Patrick Cockburn / The Independent & Donald Kirk / Christian Science Monitor – 2010-05-23 02:32:41
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-threatens-south-with-war-over-fabricated-report-1978787.html
North Korea Threatens South with War over ‘Fabricated’ Report
Patrick Cockburn / The Independent
(May 21, 2010) — North Korea yesterday threatened to respond with “all-out war” if it is punished following the report of a multinational investigation that blamed a torpedo fired by one of its submarines for the sinking of a South Korean warship.
Pyongyang denounced the results of the inquiry as a fabrication, and denied that it was involved in the sinking of the Cheonan warship in the Yellow Sea. Forty-six sailors died in the incident, which was the worst military disaster for South Korea since the Korean War.
A spokesman for the North’s Defence Commission said they would respond to any attempt to punish it by “all-out war… involving the whole nation, all the people and the whole state”.
The outcome of the investigation into the sinking on 26 March opens the way for North Korea to be referred to the UN Security Council and for the US to add it to its list of state sponsors of terror.
The White House said the sinking was an unacceptable “act of aggression” against international law and the truce which ended the Korean War in 1953. But China is unlikely to support sanctions in the Security Council since it has a vested interest in maintaining the regime of Kim Jong-il.
The South Korean President Lee Myung-bak earlier threatened “stern action” against the North following the release of the report that described how pieces of a North Korean torpedo, including fragments of its propulsion unit, had been found. The investigators added that several small North Korean submarines had left their base several days before the attack and returned soon afterwards.
Retaliation against North Korea by the South or the international community is unlikely because the country is already the target of severe sanctions. Nevertheless, Mr Lee said: “We will take resolute counter-measures against North Korea and make it admit its wrongdoings through strong international cooperation.”
Mr Lee’s government cut back on aid to the North on the grounds that it produced no political dividends, but his tougher line has proved equally ineffective. China, North Korea’s main ally, gave a low-key response to the report, saying the attack on the ship was “unfortunate” and emphasising the need to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula.
The US is also likely to seek to prevent the Cheonan incident escalating into a crisis. While China may want to rein in North Korea because it does not want its relations with South Korea to suffer, the sinking of the warship underlines its inability to control Kim Jong-il’s regime.
A report by the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group, which includes experts from the US, Australia, Britain and Sweden, describes how an explosion split the ship in two. Technical evidence appeared to rule out an earlier suspicion that the ship had been sunk by a mine, possibly left over from the Korean War.
“As for conclusive evidence that can corroborate the use of a torpedo, we have collected propulsion parts, including propulsion motor with propellers, and a steering section from the site of the sinking,” the investigators said.
These fragments are identical in size and shape to North Korean torpedoes, as illustrated in literature produced as an aid for possible foreign purchasers. Markings in Korean were also found on the propulsion unit.
After ruling out mines, collision, internal explosion, grounding and fatigue failure as reasons for the loss of the ship, the report concludes that only an underwater torpedo could have produced a powerful explosion of the type that sank it. The injuries to the dead sailors were consistent with the explosion of a torpedo.
Additional evidence for this is provided by information that “a few small submarines and a mother ship supporting them left a North Korean naval base in the West Sea two to three days prior to the attack, and returned to port two to three days after the attack”.
The report concludes that there is no other plausible explanation for the loss of the ship other than a torpedo launched by a submarine. North Korea’s motives for the attack are still unclear. Its tactics in the past have been to make bellicose threats against anybody taking action against it.
At the same time, the North’s threat of military retaliation will be taken more seriously after the sinking of the warship and a general sense that the actions of Pyongyang are not entirely predictable. The North was already seething about the tightening of international sanctions after it carried out nuclear and missile tests.
The angry but ineffective international response to what appears to be a flagrant act of aggression by North Korea underlines how the possession of even the most primitive nuclear weapon makes a small power invulnerable to military action.
The North does not even have to threaten to use nuclear weapons, since the South Korean capital Seoul is well within artillery range of its army.
What happens next?
Will South Korea take military action against the North?
Not likely since it does not want to start a war with a nuclear power. But it may be quicker to react to any perceived act of aggression along the maritime or land border to show that its restraint cannot be taken for granted. This means there may be some firing along the demilitarised zone which has divided the two countries since 1953. The South has a lot to lose economically from any serious military action which would give the impression that all-out war is a possibility, however remote.
Will North Korea take military action against the South?
The North has been making apocalyptic threats for so many years that the South and the rest of the world largely discounts them. But the North’s possession of a nuclear device in the making, the extreme aggressiveness of its rhetoric, and now the sinking a South Korean warship means that nobody is absolutely sure that it will not undertake more serious military action than anybody expects. It could underline this by test firing longer-range missiles.
So will there just be sabre-rattling?
With one million troops along the border there are plenty of sabres to rattle. The South could police its maritime border more tightly, looking for a chance for retaliation for the loss of its corvette. There will be more joint exercises with US forces. For its part the North has long experience of upping the ante without going to war and making use of its fissile material to conduct nuclear tests with uncertain results which draw attention to its demands. Experts say it is a long way from having a useable bomb but nobody wants to find out the hard way if they are right.
Will there be more UN sanctions?
This is the most probable outcome. But this does not mean much unless it is supported by China and this support will probably not be forthcoming. The South has largely cut back on the aid it was giving the North and cross-border economic co-operation.
.
South Korea Releases Graphic Detail on North’s Torpedo Attack
Donald Kirk / Christian Science Monitor
SEOUL, South Korea (May 20, 2010) — The prolonged investigation into the sinking of the South Korean Navy corvette Cheonan does more than blame North Korea for the attack. It provides graphic details on the construction of a torpedo, how a torpedo works, and what happens when a torpedo is fired and hits its target.
In the campaign to generate international support for condemnation of North Korea, South Korea’s Defense Ministry meticulously summarized critical information in fairly simple language on the basis of conclusions reached by a Joint Civilian Military Investigation Group that included experts from 10 Korean agencies as well as the United States, Australia, Britain, and Sweden.
Here’s what happened after “a strong underwater explosion generated by the detonation of a homing torpedo below and to the left of the gas turbine room” of the Cheonan made it “split apart and sink,” according to the assessment of the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation group.
First, the “shockwave and bubble effect caused significant upward bending” of the keel of the vessel, “and the shell plate was steeply bent with some parts of the ship fragmented.”
Then, “on the main deck, fracture occurred around the large openings used for maintenance of equipment in the gas turbine room.” The bulkhead of the room “was significantly damaged and deformed.”
At the same time, “the bottoms of the stern and bow sections” were “bent upward” — further evidence of an underwater explosion.
EXAMINED STERN FOR SIX WEEKS
The investigation team, over the course of six weeks of examining the smaller stern section of the ship and the larger main portion, “found evidence of extreme pressure on the fin stabilizer,” needed to reduce rolling of the ship, as well as “water pressure and bubble effects on the bottom of the hull.” The fact that wires were cut “with no traces of heat” added to the impression of “a strong shockwave and bubble effect causing the splitting and the sinking of the ship.”
South Korean officials were convinced, after recovery of both portions of the ship, that North Korea was responsible, but the best evidence of a torpedo attack was discovery of the torpedo itself, including the motor with propellers and steering section, last Saturday.
The rusted torpedo, on display in a glass case at the Defense Ministry, was found after weeks of hunting by a commercial dredging ship at a depth of approximately 150 feet. The captain of the dredger said the nets for pulling it up broke a number of times, but “the moment it was above water, we thought instinctively, this is what we are looking for.”
Moreover, said a defense official, “the explosive substances found in the Cheonan and on the propeller were identical.”
The report offers still more precise information. The torpedo parts include “bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section” that “perfectly match the schematics” of a torpedo “included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes,” said the summary report.
The torpedo “utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods,” said the report. “It is a heavyweight torpedo with a diameter of 21 inches, a weight of 1.7 tons and a net explosive weight of up to 250 kilograms.”
It was the sheer force of the blast, not shrapnel or burning, that killed the sailors and broke up the ship, according to analysis attributed in the final report to the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources.
That analysis cited “seismic wave intensity of 1.5 degrees” and two infrasound waves with a 1.1 second interval, enough to tear apart the ship. “The seismic wave and infrasound waves originated from an identical site of explosion,” said the report. “This phenomenon corresponds to a shock wave and bubble effect generated by an underwater explosion.”
The investigators conducted “numerous simulations of an underwater explosion” that showed that a detonation with a net explosive weight between 200 and 300 kilograms had occurred at a depth of between approximately 18 and 27 feet, and nine feet left of the center of the ship’s gas turbine room.
The report categorically ruled out shifting tidal currents, metal fatigue, old mines in the area, collision with another vessel or an explosion inside the ship. These, it said, “played no part in the incident.”
Read more:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/20/94567/south-korea-releases-graphic-detail.html#ixzz0oaAum2zS
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
The Kursk Conspiracy: Did the US Sink Russian Sub?
(February 7, 2006) — A documentary about the aftermath of the Kursk incident brings to light alot of very odd things. Any of which on their own might be brushed aside, but taken together it forms an interesting picture.
The Kursk was out at sea demonstrating a new torpedo for the chinese. Its a known fact that US subs were in the area shadowing Kursk and observing the operation. What happens after that is largely unknown.
What is known are several very, very odd things:
• One of the US subs in the area had its emergency bouy deployed. This happens automatically, and only in an emergency. This was recovered by the Russians.
• One of the subs, the USS Memphis went to port for repairs in Norway. Photos clearly show the hatch covering the emergency bouy is missing.
• The USS Toledo disappears and enters a repair facility in the US. No one is allowed to inspect or see her.
• Video evidence from the Kursk shows several gashes on the hull, with the metal bent inward. Only colliding with something else will cause damage like that. This is video taken by the first emergency teams allowed in the area. They are not allowed near the bow of the Kursk for any reason.
This theory was carried further after the Kursk was raised to the surface. Minus the bow. The bow was sawed off, and never allowed to see the light of day or to be videotaped.
The remaining portion of the Kursk was in dry dock. There was a curious round shaped puncture near the bow, which some experts contend is the calling card of a us Mk48 torpedo. Once this was questioned, the side of the sub with the puncture wound was no longer allowed to be photographed.
Curiously, immediately after the incident a very, very large Russian debt to the US was forgiven, and Russia was allowed to take out a new loan. Also, in the days after the incident it turns out George Tenent went to Moscow. He was the first acting CIA director in history to go to the Russian capital.
