The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

A

alopes

Junior Member
That is an intriguing problem.

What a contry can do when it is facing war against a nuclear weapon armed country?

India has faced it against Pakistan.
Syria faces it against Israel.
And now South Korea faces it against North Korea.

They can play the underdog, like syria; or do create their own nuclear weapons, like India and take only limited restrained military reactions; or, if USA is willing, making a decapitating strike, in the case of North Korea?

I think South Korea should demand access to USA nuclear options like NATO allyance or develope their own nuclear weapons and prepare for a first decapitating strike.

Or, otherwise, they can accept blackmail from NK.
 
Last edited:
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
alopes said:
That is an intriging problem.

What a contry can do when it is facing war against a nuclear weapon armed country?

India has faced it against Pakistan.
Syria faces it against Israel.
And now South Korea faces it against North Korea.

They can play the underdog, like syria; or do create their own nuclear weapons, like India and take only limited restrained military reactions; or, if USA is willing, making a decapitating strike, in the case of North Korea?

I think South Korea should demand access to USA nuclear options like NATO allyance or develope their own nuclear weapons and prepare for a first decapitating strike.

Or, otherwise, they can accept blackmail from NK.
Click to expand...

Er... When did Syria play the underdog for Israel? India had their nuclear program in 1967 while Pakistan started their nuclear weapon program in 1972... so it is not India who started nuclear weapon against Pakistan... it is the other way round, seeing India had nuclear weapon, then Pakistan started to deploy nuclear weapon as deterrent so as not to be controlled by India.

An when did Nato demand assess to USA nuclear option? Many of USA ally actually came under US's umbrella - like Canada and some european countries. However allies like France and England had their own nuclear arsenal.

Even when SK actually did demand access from US nuclear option, I do not think US would allow that access. It is plain stupid... why would US or any nations wanted to risk a nuclear war?

Plus NK although having successfully tested nuclear weapon. That does not mean SK should start developing nuclear. It would mean a meaningless arm race that will most possibly destroy the entire Korea... not to mention, Japan and other Asian nation would also jump at that opportunity to develope nuclear... something that US did not want to see.

So developing nuclear is out of the question... since at this moment both Japan and SK are under US umbrella (not to say that is of a wee bit of comfort for the SK and Japanese) but fact is, US do not want nuclear weapons to start spreading throughout the world.

So, as you can see... unless US willing, SK will never try to develope nuclear weapon... many things are at stake here... things like trade with US and other nations... the last thing SK want now is an embargoment from the western nations and suppored by China and Russia.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
solarz said:
How about some input as to why you think China *shouldn't* annex North Korea, or at least turn it into a client state, instead of the ungrateful little hermit that it is now?
Click to expand...


so why would china take over NK, rebuild it from stone age into modern age, then give it back to SK? not a easy task to feed millions people
 
A

alopes

Junior Member
rhino123 said:
Er... When did Syria play the underdog for Israel? India had their nuclear program in 1967 while Pakistan started their nuclear weapon program in 1972... so it is not India who started nuclear weapon against Pakistan... it is the other way round, seeing India had nuclear weapon, then Pakistan started to deploy nuclear weapon as deterrent so as not to be controlled by India.

An when did Nato demand assess to USA nuclear option? Many of USA ally actually came under US's umbrella - like Canada and some european countries. However allies like France and England had their own nuclear arsenal.

Even when SK actually did demand access from US nuclear option, I do not think US would allow that access. It is plain stupid... why would US or any nations wanted to risk a nuclear war?

Plus NK although having successfully tested nuclear weapon. That does not mean SK should start developing nuclear. It would mean a meaningless arm race that will most possibly destroy the entire Korea... not to mention, Japan and other Asian nation would also jump at that opportunity to develope nuclear... something that US did not want to see.

So developing nuclear is out of the question... since at this moment both Japan and SK are under US umbrella (not to say that is of a wee bit of comfort for the SK and Japanese) but fact is, US do not want nuclear weapons to start spreading throughout the world.

So, as you can see... unless US willing, SK will never try to develope nuclear weapon... many things are at stake here... things like trade with US and other nations... the last thing SK want now is an embargoment from the western nations and suppored by China and Russia.
Click to expand...

- Well Syria has a part of their territory controlled by Israel, but yes maybe the term i used was not the most correct in this case.

- India aquired nuclear weapons first, as deterrent against China, but it´s Pakistan that have a First-Use policy (referring to nuclear weapons) and it´s Pakistan that supports the separatists in kashmir, having their nuclear weapons as a warrant that India will not invade Pakistan to stop the separatists nor the weapons smugling to kashmir.

- About NATO nuclear weapons, in case of war against a third country with nuclear weapons, there is or there was a clause in the treaty for the use/storage of these weapons that the hosting countries had the right to take control of USA nuclear warheads in their territory to use against the attacker (at least i read this rule in wikipedia).

- Why it would be strange that a country, like South Korea, being threatened to be bombarded with nuclear weapons, aquires nuclear weapons to counter a dictatorship that is branding every day their willing to use it ?

- If South Korea is under the USA umbrella, why is North Korea attacking South Korea ships without any reaction from USA military machine?
 
Last edited:
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
alopes said:
- Well Syria has a part of their territory controlled by
- Why it would be strange that a country, like South Korea, being threatened to be bombarded with nuclear weapons, aquires nuclear weapons to counter a dictatorship that is branding every day their willing to use it ?

- If South Korea is under the USA umbrella, why is North Korea attacking South Korea ships without any reaction from USA military machine?
Click to expand...

cause if SK acquire NK, then japan and other asia nation will also try to acquire nuclear weapon, then you pretty much has a nuclear arm race in that region.

US will not react toward a sinking of SK ship that SK not even sure its was sink by NK. SK are well armed to protect themself. in the event of NK use nuke against SK, i'm pretty sure US will step in. after all US has thousands troop in SK.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
s002wjh said:
so why would china take over NK, rebuild it from stone age into modern age, then give it back to SK? not a easy task to feed millions people
Click to expand...

Who said anything about giving it back to SK? Annexing NK would ensure that the rogue regime would not jeopardize China's economic progress. NK was once an industrial center, meaning that it has ample natural resources. Developing those resources benefit both North Koreans and Chinese people alike.

Also, reunification would be on Chinese terms, meaning it would only happen if China can ensure a friendly administration in a unified Korea.

Of course, nothing says this will be easy. It really depends on how North Koreans themselves would react to Chinese annexation.
 
G

getready

Senior Member
solarz said:
How about some input as to why you think China *shouldn't* annex North Korea, or at least turn it into a client state, instead of the ungrateful little hermit that it is now?
Click to expand...

My apologies for the lack of input, usually talk of military strikes on NK and regime change get my eyes rolling as with other neo con stuff from the west. As for your idea, probable in a scenario when kim regime is collapsing into chaos such as his death from the rumoured illness or a sudden coup, and china is forced to act, but i hate to an armchair general when current circumstances are less clear.


Apr 23, 2010
S.Korea won't retaliate

The reclusive North says it had nothing to do with the downing of the Cheonan, which sank after an explosion, killing 46 sailors. A South Korean military intelligence report leaked to the local media said the North had almost certainly torpedoed the ship. -- PHOTO: AFP

SEOUL - SOUTH Korea on Friday gave the clearest signal to date it had no plan to launch a revenge attack if it turns out, as widely suspected, North Korea sank one of its navy vessels last month near their disputed border.

The reclusive North says it had nothing to do with the downing of the Cheonan, which sank after an explosion, killing 46 sailors. A South Korean military intelligence report leaked to the local media said the North had almost certainly torpedoed the ship.

'Just as the investigation is being conducted with international cooperation, we'll try to cooperate with the international community in taking necessary measures when the results are out,' President Lee Myung-bak told a group of visiting foreign journalists.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that North Korea should not take provocative actions following the allegations it may have sunk the South Korean ship, and should resume talks on ending its nuclear programs. 'We have said time and time again that the North Koreans should not engage in provocative actions, and that they should return to six-party talks,' she told reporters at a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Estonia.

The sinking of the ship is an issue fraught with risks for South Korea's Lee. If he were to launch a military attack on his impoverished neighbour, it would be the South that would come off worse, with investors likely to take fright at the threat of conflict across the Cold War's last frontier just as the economy is recovering fast from the global financial crisis.

Lee needs to prevent turning the emotionally charged affair into a weapon for his political opposition at home ahead of June local elections which could, if his ruling party suffers a serious setback in the polls, damage his authority and ability to push through promised pro-business reforms. Though the government has faced criticism for being unprepared, most of it so far has been channelled towards the military and the defence minister.
Click to expand...
-- REUTERS
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
So SK won't retaliate, at least overtly. What does that imply for SK domestically, and would this embolden the North for further demands/provocations? What does that imply for the stability of the region?
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Quickie said:
Not saying a North Korean retaliation is justified but there was a precedence to this incident, during which the North did suffer serious casualties.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


" In the North, state media on Thursday said it was South Korea that sent naval ships into northern waters and started shooting. "Our unchanged principle is no forgiveness and merciless punishment for warmongers who infringe upon our republic's dignity and sovereignty," said the Rodong Sinmun newspaper. It did not specify how the North would punish the South. "
Click to expand...

There have been skirmishes in that area every few years for decades. The North Koreans usually get the worst of them, and no one thinks twice about it when 50 or so North Korean sailors die alone in the icy waters of the Yellow Sea. But this time the North Koreans won, so it's a political issue.

There haven't been any land infiltrations by North Korea for more than a decade if I remember correctly but up until the turn of the millennium North Korea would occasionaly make infiltration and ambush attempts along the DMZ, try to dig tunnels underneath the DMZ, and infiltrate special operations teams by mini-submersible.

So my point is that while you are technically correct that this sinking can be viewed as retaliation for the 2009 sea skirmish, it's better to view it as another incident in a long chain of skirmishes and infiltrations that date back to 1953.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top