11/23/10 - North Korean artillery fire (2 SK marines dead)
 

North Korea Bombards South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island in Deadly Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/wo...a.html?_r=1&hp
BBC News - North Korean artillery hits South Korean island‎
S. Korea: shelling 'provocation' | Video | Reuters.com

That would essentially be "strike two", as anything close to an act of war from the North again could most likely resume the Korean War. However, something doesn't add up -- or, rather, something hasn't been properly addressed: the details on the strategic motive are unclear. Naturally, there's intelligence being withheld by the militaries, in which may provide the logic behind firing at a target that would achieve nothing beyond escalated hostility. And, if the objective is provocation, why?

I think I read that people in China think that it's trying to gain leverage for when talks resume while people in South Korea thinks it's trying to transition power to Kim Jong Il's son.

Both sound like reasonable explanations especially the latter.

Half of the South Korean population believes that the yesterday's Hoguk naval drill right near the North Korean coastline provoked this attack. The North Korean government already warned South Korea through a telex message. So it was already an expected attack.

Right now I'm in South Korea. We are already blaming the South Korean president instead of blaming North Korea.

Did they cross into North Korean territory? If not well then they didn't provoke anything.

And somehow I don't believe your "half of South Korea" statistic. Sources? (If they're in Korean then I'll get my Korean friend to translate them)

Koreas exchange artillery fire - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

South Korea provoked North Korea every year by training right next to the NLL, which is right next to the North Korea coastline. It's just unfortunate that this country has a flawed president who can't deal anything beyond Seoul.

Go to Daum, Naver, and Yahoo! Korea. Half of the posts in these portals are aimed against the South Korea president.

The only mention of South Korean provocation by the link was that the North claimed it was fired upon first.

The naval exercises that happened with the US happened the day before.

And internet forums, chatrooms have a lot of wierdos in them. This forum included. It is hardly a measure of how the population feels.

I'm looking for perhaps a newspaper editorial at the very LEAST. And from a reputable source. Korean or otherwise.

You couldn't trust the South Korean mass media when you have a right-wing pro-American president in power. Especially when the press freedom in South Korea is falling down quickly after this president is in power. Chojoongdong and Yonhap aren't that reliable.

Deja-vu all over again.

You can only trust the internet responses by the internet users here. For that matter, citizen journalism is more important and reliable than reputable journalism in South Korea.

Good luck with that. With the National Prosecutor and the Blue House's official Supervisors are under crisis with the help from the ruling party. Let's see how South Korea handles this in 3 months.

So then... where did you get your "half the population of South Korea believe..." statistic? Not to mention... what backs up your belief that the North was provoked?

What you were probably meant to say is that "there are people in south korea that believe...."

Were you trying to make these people sound more numerous than they actually were?

I never mentioned that it was a statistics. You mentioned it as if my comment was quoting a statistic.

But how can you trust the reputable South Korean mass media? I don't. And I never will.

If it's measurable then it's considered a statistic.

But OK then.. You've admitted that you were exaggerating.

As for the South Korean media.. I have no idea.

I saw this on the news today, I was like wtf? I swear why do they have to fight eachother, make love not war ffs=D

Yeah I prefer to trust the completely independent and unbiased North Korean media for all my news! :mtongue:

North Korea
main : 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3)
sub : M-1989 KOKSAN

South Korea
K9 Thunder 155 mm howitzer

It counterattacks to M1942 being set up by pillbox with K9.
The counterattack of South Korea is a dummy.
It is meaningless to shoot the howitzer = no motivation

The point of impact in North Korea shifts considerably.
Whether it is unskilled or aimed at the civilian from the beginning is anxious.

I'll leave the definition of statistic to other members. I don't think you can accurately measure everything in dirty conflicts like war or political incidents.

Why not? I see too many people around my age hating the president right now. Exaggeration is not the problem. The important problem is that there is a gigantic political crisis since September 2010. Worse than George W Bush in the Oval Office.

U.S., South Korea begin war games

I hope to goodness commonsense will prevail.

If anyone had commen sense they would understand this is just the actions of a bully who has starved his own population to death and uses these stupid attacks to garner food consesions.

He needs to have a few Tomahawk missles flown threw his front window, courtesy of the US. The US need's to make sure Kim Il know's it was the US that sent them as well. The US can't blink against this nutball or it will show weakness to China and let our ally South korea down. Plus we need to inform China that if they won't controle thier petulent kid, we will.

I doubt the US does much though, sad to say. South Korea may have a "right wing, pro American" leader, but the current American president is a left leaning anti colonialist who think's half the worlds ills were caused by the US in the first place. Don't exspect much help from him.

Oh, yeah. But first.

Average American public perspective of the South Korean president: South Korea is our ally!!! He's a good president!!!

Averager South Korean public perspective of the South Korean president: Oh yeah, he's a pro-American Fascist alright. He reminds me of the military dictatorship in the 1980s. He's having a second chance by making an offending stance towards North Korea after the barrage. After this barrage, the ruling party diverts the attention and generally censored and investigation towards 4 controversies: 1. anti-consitutional corruptions (illegal survelliance against civilian instiutions), 2. corruptions regarding nuclear exports to Dubai and sending soldiers, 3. the nationwide illegal environmental destructions towards the major rivers, and 4. corruptions regarding the national prosecutors. Besides, the Seoul G20 Summit is a failure just because of his leadership. Even though the younger crowd is generally anti-American, he is a crazy idiot who will exploit America and Obama.

I think that is the key phrase. Depending on how things go, that might be how this will all be looked at in the future.

again sorta very stupid
 

Nothing like sitting behind your'e computer and playing 'armchair general' and rattling your'e toy saber at the evil North Koreans?

Over half of South Korea's population (and more than a third of its GDP) is within range of thousands of North Korean 170mm guns (range of 50 kilometers) and 240 mm multiple rocket launchers (range of 45 kilometers). Actually, North Korea has hundreds of ballistic missiles capable of hitting anywhere in South Korea.

North Korea has the ability to do major damage to the southern capital (where half the population and a quarter of the GDP are), the South Koreans have more to lose than the northerners. Sprawling Seoul is 40-50 kilometers from the North Korea border. The city alone is 600 square kilometers, and the suburbs even larger. There are over 17,000 people per square kilometer (45,000 per square mile) in the city. The southerners know the north has nothing to lose, are desperate and heavily armed. What do you do?

South Korea should be careful with the choices it makes, having the people in mind, not the image it shows on the international arena.

BTW, USA doesn't care about collateral casualties, if you take history in view, they bombarded entire countries just for the sake of catching some "bad guys".

Since when do countries get two free strikes before they are reprimanded for their atrocities?

NK is safe so long as China is backing it.

Could you imagine North America without it's cheap Chinese goods? hah, that's a laugh

Easily. That's the America I grew up in.

Don't count on Obama according to this link? South Koreans have seen Obama as a weak world leader after the G20 summit in Seoul. Now he looks more marginalized than never before.

Since 2MB and Obama are lame-ducked, they do think alike. And that's scary.

North Korea is out of line but it seems like the south is like daring them to attack.

They do test on disputed border land and then do wargames a few days later. It seems stupid if you want to avoid conflict.

The North are going to create conflict regardless. It's better to be prepared for the inevitable rather than foolishly delay it. Look at the numerous attacks in the past few years, or the prisoners that the North has taken for people wandering 'too close/over to the border', and the very fact that they're so isolated and closed off doesn't help their cause, because it only makes people suspicious and concerned. I think the South's response so far (along with America) is quite justified.

How is it justified? "North Korea is going to attack at some point lets provoke them into an attack and then punish North Korea" Is this your justification?

South Korea hasn't exactly made the best moves and the way they've acted is on par with the craziness of North Korea.

My justification is that North Korea always provoke, always attack, and their behaviour never changes. Eventually they'll issue forth an attack that can't be ignored, and their latest attack wasn't exactly something easily ignored in itself either. It's better for South Korea to be prepared and ready to respond, that way they can defend themselves when the time comes. If they take your approach of 'just leave it' then one day North Korea will take action and the South won't be ready, they'll instead completely lose and we'll be asking 'why didn't they prepare and get ready when they had a chance?'. It's naive to say 'it could provoke the North, we must stop!', because that only works in the short term. North Korea is going to attack at some point - whether now or later - so even if it's 'provocation' they might as well get ready, because regardless of what they do it'll still lead to the same thing.

I don't recall saying this.

South Koreans should be prepared for attacks; however, they shouldn't fire missiles in disputed territory or send submarines in disputed territory. It just seems all to easy for the North Koreans to retaliate with the reason of provocation. They know it's disputed and they know sending submarines and testing missiles in the areas will provoke NK.

Not all South Korean Youth are against America.
Some are wanting us, the United States, to interfere a bit more.
I'm just worried
They could draft the citizens outside of South Korea if it got worse, right?

Could you imagine how many Chinese would have no jobs? That's no laugh.

China is a growing country. North Korea... presumingly, not so much.


The tally I was referring to was a figure of speech. Of course, the North has been doing things of this nature for years. That statement was loosely based upon the recent major events related to the reignition of the war.

That link is not a news article, but is an opinion piece by a very conservative British commentator.

Obama is not a lame duck. He can be elected again, and it would be short-sighted to think a Republican win in 2012 is a slam dunk.

This is all just conjecture on all our parts anyway. None of us are in a position of real authority to change anything.

However, reguarding the US in war, just look at old photo's from the Civil war. The US is perfectly willing to destroy everything in it's path, includeing it's own country, to win. Sacrificeing South Korea to achieve some goal isn't that far fetched. IT may be unlikely, but not impossible. Just ask Japan what the US will do to win a war it think's has to be won "at all costs". T

he real question then is..Does the US think this is an " at all costs" type of situation or not?

again sorta not
 

Komitsuki-
Your'e link too - Telegraph and Nile Gardiner

The article has several mistakes and it's author misreads or ingnores that
even in the wake of G-20 summit - even prior to it, the EU has several economic basket cases including Greece, Iceland,Latvia etc. not including the UK government having to in effect nationalize the UK 's biggest banks .
note The Telegraph article below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Telegraph
Europe on the brink of currency crisis meltdown
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 25 Oct 2008 / Nov 26 2010
The financial crisis spreading like wildfire across the former Soviet bloc threatens to set off a second and more dangerous banking crisis in Western Europe, tipping the whole Continent into a fully-fledged economic slump.

Currency pegs are being tested to destruction on the fringes of Europe’s monetary union in a traumatic upheaval that recalls the collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.

“This is the biggest currency crisis the world has ever seen,” said Neil Mellor, a strategist at Bank of New York Mellon.
The latest data from the Bank for International Settlements shows that Western European banks hold almost all the exposure to the emerging market bubble, now busting with spectacular effect.

They account for three-quarters of the total $4.7 trillion £2.96 trillion) in cross-border bank loans to Eastern Europe, Latin America and emerging Asia extended during the global credit boom – a sum that vastly exceeds the scale of both the US sub-prime and Alt-A debacles.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at this quote from the Telegraph article:
Niles Gardiner,

" Iran ..,brutal and barbaric Islamist regime inches closer towards becoming a nuclear-armed state, which threatens the security of Israel and the future of the Middle East."
-------------------------
Why not include Israel in this statement ? Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and periodically invades it's neighbors , does not allow inspection of it's nuclear arsenal. Repeatedly ingnores and violates UN resolutions. Why are they not a security threat?

Niles Gardiner ,
"..,flawed new START Treaty with Moscow which actively undermines US interests, increases the strategic power of Russia, and significantly undercuts Washington’s ability to deploy a global missile defence system."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What strategic power of Russia is he talking about?
Russia armed forces are in decline and it's navy and airforce have declined in quality and quanity. It's navy which over half it's ships are mostly left over from the 'Cold War' period is reaching well past their 30yr lifespan will have to be retired soon, further reducing Russia Navy in half.

Present day Russia navy-
Oct 29, 2010: new Bulava SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) had a successful test launch. There will be one more test before the end of the year, and if that one is good, the missile will enter service next year. The Bulava has failed half its test launches so far, and recently failed three in a row.
-----------------------------------------------
Russia as opposed to the period during the 'Cold War' has a resurgent NATO with NATO client states on Russias very doorstep and US forces aligned in force along it's southern border Afghanistan etc.
----------------------------------------------
Afghanistan / Iraq - Niles Gardiner is again mistaken.

Obama's policy and strategy regarding Afghanistan and Iraq is no different from previous US administrations even his commanding CIC in Afgnanistan is left over from the Bush administration. In fact this policy is Gen. Petraeus commanding general of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

Last but not least is this excerpt from same Telegraph Niles Gardiner whopper:

"..,latest aggression emanating from Pyongyang is a stark reminder that America cannot afford to be letting its guard down, and needs to stand up to its enemies rather than appease them."
------------------------------------------------
Well spoken Niles Gardiner! Who is nowhere near harms way or South Korea. The people in Seoul can take comfort in Niles Gardiner stand against Americas enemies.

Democrats are bad at foreign policies, especially towards East Asia.

again sorta not
 

FDR was a democrat and US president that led the United States during the WW2 against Germany and Japan. ..,and last time I checked the US sort of won this world war. circa World War 2 1939'-1945'.

That must be why they treat Bill Clinton like a rock star when he arrives in Japan.

Isreal isn't considered a threat because it's the only Western style country there. The rest are all muslim dictatorships of various type. Not to mention the fact they attack Isreal through proxy or outright invasion constantly. Isreal has been at war more or less since it was founded in 1948. The muslim world has hated Isreal with a passion right from it's rebirth.

Despite the fact Isreal existed in that same location dureing the time of Rome.The nuke threat is the only thing holding those muslim nations back now. Soon as Iran get's a working one they will launch it at Isreal to start world war 3. They have stated this as their primary goal for a while now.

Hmm, I should've said:
Can you imagine America going back to life without it's cheap Chinese goods?


IMO he is a rock star!! :D
at least he acted like one :P
don't get me wrong, he's one of the best presidents America has had.

again sorta not
 

Ryzorian:
"Isreal isn't considered a threat because it's the only Western style country there."

And 'western style countries' do not invade their neighbors or pose a nuclear threat?

The US 2001' Invasion of Afghanistan ring a bell ?
How about the US 2003' Invasion of Iraq ?

Sources pls. for recent neighboring arab nations that have invaded Israel since the end of the 1973' Yom Kippur War?

Please don't launch such assumptions. This is a racist kind of statement.