Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Cheonan: The other side of the story...
DarthAmerica    7/29/2010 6:04:12 AM
BEIJING - South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak has claimed "overwhelming evidence" that a North Korean torpedo sank the corvette Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that there’s "overwhelming evidence" in favor of the theory that North Korea sank the South Korean Navy warship Cheonan. But the articles of proof presented so far by military investigators to an official inquiry board have been scanty and inconsistent. There’s yet another possibility, that a U.S. rising mine sank the Cheonan in a friendly-fire accident. In the recent U.S.-China strategic talks in Shanghai and Beijing, the Chinese side dismissed the official scenario presented by the Americans and their South Korean allies as not credible. This conclusion was based on an independent technical assessment by the Chinese military, according to a Beijing-based military affairs consultant to the People Liberation Army. Hardly any of the relevant facts that counter the official verdict have made headline news in either South Korea or its senior ally, the United States. The first telltale sign of an official smokescreen involves the location of the Choenan sinking - Byeongnyeong Island (pronounced Pyongnang) in the Yellow Sea. On the westernmost fringe of South Korean territory, the island is dominated by a joint U.S.-Korean base for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The sea channel between Byeongnyeong and the North Korean coast is narrow enough for both sides to be in artillery range of each other. Anti-sub warfare is based on sonar and acoustic detection of underwater craft. Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it. North Korea admits it does not possess an underwater craft stealthy enough to slip past the advanced sonar and audio arrays around Byeongnyeong Island, explained North Korean intelligence analyst Kim Myong Chol in a news release. "The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology." The Cheonan sinking occurred in the aftermath of the March 11-18 Foal Eagle Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint U.S.-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. A mystery surrounds the continued presence of the U.S. missile cruisers for more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended. Only one reporter, Joohee Cho of ABC News, picked up the key fact that the Foal Eagle flotilla curiously included the USNS Salvor, a diving-support ship with a crew of 12 Navy divers. The lack of any minesweepers during the exercise leaves only one possibility: the Salvor was laying bottom mines. Ever since an American cruiser was damaged by one of Saddam Hussein's rising mines, also known as bottom mines, in the Iraq War, the U.S. Navy has pushed a crash program to develop a new generation of mines. The U.S. Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command has also been focused on developing counterparts to the fearsome Chinese naval "assassin's mace," which is propelled by a rocket engine. A rising mine, which is effective only in shallow waters, rests atop a small platform on the sea floor under a camouflage of sand and gravel. Its detection system uses acoustics and magnetic readings to pick up enemy ships and submarines. When activated, jets of compressed air or solid-fuel rockets lift the bomb, which self-guides toward the magnetic center of the target. The blast rips the keel, splitting the ship or submarine into two neat pieces, just as was done to the RKOS Cheonan. A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, "holes" the target's hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner. The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast. The initial South Korean review stated that the explosive was gunpowder, which would conform to North Korea's crude munitions. This claim was later overturned by the inquiry board, which found the chemical residues to be similar to German advanced explosives. Due to sanctions against Pyongyang and its few allies, it is hardly credible that North Korea could obtain NATO-grade ordnance. Thus, the mystery centers on the USNS Salvor, which happened to be yet right near Byeongyang Island at the time of the Cheonan sinking and far from its home base, Pearl Harbor. The inquiry board in Seoul has not questioned the officers and divers o
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
DarthAmerica       8/29/2010 1:02:24 PM
People will have to forgive me. in my absence I have forgotten the low standards that constitute proof on the internet. If this S Korean briefing were to be presented as evidence it would be laughed out of court. ANYBODY could write a number on some rusted piece of metal and claim whatever they wanted. In fact the corrosion on the object in the picture seems inconsistent with the same effects on the writing which looks to have endured a lot better than the metal. Not only that but the description of the picture implies that the South Koreans have more of these so called "North Korean" torpedoes. This at least makes it possible that evidence could have been manufactured. This doesn't even take into account the fact that only a brief synopsis of the findings ever went public.

Setting all of that aside, what about motive and opportunity? I've read dozens of reports on this and none of them can mention a single good reason for the North to do this. Then there is the how.

Im not saying the North could not have done this but I am saying that so far the evidence to support that is very weak. The truth is that we don't know. But if some want to jump to conclusions perhaps they need to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Aug 4th 1964 incident. 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/29/2010 3:13:51 PM
People will have to forgive me. in my absence I have forgotten the low standards that constitute proof on the internet. If this S Korean briefing were to be presented as evidence it would be laughed out of court. ANYBODY could write a number on some rusted piece of metal and claim whatever they wanted. In fact the corrosion on the object in the picture seems inconsistent with the same effects on the writing which looks to have endured a lot better than the metal. Not only that but the description of the picture implies that the South Koreans have more of these so called "North Korean" torpedoes. This at least makes it possible that evidence could have been manufactured. This doesn't even take into account the fact that only a brief synopsis of the findings ever went public.
 
So the guy who penned it in is involved now, as well as the people who "manufactured" this fake torpedo, the salvage crew who found the wreck, the investigative team, the politicians from China, Russia, US and S. Korea. Just how far does this rabbit hole go? How many hundreds of people are involved with this conspiracy?
 
Setting all of that aside, what about motive and opportunity? I've read dozens of reports on this and none of them can mention a single good reason for the North to do this. Then there is the how.
 
Maybe you missed this when I last wrote it. I'll make it a little more obvious.
North Korea, has been at war with S. Korea since the 50's.
 
Im not saying the North could not have done this but I am saying that so far the evidence to support that is very weak. The truth is that we don't know. But if some want to jump to conclusions perhaps they need to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Aug 4th 1964 incident.
 
This would have some basis in reality except for the fact that the US hasn't called for a war and neither has S. Korea. That pretty much sinks (pun intended) that argument. I'm going to quote myself.
 
"The best thing about conspiracy theories is that people who claim them use the lack of evidence as further proof that the conspiracy exist. The inverse is also true, where more evidence to disclaim said conspiracy is more proof that the conspirators have even greater power than initially imagined, which is how they are able to manipulate the facts so easily. The other poster was right, it's a waste of time talking to conspiracy theorist because can make themselves believe anything."
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @SantaClaws   8/29/2010 3:33:10 PM
How many hundreds of people knew about the F-117 or know about what the X-37B is really doing? Seriously your arguments are as weak as it's possible to be. That's compounded by the fact that you assume the objective would be war.

Like I said, you cannot prove nor is there proof that North Korea had anything to do with this. Just two sides to a story the public will probably not ever know the truth about.

I'll stand by for the usual sarcastic insulting data-less series of replies... 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/29/2010 3:42:48 PM
Well personally, I thought the wreck of the torpedo covered with the same explosive residue found on the Cheonan was good enough evidence. But, by all means please provide us the Reptilluminti mine which sank the Cheonan. Oh? You have absolutely no evidence to support your case? So sad.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/29/2010 4:01:01 PM
And it's actually kinda funny you mention the F117 etc because people were aware of its existence though no one knew what it looked like. And comparing a secret weapon to a cover up is hardly the same.
 
And it's also funny you say the objective isn't war, but make a direct comparison to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. So exactly what was the objective? You've been teetering at it for days now so please grace us with your inside knowledge.
 
Speaking of knowledge, earlier you implied that you work closely with Koreans on a regular basis, which you confirmed with a creepy stalker photo of a Korean stewardess. But, it was obvious that it was the first time you've seen that torpedo wreck even though it's been out since May. How is it someone so connected to Korea, an expert like yourself, had not even known about the torpedo until I showed you a picture?
 
Simply claiming I have a weak argument doesn't make it so. That's how my 4 year old nephew argues. Simply closing your eyes, covering your ears screaming, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and playing "My Heart Will Go On" does not change the fact that a torpedo with N. Korean markings was found. Simply saying someone has ulterior motives and more is afoot does not make it true. All you have brought to the table is conjecture, stupidity and the inability to see evidence that couldn't be more obvious if it slapped you in the face.
 
Now if you have a better argument than, "Well it could have been manufactured" or a"All the evidence to support my case disappeared because of the conspirators" maybe I won't take you for the buffoon you have so aptly demonstrated yourself to be.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @SantaClaws   8/29/2010 5:51:06 PM
I'm not going to waste time sharing a different point of view with someone who thinks sarcasm and insults are a substitute for a debate. It was a matter of trivia to invalidate your suggestion that a photo and some old torpedo parts prove anything. Your latest grasping at straws is to repeat yet another claim that can't be verified. Look, in short, you take the S Koreans word for it. Believe what ever you choose but learn how to do it without personally attacking people because it demonstrates very telling levels of maturity and experience. I've been where you are...

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/29/2010 6:05:31 PM
I wouldn't have been so condescending if you hadn't...
 
1. claimed you were an expert when it was obvious you weren't
 
2. claimed you were privy to knowledge none of us were, when it was obvious you weren't
 
3. claimed others don't know what they were talking about and then bring up the Titanic and CAPTORs as possible reasons why the Cheonan sank
 
4. claimed you had insight into Asian culture and worked closely with the Koreans when it is obvious you don't
 
5. You have no idea what I do for a living, what career field I work in or my experience. If it helps coddle your ego, you can consider it "coincidence" that I figured out it was a torpedo after knowing the hull was split in half  half a year ago. But I assure you that having a brother that flies SH60's in ASW and a father who served 33 years in the Navy retiring as a Master Chief and Chief of the Boat on both diesel and nuclear you are completely outclassed when discussing this topic with me. And yes, I too have a military background. So yes, you can claim that you know where "I've been" and what I know, but it is quite apparent to me that you know nothing.
 
And to be quite frank, there hasn't been much "debate" from you. Unless you consider "debate" as saying the other person's evidence is fabricated, provide no substantial reason why and declare yourself the victor.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @SantaClaws   8/29/2010 6:35:26 PM
Are you finished beating your chest, trolling and name dropping yet?


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       8/29/2010 6:42:01 PM
You're the one who questioned my experience. Don't cry when it the answer isn't something you want to hear.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    The purpose of this thread   8/29/2010 6:48:29 PM
This thread is to provide insights into the other side of the Cheonan story. To consider the possibility and even likelihood that more than meets the eye is going on here and PERHAPS the truth has not been publicly disclosed. It's not to come in here insulting and acting like an ass when someone has a different position. I can say without ego that I've probably forgotten more things military than the average person knows but I will not reduce my dialogue to the level of some. So, for those of you who still wish to debate this issue please feel free. Otherwise if you can't and you wish to turn this into a flame thread then please piss off. 

Now, I've been involved in military and technical matters for a large number of years as some of you no doubt are aware. When I say that something is not provable, I mean just that.

If an F/A-18E goes down in the South China Sea, and the USN shows:

-A threat AAM part recovered from the sea

-Powerpoints of threat weapons systems

That does NOT PROVE hostile action. Moreover it doesn't establish the aggressor. Finally, lets not be naive, governments can and do lie for better or worse. Discuss on and remain civil.


-DA  
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics