The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

P

Pointblank

Senior Member
bd popeye said:
Hard for me to understand why so much of the torpedo is intact. Curious:confused:[qimg]http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/images/icons/icon5.gif[/qimg]:confused:[qimg]http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/images/icons/icon5.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Easy. The effect of an underwater explosion decreases with the distance cube. As these parts of the torpedo are roughly 5-6m away from the warhead, the effects of the explosion are limited. To give an idea of how limited a explosion's range under water, a 100 kg of TNT would normally have a killing radius of only 3–4 meters against a hull of a typical submarine.
 
planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
That part of the torpedo is also sitting behind the batteries which surely would have shielded it from the blast somewhat.
 
S

Spike

Banned Idiot
It looks like those parts only made up the rear 3rd of the torpedo. I didn't realize torpedoes were so large.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Even if this was a North Korean made torpedo it does not automatically prove the north koreans did it. Most of the articles I read stated that these torpedos were also made for export.

Does anyone have any info on who these weapons have been exported to in the past?

Although saying that, I can't really see a reason for the US or South Korea to want to stage such an incident. What's in it for them to take the risk? A military option is surely out of the question so there seem little reason for them to produce a 'doggy dossier'.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
plawolf said:
Even if this was a North Korean made torpedo it does not automatically prove the north koreans did it. Most of the articles I read stated that these torpedos were also made for export.

Does anyone have any info on who these weapons have been exported to in the past?
Click to expand...

No one else in the region uses North Korean torpedoes except for North Korea. The nearest nation that would possess such torpedoes and have the capability to launch such weapons relatively undetected is Iran... And if we were to go back in the heritage of North Korean torpedoes to include Chinese origin and Soviet origin torpedoes, well, the nearest nations would be China and Russia, and they both would have no reason and have tons to loose to attack South Korea.
 
M

mobydog

Junior Member
Here's the latest news.. kinda weird.. and suspicious.

concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report

SEOUL

Thu May 6, 2010 10:19pm EDT

Related News


* Kim committed to denuclearisation: report

Thu, May 6 2010

SEOUL (Reuters) - Investigators probing the deadly sinking of a South Korean navy ship in March near the North have concluded that a torpedo was the source of an explosion that destroyed the vessel, a news report said on Friday.

World

The team of South Korean and foreign investigators found traces of explosives used in torpedoes on several parts of the sunken ship as well as pieces of composite metal used in such weapons, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.

South Korean officials have not officially accused the North but made little secret of their belief Pyongyang deliberately torpedoed the 1,200-tonne corvette Cheonan in March near their disputed border in retaliation of a naval firefight last year.

The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying.

North Korea has denied involvement and accused South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's government of trying to use the incident for political gains ahead of local elections in June. (Reporting by Jack Kim; editing by Jon Herskovitz and Sanjeev Miglani)
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Firstly, that heavily corroded (I'm not just refering to the rust), wasn't found inside the the ship wreck, nor (if I'm not wrong) ever reviewed where exactly it was found.

So now, the metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, doesn't SK operate German subs ?? The usual kind of statement indicating that it perhaps NK is trying to disguise it's involovement is Psych ops, at best, trying to deflect critical thinking. To explain the unexplainable by giving you a scenario propagaded earlier.

This could very well.. be a friendly fire cover-up. If NK really did it, they would not shy away from taking credit as they usually would.
 
M

mobydog

Junior Member
sorry.. it wasn't the latest news. It's on the 6 May 2010.

Seems like the "Free Mass Media" let this piece of news slide.

Too damaging I guess..
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
mobydog said:
sorry.. it wasn't the latest news. It's on the 6 May 2010.

Seems like the "Free Mass Media" let this piece of news slide.

Too damaging I guess..
Click to expand...

Excellent find Moby and one that really shows how topsy turvy most of the evidence we are presented with is.

The timing of all this is interesting too, with all the pressure on China to agree sanctions on Iran. I note that the "definitive proof" of NK guilt, was only produced after the Brazil/Turkey Initiative successfully brokered the fuel shipment deal with Tehran, with has rather ..... er .... torpedoed Hilary the Harpy's earlier "diplomatic victory".;)
 
planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
:( Conspiracy theories :(

Sinodefence community prides itself on the objective perspective, I hope :coffee:
 
M

mobydog

Junior Member
planeman said:
:( Conspiracy theories :(

Sinodefence community prides itself on the objective perspective, I hope :coffee:
Click to expand...
So, I am the one at MP.net.

Can you define "conspiracy theories" ? How possibly can my above post be a "conspiracy theory", just because "friendly fires" are impossible, or simply it goes against the official report ? I am simply saying by thought without reasons ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top