them, they are still the cold-war era type of fighting force, relying on Chinese knock offs of 3rd generation soviet fighters.
Finally, I'm not ruling the North Korean military out. I'm fairly sure they retain the capability to decimate Seoul with their enormous number of cold-war era artillery pieces. But can they sustain such a campaign? Do they have the ammunition, fuel and supplies to keep their front line units fighting? Do they have the money to obtain fuel and supplies?
The reason why North Korea pursues nuclear weapons is because of the conventional power asymmetry that the South has achieved. North Korea, on their own, cannot possibly defeat the South in a conventional military campaign today. It needs the nukes to regain leverage. And this is what the US, China, and South Korea is concerned about. As much as it sounds ironic, the current divided peninsula is a good thing for all parties except maybe the North.
China gets to keep North Korea as a buffer between themselves and the U.S. South Korea doesn't want to have to pay for reunification, and the U.S. doesn't want be involved in war so near to another great power, China. It seems that everyone would rather the situation be what it has been for the past 2 or 3 decades. A nuclear armed North Korea would change that situation and upset the delicate balance there. With nuclear weapons, North Korea and its unpredictable leadership may be prone to strategic miscalculations that may trigger a war between the North and the South while dragging in regional powers like China, Japan and the U.S. as well.
Analysts in international security are concerned about the potentially nuclear capable North Korea triggering off something that nobody wants. Therefore, we'd rather North Korea not even get there, i.e. acquiring nuclear weapons. It is not because the North would win or the South would win, its because everybody might end up fighting and all LOSE.
if they are still at warring states, i strongly believes they do have stock piles of oil. you could be right, how many mths i can last, no one know for sure. neither could SK be able to sustain a prolong period of war, their economy and human resources sacrifice could prove too much for them.i dont wish to do into details the military might for DPRK. coz neither you nor me could know for sure. we are simply speculating.. i dont think SK dare to invade and probably limited the skirmished thru air and sea battles.
inconclusion, i believe both US and china will ask refrain from both countries. today news speculate that KIM is visiting the china. SK delay the report could also means they are seeking US opinion on the agenda.
NK are definitely not afgans or iraq as most i believe are fanatics. it is a war that no one could emerge as winners.
-
Well, do you honestly think the DPRK will have a greater stockpile of oil than the South? What do you think they bought them with being the most isolated "economy" on this planet?
Then consider the consumption rate of their numerous but near worthless ex-Soviet era fighting vehicles. More vehicles, means more gas used up. Unfortunately, their vehicles are nowhere as modern as the South Korean ones. End of the day, they'll still burn more gas but achieve less.
-
It would be interesting to start tracing of the "possible German made" torpedo.....end up in NK....
Saturday newspaper basically reported that "it is NK that sank the ship and traces of wreckage has been identified as a powerful bomb ingredient for making torpedoes. Four metal fragments have also been found in the wreckage and analysis shown they were alloy of aluminium and magnesium used in torpedo casings.
Interestingly they are looking at possible German made torpedo......"
.