The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

2 things:

People were asking about it, so I checked on GlobalSecurity, and the Pohang class of corvettes (including the ROKS Cheonan) have no ASW of any kind apparently. So yes it would be quite possible for a NK sub to get within firing range unnoticed and escape. They wouldn't have even known about the torpedo coming.

Secondly some people were saying that the fact that the surviving crew was "quarantined" after the sinking is suspicious. It is suspicious, and I said as much at the beginning of the thread. They were quarantined because (and you can check this against the original news articles on the subject) the original SK government line was that the sinking was the result of an accidental explosion. They wanted to try to avoid the mess that would go along with blaming North Korea. Very early remarks by naval personnel contradicted the accident explanation, and so the crew were kept away from the media for some time, probably (and this is my hypothesis) until the military had done its own preliminary investigation. That's the chain of events that I constructed from reading the early news reports, and I think it's fairly obvious.

Mr T said:

What does Switzerland have to do with anything? Stop me if I'm wrong, but could being a tiny, landlocked country make it hard for it to have experts on tap who can identify Korean torpedoes?

What is your position, that there shouldn't have been an investigation because no one is 100% impartial? Then why ever have any investigations into anything? Find me a perfect human being to be a prosecutor, judge, juror, etc. Human beings are flawed, so unless you have evidence that the experts were grossly unfit for the job I can't agree the report is useless.

Click to expand...

Funny enough, all I've said is that I think Switzerland is more appropiate for the job, and you became so defensive and reacted greatly and arguing about claims I didn't even make.

Why I think Switzerland is more appropiate is because they're considered almost the "most" neutral out of everyone. In fact, Singapore may also be considered.

What is your position, that there shouldn't have been an investigation because no one is 100% impartial?

Click to expand...

I also never said there shouldn't be an investigation. I don't even know where you came up with that.

Human beings are flawed, so unless you have evidence that the experts were grossly unfit for the job I can't agree the report is useless.

Click to expand...

Where did I even say the reports are useless?

Mr T said:

Further sanctions such as countries being able to search North Korean ships when and where they see fit, economic sanctions with bite, etc.



Exactly. Lots of risk for no gain.

Click to expand...

Searching their boats doesn't have anything to do with what happened this time.
---------------------------------------------


Btw, are there any elections coming up in South Korea?

ravenshield936 said:

Btw, are there any elections coming up in South Korea?

Click to expand...

Nope, the last elections in South Korea were in 2008 and they were for the South Korean parliament and happen every 4 years. The last presidential election was in 2007 and they occur every 5 years.

Funny enough, all I've said is that I think Switzerland is more appropiate for the job, and you became so defensive and reacted greatly and arguing about claims I didn't even make.

Why I think Switzerland is more appropiate is because they're considered almost the "most" neutral out of everyone. In fact, Singapore may also be considered.

Click to expand...

The Swiss has no experience in naval architecture and engineering (they don't even have a navy), and the same can be said about Singapore. Both would be poor choices for being part of or leading a naval disaster investigation team. It would be akin to asking Peru to lead and investigate the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Well those that say there's no sonar...

AssassinsMace said:

Well those that say there's no sonar...

[qimg]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7770/192f6b7abc2c4e03bb69268.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1009/8be35c26675749ce9ea2c2f.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

It would seem that GlobalSecurity is incorrect. Wikipedia also says the Cheonan had hull sonar. That's the last time I use Global Security. They've been wrong before.

mobydog said:

Planeman,

What made you think that the shredded CHT-02D has no shroud ? .

Click to expand...

a) This is a military interest community. b) People who come here are by definition somewhat computer literate. - Combining those two factors I think it's fair to suggest you ought to have conducted your own research rather than throwing half-baked conspiracy theories around and asking others to do your research for you.

CHT-02D is related to Chinese Yu-4a and Soviet SAET-50 types, and therefore to German T5 / G7e torpedoes.

Yu-4. Note the fin details, notched rudder etc.


Here's a conspiracy theory for you: China probably did it and used a Yu-4a torpedo for deniability. Motive - China wants to weaken ROK economy and government.
So maybe China

Finn McCool said:

It would seem that GlobalSecurity is incorrect. Wikipedia also says the Cheonan had hull sonar. That's the last time I use Global Security. They've been wrong before.

Click to expand...

Well, the sensor and the weapons fit of the class varies; the first 4 aren't equipped with a hull mounted sonar and the missile fit is using Exocet... the radars are different as well. The only thing is is common through the class is propulsion, hull form, and a OTO 76mm gun.

Pointblank said:

Well, the sensor and the weapons fit of the class varies; the first 4 aren't equipped with a hull mounted sonar and the missile fit is using Exocet... the radars are different as well. The only thing is is common through the class is propulsion, hull form, and a OTO 76mm gun.

Click to expand...

I see. A failure of reading comprehension on my part. As far as I can tell, the Cheonan was not one of the first 4 built, and therefore should have sonar.

Mr T said:

You could not include North Korea in the investigating team because they'd use it as a vehicle to destroy the investigation one way or another.

Do you have evidence that they wanted to be involved but were not invited? Maybe they didn't want to be involved because they feared they'd have to either back the report (facing North Korean ire) or kill it (facing everyone else's ire).

Click to expand...

And do you have evidence that Russia, China and NK do not want to be invited?

What I am stating in my post, is that the three nations should be invited, and unless they rejected the invitation, then it is alright. But as of facts, the invitation was not extended to these countries.

And why shouldn't NK be in the investigation? It is something like, the opinion was already formed in your head saying that NK is responsible even before anything is proven and so they should be standing in the firing squad to be shoot by everyone in the international community. (even before investigation started).

Well... things don't work this way. Even a murder suspect must be given a chance to do their own research and investigation and finding of proofs to clear their own name.

And finally, why do you immediately said that NK would use it as a vehicle to destroy the investigation? There simply is no proof to that. We don't just shoot someone right there and then because they are 'suspected' of something. As long as they are not 'convicted', they should have all the rights in the world to be in the investigation team.