The Norks are Suspected of Sinking South Korean Shipping.

[Lusankya]

I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which China gains part of North Korea that doesn't also involve South Korea also gaining part of North Korea, so it wouldn't be quite 23 million extra Koreans to swamp with Han. Besides, China's managed to move 18 million odd Han into Inner Mongolia. They'd probably find it easier to move people into North Korea, on account of it being, well, not Mongolia.

Koreans probably have less need to be swamped by Han than most of the other ethnic groups, though. As I have said, Koreans are quite a well-behaved ethnic group, who follow Confucius and don't even need to be coerced into population control (technically they're allowed two children, but most ethic Koreans in China prefer to have just one). The Han-swamping would just have to be a precautionary measure to stave off any thoughts of nationalism.

I would like to hear a Shep or Stuart analysis of how the PRC would go about invading the DPRK. That would be interesting.

[Lonestar]

Wow, Shep the original poster who sparked this tangent made a one line statement but other people have contributed thoughts to his um, hypothetical of the PRC invading liberating NK.

In any event doesn't NK have like 23 million people or something? Unlike Tibet or Xinjiang its going to be harder to swamp them with immigrants, especially if the region can't feed itself at the present. No doubt he will come along a give us his military analysis on how China should depose Kim Jong Ill.

As Lusankya pointed out, it's hard to envision such a scenario where the RoK doesn't get some of the territory. The quality of life and infrastructure in the DPRK means that whomever takes it over there's going to be a huge black hole of resources to bring the place up to snuff. From a strictly financial viewpoint it makes sense for a split occupation.

(this is why I also suspect that, deep down, the RoK government doesn't want to bring about unification. It would make the economic difficulties of integrating East Germany look like a cakewalk.)

[mr friendly guy]

As Lusankya pointed out, it's hard to envision such a scenario where the RoK doesn't get some of the territory. The quality of life and infrastructure in the DPRK means that whomever takes it over there's going to be a huge black hole of resources to bring the place up to snuff. From a strictly financial viewpoint it makes sense for a split occupation.

(this is why I also suspect that, deep down, the RoK government doesn't want to bring about unification. It would make the economic difficulties of integrating East Germany look like a cakewalk.)

Well if one tries to bring about reunification, the smart thing to do is to improve things in NK with the reunification occurring in the far future. That being said I do remember NK a few years back trying to do Chinese style reforms by getting advice from a Chinese businessman and all round rich dude. Too bad he was wanted by the Chinese authorities for corporate crime. Oh well, I think that was just bad luck for NK.

Now I must admit I never thought of a joint occupation to improve things in NK, and I suspect the same things which limit the South, ie the prospect of a financial black hole is also going to make things unattractive for China to take over as well. That being said in such a hypothetical both sides could appeal to the UN, the IMF, World bank etc for a humanitarian fund to help NK just as the same way donors signed up to aid Afghanistan after the Taliban was ousted from Kabul.

[hongi]

(this is why I also suspect that, deep down, the RoK government doesn't want to bring about unification.

Not yet of course. But leaving North Korea there, starving and rotting away from the inside out, isn't really a long-term option either. No one wants a permanent enemy for their neighbour.

[FSTargetDrone]

AP story via Yahoo with some new details:

SKorean naval ship sinks near NKorea; 46 missing

By SI-YOUNG LEE, Associated Press Writer Si-young Lee, Associated Press Writer

48 mins ago

BAENGNYEONG ISLAND, South Korea – Military divers plunged into the waters near South Korea's tense maritime border with North Korea on Saturday to search for 46 missing marines from a naval ship that exploded and sank, officials said.

Families voiced their anger as hopes faded for the missing crew after the ship sank in one of South Korea's worst naval disasters. Divers tried twice to get to the wreckage, Rear Adm. Lee Ki-sik of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told lawmakers.

The explosion at the rear of the Cheonan shut down its engine, wiped out power and caused the ship to sink a little over three hours later, the Joint Chiefs said. The exact cause was unclear, but North Korea did not appear to be to blame, officials said.

A survivor, Staff Sgt. Shin Eun-chong, 24, told relatives he was on night duty when he heard a huge boom behind him that split the ship apart. The vessel started tilting, and his glasses fell off his face as he hit the deck, relatives at a naval base in Pyeongtaek told The Associated Press.

Military planes and boats were searching the waters near South Korea's Baengnyeong Island where the 1,200-ton Cheonan had been on a routine patrol mission. Rescue efforts Saturday were hampered by fierce waves and high winds.

"Yells and screams filled the air," witness Kim Jin-ho, a seaman who was on a passenger ship bound for Baengnyeong, told cable news channel YTN. "Marines on deck were desperately shouting: 'Save me!'"

Despite early fears of an attack, there was no immediate indication that North Korea — which lies within sight about 10 miles (17 kilometers) from Baengnyeong — was to blame, the Joint Chiefs said. Still, troops were maintaining "solid military readiness," Vice Defense Minister Jang Soo-man said.

Earlier, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes" against the U.S. and South Korea in anger over a report the two countries plan to prepare for possible instability in the totalitarian country.

The ship went down near a disputed maritime border that has been the site of three bloody skirmishes between the two Koreas, which remain in a state of war because their three-year conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953.

President Lee Myung-bak ordered officials to make all efforts to rescue the crew, spokeswoman Kim Eun-hye said.

"I can only imagine how much shock and pain the missing marines' families must be in," he said late Saturday, according to Kim.

Authorities have not confirmed any deaths, but Rear Adm. Lee told lawmakers he presumed most of the missing sailors were trapped inside, the Yonhap news agency said. A coast guard official said humans can survive in winter waters if they are rescued within two hours.

Fifty-eight of the crew of 104 were rescued, with some treated for burns, broken bones and abrasions.

Joint Chiefs spokesman Park Seong-woo said the military will determine the cause of the accident after salvaging the vessel.

That could take weeks. In 2002, it took 17 days to salvage a 130-ton vessel struck in a surprise attack by North Korea, the Joint Chiefs said.

In Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul, wails filled the air as relatives checked a list of missing marines.

"Where are you? Where can you be?" one mother screamed.

Many relatives waited for news, their faces buried in tissues and handkerchiefs. However, about 150 people — fed up with the lack of information — pushed their way past armed security guards to confront military officials. They accused authorities of a cover-up, saying survivors told them the Cheonan was leaky and in need of repair.

"Liars!" some screamed, jumping up on the car of the Cheonan's rescued captain as he tried to drive away.

The sinking is one of South Korea's worst naval disasters. In 1974, a ship sank off the southeast coast in stormy weather, killing 159 sailors and coast guard personnel. In 1967, 39 sailors were killed by North Korean artillery.

___

Associated Press writers Kwang-tae Kim, Sangwon Yoon and Jean H. Lee in Seoul, and Esther Hong in Pyeongtaek contributed to this report.

It does appear that they are going to salvage the wreck. Even if, as some of the survivors' families claim, the ship was "leaky," how does that result in an explosion? Granted emotions are running high, but if a family member had previously told me that the ship was leaking, I wouldn't expect it to explode. Unless there were all kinds of horrible maintenance issues going on, one of which was leaking problems. That seems a stretch though, no?

[Sephirius]

Back on topic, if the Norks actually did torpedo the ship, it was probably one of these little buggers that did the deed.



No doubt, the skipper of the Nork sub has to have balls of sold tungsten to take on a modern ASW Corvette in one of the most monitored anti-sub zones on the planet with one of these fucking deathtraps.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No doubt, the skipper of the Nork sub has to have balls of sold tungsten to take on a modern ASW Corvette in one of the most monitored anti-sub zones on the planet with one of these fucking deathtraps.

Or they fear what would become of their families if they didn't have balls of steel.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, in a choice between braving heavily patrolled with modern ASW equipment waters to sink a corvette and then sneak back out to receive a huge number of accolades from the regime and not doing it and dying anyway/knowing your family will go to Kim Jong-il's Happy Happy Fun Camp of Eternal Death and Medication Experimentation Torture.... That isn't much choice. North Korea more or less operates as a terror state at every level, and that can be a powerful motivator. Though the guy had to be good. I'm simply not believing that a 1980s vintage ASW corvette would have a major explosion in the engine room which would sink the ship. Fire, sure, but an explosion that instantly compromises the hull? No.

[Surlethe]

Could it have been a DPRK torpedo boat or other low-profile surface vessel instead of a submarine? (Supposing, of course, that it was a torpedo - which has not yet been established beyond any reasonable doubt.)

[Stuart]

While I'm sure the destroyer HMS Sheffield and the 15,000ton Atlantic Conveyor would disagree on that. Considering the effect two exocets had to the frigate USS Stark in 1987 leaving a 3 meter by 4 meter hole in the ship I think that a small corvette like the victim would have sunk quite easily but not immediately. That is not to say that it has to be an anti-ship missile just until we hear more that it might be considered a possibility.

Neither Sheffield nor Atlantic Conveyor were sunk by missiles. They were set on fire and burned out, not sunk. If somebody had tossed an anti-ship missiles, everybody would know about it. The Chinese ones the Norks have would have blown the corvette in two. Whatever this was, it wasn't an anti-ship missile.

At the moment my preferences are

A torpedo
B drifting mine
C covertly-laid mine
D internal explosion

Strong note of warning; there is absolutely no evidence to support that ranking. It's a personal gut feeling only.

[FSTargetDrone]

A Guardian story:

South Korean navy ship sinking leaves 46 feared dead

Government in the south remains keen to play down suggestions of North Korean torpedo attack on corvette

David Batty and agencies

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 March 2010 11.47 GMT



The upturned hull of the Cheonan is visible as a Korean police boat passes. Photograph: Rex Features

Hopes are fading for 46 South Korean sailors missing after an explosion sank their navy ship patrolling the disputed sea border with the north.

Naval frigates, coastguard vessels and military planes have been searching the waters near South Korea's Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea where the 1,500-tonne vessel sank on Friday in bad weather and rough seas.

The South Korean military said an explosion tore a hole in the rear of the ship and it sank just over three hours later.

A spokesman for the joint chiefs of staff said the military would issue a judgment on the cause after the vessel was salvaged. Most of it remained submerged, with part of its hull visible. The vessel is the Cheonan, a Pohang-class corvette commissioned in 1989.

Seoul has sought to play down suggestions of a North Korean torpedo attack.

Defence officials said 58 crew out of the 104 on board were saved with some treated for minor burns, broken bones and abrasions. Officials have yet to confirm any deaths, although fatalities have been reported by local media.

The ship sank near a disputed maritime border where South and North Korea have clashed three times in recent years. North Korean territory lies within 10 miles of Baengnyeong.

There were no signs of North Korean military movements, said a presidential spokeswoman in the south, Kim Eun-hye.

"It's looking more and more like it was just an accident that happens on a ship," Carl Baker, an expert on Korean military relations at the Pacific Forum CSIS thinktank in Honolulu told Reuters. He said North Korea was unlikely to attack the far more powerful South Korean military.

The explosion prompted a number of crew members to jump into the water, the military said.

First Lieutenant Baek Jae-woo, a lecturer on ship design at the Republic of Korea Naval Academy, told Reuters that it would not be clear what caused the explosion until the ship was towed to harbour. But he said a missile attack, internal explosion or torpedoes were all possible causes.

The Northern Limit Line has long been an area of tension. In 1999 at least 17 North Korean sailors were killed in a firefight there. Three years later another clash killed six South Korean and an estimated 13 North Korean sailors.

November last year saw the first exchange of fire in seven years. Vessels from both sides were damaged.

The two sides are technically still at war because the 1950-53 conflict ended with a ceasefire and not a peace treaty. Relations improved when the south introduced a "sunshine policy" but deteriorated sharply after President Lee Myung-bak took office in 2008 with a pledge to be tougher, cutting off free-flowing aid.

In May last year the North claimed to have tested a nuclear device as large as that which destroyed Hiroshima, less than two months after a rocket launch that Tokyo and Washington believed was a test of long-range missile technology. Pyongyang said it was launching a satellite.

Many analysts believe the moves were intended to grab Washington's attention and set the stage for a return to stalled denuclearisation talks in conditions more favourable to Pyongyang. Bolstering support for the government and advertising the regime's technology to potential customers could also have been factors.

Not a lot new there, but it appears that the ship didn't touch bottom, at least at the time of the article.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the ship hasn't touched bottom then she hasn't sunk. I'd presume this just happened in shallow water and so she rolled and sank with part of her bows exposed.

[Sea Skimmer]

It does appear that they are going to salvage the wreck. Even if, as some of the survivors' families claim, the ship was "leaky," how does that result in an explosion? Granted emotions are running high, but if a family member had previously told me that the ship was leaking, I wouldn't expect it to explode. Unless there were all kinds of horrible maintenance issues going on, one of which was leaking problems. That seems a stretch though, no?

Yeah but it could happen. If it was leaking fuel and the crew was dumb as a brick then it could lead to an internal vapor explosion. This could occur much more easily if a fuel explosion was triggered by another explosion first, like a transformer blowing up. But that isn’t bloody likely with a diesel powered ship; this is after all one of the reasons to use diesel and not gasoline. The fumes are immensely less volatile.

A munitions explosion would be far more likely, but modern munitions should be fairly safe even if very poorly handled. Still the ship does have missiles and torpedo onboard, and a huge amount of thin walled 76mm gun ammo which would probably be the most likely culprit if an accidental munitions explosive occurred. If one round went off, it’d very easily explode the magazine and that’d easily blow such a small ship in half.

In any case, one should always keep in mind that when disasters happen it’s usually the result of a cascade of failures, any one of which alone would not have been fatal. This is tends to be particularly true in incidents involving poor maintenance. But right now I’d be looking for torpedo fragments on the ocean floor.

[Sea Skimmer]

People might be interested in this, a 1997 Marine Corps handbook on the North Korean military.
http://www.dia.mil/publicaffairs/Foia/nkor.pdf

[Marcus Aurelius]

Could it have been a DPRK torpedo boat or other low-profile surface vessel instead of a submarine?

No, if the surface search radar of the corvette was on and I can't think of any reason to keep it off in a place like that. Even a small torpedo boat should have been detected well before launching any torpedoes.

My guess is that it was a drifting mine. The North Koreans may be borderline insane, but attacks like this would not make any military or political sense.

[FSTargetDrone]

Yeah but it could happen. If it was leaking fuel and the crew was dumb as a brick then it could lead to an internal vapor explosion. This could occur much more easily if a fuel explosion was triggered by another explosion first, like a transformer blowing up. But that isn’t bloody likely with a diesel powered ship; this is after all one of the reasons to use diesel and not gasoline. The fumes are immensely less volatile.

Yeah, I was under the impression from the story that it was referencing water leaking and not fuel, though it isn't exactly clear.

[CmdrWilkens]

Yeah but it could happen. If it was leaking fuel and the crew was dumb as a brick then it could lead to an internal vapor explosion. This could occur much more easily if a fuel explosion was triggered by another explosion first, like a transformer blowing up. But that isn’t bloody likely with a diesel powered ship; this is after all one of the reasons to use diesel and not gasoline. The fumes are immensely less volatile.

Real quick note on this because it bears some emphasis. I was for a few years a bulk fuel handler and there was a fair bit of emphasis on the volatility of diesel fuel. Simply put it will NOT explode (burn yes, explode no) unless the fuel to air mixture is between 1 and 8%...that is it. Any more and diesel will not explode, any less and it will not explode.

Its a damn narrow range and we harped on it because you would usually only see such conditions when running to the bottom of a tank. A ship on patrol should have relatively full tanks at most times and should almost never approach the volatile ratio.

[K. A. Pital]

Sooo... according to the news, DPRK is no longer "suspected" and it's "clear" DPRK was not involved. Perhaps a title change is in order *ponders*

[cosmicalstorm]

While I'm sure the destroyer HMS Sheffield and the 15,000ton Atlantic Conveyor would disagree on that. Considering the effect two exocets had to the frigate USS Stark in 1987 leaving a 3 meter by 4 meter hole in the ship I think that a small corvette like the victim would have sunk quite easily but not immediately. That is not to say that it has to be an anti-ship missile just until we hear more that it might be considered a possibility.

Neither Sheffield nor Atlantic Conveyor were sunk by missiles. They were set on fire and burned out, not sunk. If somebody had tossed an anti-ship missiles, everybody would know about it. The Chinese ones the Norks have would have blown the corvette in two. Whatever this was, it wasn't an anti-ship missile.

At the moment my preferences are

A torpedo
B drifting mine
C covertly-laid mine
D internal explosion

Strong note of warning; there is absolutely no evidence to support that ranking. It's a personal gut feeling only.

It's funny you should say that

South Korea ship 'split in half'

The force of Friday's mysterious explosion which sunk a South Korean naval ship appears to have split the vessel's hull in two, officials say.

The two halves are lying on the sea bed but bad weather has prevented military divers from reaching the wreckage.

Forty-six sailors are missing and rescue workers say it is unlikely that anyone could have survived three days in the near-freezing water.

The cause of the explosion on the 1,200-tonne Cheonan remains unclear.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says several possibilities have been suggested:

* an accidental onboard explosion
* a blast caused by hitting rocks or sea mines
* or a deliberate outside attack.

The naval patrol vessel sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea but military officials say there is no indication the North was involved.

“ I was trapped in the cabin for five minutes before my colleagues broke the window in and let me out ”
Choi Won-il Cheonan captain

Fifty-eight sailors, including the captain, were rescued from one of the South's worst sea disasters.

Some rescue-workers say it is still possible that some people could have survived in air-pockets inside the ship, although the water in the Yellow Sea is about 4C.

After visiting the disaster site, Defence Minister Kim Tae-young said: "The vessel appeared to have been split into half," reports South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

Although the waters are fairly shallow, the exact location of the wreckage has not yet been located, according to defence ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae.

Navy and coast guard vessels, as well as air force planes, are still scouring the area near South Korea's Baeknyeong Island.

A group of 80 family members have sailed around the crash site and watched the rescue efforts, the AP news agency reports.

But some relatives are accusing the navy of a cover-up, saying the ship was in need of repair.

'Save me'

Earlier, the ship's rescued captain has been recounting what happened.

"There was the sound of an explosion and the ship keeled to the right. We lost power and telecommunications," Yonhap quoted Choi Won-il as saying.

"I was trapped in the cabin for five minutes before my colleagues broke the window in and let me out. When I got out, the stern had disappeared."

A number of the crew jumped into the water, Yonhap said.

"Yells and screams filled the air," witness Kim Jin-ho, a seaman who was on a local passenger ship bound for Baeknyeong, told cable news channel YTN.

"Marines on deck were desperately shouting: 'Save me!"'

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security officials and said all possible causes for the sinking would be investigated.

He ordered the military to focus on rescuing the sailors.

There were initial reports that another South Korean ship had fired shots toward an unidentified vessel, but officials later speculated the target had been a flock of birds.

The incident comes at a time of tension between the two Koreas. International talks aimed at ending the communist North's nuclear ambitions have been stalled for months.

North and South Korea are still in a official state of war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended only in a truce.

Since then, they have fought three bloody skirmishes in the Yellow Sea.

In January, North Korea fired about 30 artillery shells not far from Baeknyeong. South Korea fired 100 warning shots in response, but no injuries were reported.

South Korea recognises the Northern Limit Line, drawn unilaterally by the US-led United Nations Command to demarcate the sea border at the end of the Korean War. The line has never been accepted by North Korea.

[SapphireFox]

Yikes! Literally blown in half. Has an accidental internal explosion ever done that much damage before or can we rule out accidents? Does anyone know what kind of torpedos, missiles, or mines that the Norks use?

[K. A. Pital]

Has an accidental internal explosion ever done that much damage

Magazine explosions sometimes tore ships in half, etc. An internal explosion can be a result of an attack or a result of internal factors (mishandling, fires and such)

[SapphireFox]

If its accidental I would have to say mishandling rather than fire because from what I can tell from the news there seemed to be little to no warning and I think that a fire would have caused some warning sign or alarm to go off. (even if the warnings are only issued by the MK1 eyeball and MK1 nose)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Lots of crap can happen. From disgruntled crewmen, to stupidity, ships can be torn apart even at the dockside. Mutsu, a Japanese battleship, blew up at the port side and sank. No one has any idea why it happened, but money is on ammunition exploding, which is in general, one of the biggest killers of battleships.

[Thanas]

The british lost their fair share of capital ships to internal explosions as well, including the dreadnought Vanguard.

[ShadowDragon8685]

So...

What happens if North Korea claims credit whilst the South is trying to do everything in their power to avoid blaming them?

If this was an actual factual attack... Or if North Korea claims it was even if it wasn't... It means war, right? A war the United States will almost certainly get drawn into when the North Koreans start shelling/sweeping through our self-imposed stations there?

The American public is already sick of two wars. But ressurecting the Korean War (Korea 2.0? 1.1?) might be different - we'd have a clear-cut case of "guys in the uniform of a hostile country got into our base and started killing our doods." Would it be possible to lend South Korea our 'shock and awe' and let them handle most of the 'dying on the ground' parts of a war?