The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

mobydog

Junior Member
Guys, I found rather interesting find. another perculiar incident for the collection.

It seems like the ROK was working on a third buoy, where a UDT diver died, but that was 1.8km (due North) away from the first "Cheonan" wreckage (against the current), while the second wreckage was 6km away due west (following the current).

There seems to a secondary disaster, at the time of the "Cheonan" sinking incident. What more it was under the US jurisdiction, and suspected it to be a US Sub (or a SDV) ! It seems like a credible source, collated mainly from KBS TV (a reliable korean news agency), but was mysteriously suppressed later for false report.. but pictures don't lie. Further, why only Korean and Japanese media reporting this ? It's strange notion of this incident didn't mangae to filter out.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BTW, A long read. But I must add - USS Columbia Returns to Pearl Harbor on the 3rd May.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
Guys, I found rather interesting find. another perculiar incident for the collection.

It seems like the ROK was working on a third buoy, where a UDT diver died, but that was 1.8km (due North) away from the first "Cheonan" wreckage (against the current), while the second wreckage was 6km away due west (following the current).

There seems to a secondary disaster, at the time of the "Cheonan" sinking incident. What more it was under the US jurisdiction, and suspected it to be a US Sub (or a SDV) ! It seems like a credible source, collated mainly from KBS TV (a reliable korean news agency), but was mysteriously suppressed later for false report.. but pictures don't lie. Further, why only Korean and Japanese media reporting this ? It's strange notion of this incident didn't mangae to filter out.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BTW, A long read. But I must add - USS Columbia Returns to Pearl Harbor on the 3rd May.

And a false one at that. Much of this author's report relies on hearsay, which is never a good source of reliable and verifiable information. Depending on how long the Cheonan took to sank, she could have been carried by the current away from the position where she was hit. Drifting while sinking is a known phenomenon, and as a result, debris can be scattered a good distance if the current is right.

Not only that, the author has an ideological axe to grind with the US... looking at his other works, the author is staunchly anti-American.
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
Latest news about Premier Wen's trip to Seoul:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's Wen under pressure in Seoul over N.Korea
Posted: 28 May 2010 1800 hrs

SEOUL - China will not protect those who sank a South Korean warship, Premier Wen Jiabao was quoted as saying Friday, as he came under pressure in Seoul to join an international push to punish North Korea.

Japan slapped new sanctions on the North over the March 26 sinking, which international investigators say was caused by a North Korean torpedo.

Regional tensions have risen sharply since they announced the findings of their investigation last week, with South Korea announcing reprisals that have sparked threats of war from the North.

Wen made the comments at a meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, according to Lee's spokesman.

"The Chinese government will review the results of international probes closely and consider reactions from countries concerned seriously," Wen was quoted as saying.

"It will then take its position on this issue in an objective and fair manner. According to the investigation results, China will not protect anyone."

China "rejects any acts that harm peace and stability" on the peninsula, Wen reportedly said. "We hope the South Korean government handles this issue appropriately and we will closely consult with it."

South Korea, China and Japan are seeking China's support to sanction -- or at least, to censure -- North Korea in the United Nations Security Council.

China is the North's sole major ally and economic lifeline and a veto-wielding council member.

Unlike many countries, it has not publicly blamed Pyongyang for the sinking, one of the worst military attacks on the South since the 1950-53 war.

South Korea "is now making all-out diplomatic efforts to hold the North accountable", a presidential spokesman said before Friday's meeting.

Seoul will press its case again at a trilateral summit this weekend on the southern island of Jeju also involving Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

In a phone conversation, Hatoyama and US President Barack Obama agreed to work together on the issue.

"The prime minister and President Obama agreed that North Korea's conduct is unforgivable and that Japan and the United States will cooperate on the issue," said Japan's chief government spokesman Hirofumi Hirano.

The Japanese government announced further restrictions on remittances to the hardline communist state. Its parliament also passed a law authorising its coastguard to inspect ships suspected of carrying North Korean nuclear and weapons-related cargo on the high seas.

South Korea's reprisals include a trade cut-off and the resumption of cross-border propaganda broadcasts.

The North, which denies involvement, has threatened to shell the loudspeakers now being installed along the tense frontier if the broadcasts go ahead.

The North has cut all ties with the South, scrapped pacts aimed at averting accidental flare-ups along their disputed sea border, and vowed to attack any intruding ships.

It has threatened to shut down a jointly-run industrial park at Kaesong, the last reconciliation project still operating.

The South's top military commanders will meet Saturday to discuss countermeasures against cross-border aggression including any moves to take South Korean civilians hostage at Kaesong, the defence ministry said.

Some 42,000 North Koreans and about 800-1,000 South Korean managers work in 110 South Korean factories at the estate just north of the border.

Seoul's unification ministry said the number of South Koreans at Kaesong is being cut by 50-60 percent.

Investigators said parts of a torpedo salvaged from the seabed exactly match a model that the North had offered for export.

Pyongyang poured scorn on the probe's findings in a 1,700-word article on the official news agency by an unidentified military commentator.

"As the facts show, the 'crucial pieces of evidence' produced by the south Korean regime, a master of fabrication and concoction, are nothing but faked things from A to Z, inviting serious doubts," it said.

Among other matters, the commentary questioned how part of the torpedo could have remained on the seabed for 50 days when even the hull and stern of the shattered ship were shifted by strong currents.

South Korea has asked China to send experts to check the findings of the investigation but Beijing has not yet responded, a senior Seoul official was earlier quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency.

Russia, also a veto-wielding Security Council member, has announced it is sending experts to assess the evidence.

- AFP/ir

That is a very interesting statement by Premier Wen. I wonder if the Chinese have their own intelligence on what caused the sinking?

It seems the Russians have also decided to get into the game, rather than wait for the matter to reach the UN SC. I don't think they like to be left out of matters in their own backyard.
 

mobydog

Junior Member
And a false one at that. Much of this author's report relies on hearsay, which is never a good source of reliable and verifiable information. Depending on how long the Cheonan took to sank, she could have been carried by the current away from the position where she was hit. Drifting while sinking is a known phenomenon, and as a result, debris can be scattered a good distance if the current is right.

Not only that, the author has an ideological axe to grind with the US... looking at his other works, the author is staunchly anti-American.

The whole current Iran has Nukes, and making nukes from typically American news are all hearsay, and make-believes too. Since, American Free corporate media (where most of it's editors are Juwes) has an ideological axe to grind with Iran (how dare they bring down the democratically and "human right" loving Shah pro-american regime), thus is never a good source of reliable and verifiable information. But You look like that kind that would take the line, hook and sinker.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
The whole current Iran has Nukes, and making nukes from typically American news are all hearsay, and make-believes too. Since, American Free corporate media (where most of it's editors are Juwes) has an ideological axe to grind with Iran (how dare they bring down the democratically and "human right" loving Shah pro-american regime), thus is never a good source of reliable and verifiable information. But You look like that kind that would take the line, hook and sinker.

Alright, here's some good questions for you and this reporter:

1. Where is this sunken American submarine? Which submarine is it? Can we account for all American submarines?
2. If we assume that an American submarine is missing and thus is sunk, why haven't we heard anything yet?
3. A typical American nuclear submarine has a crew of about 130 sailors and officers. Why haven't the crew's families said anything yet about their missing loved ones?
4. If we assume that the American submarine is in fact damaged, where is this submarine? Why haven't we heard anything? 130 people are a lot of people to keep shut up, and once you add in the shipyard crew to patch the submarine for transport back to a facility where it can be completely fixed, the facility's workers, AND all the families of these people, that's roughly a couple of thousand people to keep shut up.
5. If it was a South Korean submarine that was damaged or sunk, ask the same questions as above.
6. Worst of all, SOMEONE out there must have a picture of an American or South Korean submarine with battle damage out there, with the proliferation of cameras in cell phones. So, where is this picture?
7. The depth of the water is not very deep in this area: roughly 45m according to a couple of sea charts. No way an American nuclear boat will ever sail into such waters submerged; they require roughly 30m of water to fully submerge in. Most conventional submarines are no better. At that depth, a sub captain is risking a lot; he runs the extremely high risk of hitting the bottom if he's not careful with navigation, and any surface ship can easily ram into him as he has no room to manoeuvre.

Since we can't give any evidence to support that a American submarine was either sunk or damaged, therefore, we must use Occam's Razor: we must accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. No missing American submarine, no missing South Korean submarine, no damaged American or South Korean submarine, so therefore, the Cheonan was not sunk by friendly fire.
 

hanqiang1011

New Member
Both China & USA wouldnt want a '2nd Korean War'. NK's ally with China and SK's with USA. Although SK has its own military but the military power is in USA's hands. If USA say 'No War', President Lee wont wage a war despite the displeasant feeling of the South. In genaral the South is divided into ''no war'' and ''pro war'' faction.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


NK on the other hand, wouldnt want China to take sanctions against her as well. China also well know that US is on SK side and might no even have a stalemate in the would-be "2nd Korean War", so China would tell NK to avoid war, or else sanctions from China would follow too. If NK still wanna go on a all out war, ''Kim's government'' would be replaced by another able person.

For US, snactions against Iran might turn into a war on Tehran vs US, and if NK starts a war, US economy would fall even more, knowing war on 4 fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & NK) are impossible. Given the situation in middle East, US is not stupid to open a war in Asia too.

In short, 4 sides would not go on war, well knowing the world situation wont allow, perhaps at most will be small skimishes. If NK and SK started an all-out war, then the next thing we know, we would be using sticks and batons as weapons for WW4

US is still fighting a war on Iraq (on accusations of Saddam having WMD) and Agfhanistan (Taliban, terrorism), knowing on the first hand they thought it would be swift and decisive. As these countries have 3rd world army, it is 'easy'. But NK has the world 3rd largest army (I think), even if NK is backward in military technology, the US would dtill have a hard time fight against this NK military as NK is no Iraq and Agfhanistan, unlike the latter 2, NK processes nuclear weapon.

Also with the amount of world debt US is facing, war is unlikely and unpopular among US citizens. Look at the link below, see how much taxes an average US ciitizen has to pay in his/her lifetime.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is my humble opinion...
 

Engineer

Major
Someone showed that there are discreprencies between the torpedo wreckage and the schematics presented by South Korea. Aside from the debris and chemical residue of a German torpedo that went unexplained, the "report" presented by the South Korean government is a 5-page crap with no signature whatsoever. More can be found on:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One thing for sure, the investigation only raised more questions than it answered.
 

Engineer

Major
And in littoral waters, ASW becomes a whole new ball game because of the challenging acoustics. ASW is very much an art and depends a whole lot on an operator's skill combined with good equipment and tactics.
So, acoustic environment is challenging to conduct ASW, but not so for an acoustic homing torpedo with a much smaller sensor and with much less computational power?

Since we can't give any evidence to support that a American submarine was either sunk or damaged, therefore, we must use Occam's Razor: we must accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. No missing American submarine, no missing South Korean submarine, no damaged American or South Korean submarine, so therefore, the Cheonan was not sunk by friendly fire.
Your inference is wrong. If there is indeed no missing or damaged submarine, then all you showed is that the Cheonan did not fire upon friendly submarine. It doesn't not say that the Cheonan's sinking is not related to friendly fire.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Someone showed that there are discreprencies between the torpedo wreckage and the schematics presented by South Korea. Aside from the debris and chemical residue of a German torpedo that went unexplained, the "report" presented by the South Korean government is a 5-page crap with no signature whatsoever. More can be found on:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One thing for sure, the investigation only raised more questions than it answered.

It did strike me as a bit odd that the report was just a few pages of "conclusions" without anything showing how they arrived at them, and with no signatures or anything.

However, I still think that a North Korean sub is the most likely explanation based on the information we have so far. There's no evidence for any other version of events, and the actions of the parties involved do not seem to be in line with what they would do if it was indeed a friendly fire incident.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
So, acoustic environment is challenging to conduct ASW, but not so for an acoustic homing torpedo with a much smaller sensor and with much less computational power?

Surface ships are much noisier than a submarine. Furthermore, a submarine has the advantage as it can tell where surface ships are. I would compare the situation to 2 people looking for each other. One person is heavily near sighted (the surface ship), and the other has normal vision (the submarine). The area they are looking for each other in is somewhat busy. Guess what, it is more likely that the person with normal vision will see the other person first.

As a result, a submarine can fire a torpedo to the position it guesses the surface ship will be, and let the sensor on the torpedo provide final guidance. All the launch platform has to do is to get the torpedo close enough.

Your inference is wrong. If there is indeed no missing or damaged submarine, then all you showed is that the Cheonan did not fire upon friendly submarine. It doesn't not say that the Cheonan's sinking is not related to friendly fire.

Ah, but I showed that no Western submarine would dare be in the area because of the shallow depth. That means that a mini-sub is the only answer as it is small enough to operate in the area submerged.
 
Top