The Norks are Suspected of Sinking South Korean Shipping.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The South Korean investigators come out in favour of an under-the-keel blast

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- An explosion at close range, and not a direct hit, caused the 1,200-ton patrol ship Cheonan to sink last month, a team of South Korean military and civilian investigators has tentatively concluded.

The investigators' determination was reported Sunday by the Yonhap news agency.

"Instead of being directly hit by a torpedo or other underwater weapon, the Cheonan was affected by a strong explosion that occurred below its bottom at a close range," the news agency quoted a government official as saying.

The explanation matches one that investigators offered shortly after the ship's stern was salvaged 10 days ago.

A final result is not expected for a month, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told reporters.

He said that the most likely cause of the sinking was a "bubble jet" created by the external explosion under the ship.

A bubble jet effect occurs when an explosion goes off under a ship. The change in pressure causes a huge column of water that strikes the ship with great impact.

On Saturday, recovery crews found the body of a missing sailor in the wreckage of the ship.

The ship sunk in the Yellow Sea near the western sea border with North Korea on March 26.

Forty of Cheonan's 104 crew members have now been confirmed dead, and six more are also believed dead, though they are still listed as missing.

Fifty eight others were rescued before the vessel sank.

South Korea has not ruled out a theory that North Korea was involved.

But Seoul has avoided directly blaming North Korea, which sloughed off allegations it is responsible.

The families of the dead sailors began a five-day mourning period on Sunday.

On Thursday, the South Korean navy will hold a funeral ceremony at a naval command in Pyeongtaek, about 70 kilometers (43 miles) south of Seoul.

The navy has also decided to posthumously promote the dead seamen by one rank and award them a military honor for their patriotism.

Thought for you, Stuart--if it was one of those North Korean minisubs, do you think a torpedo that was running deep since they couldn't adjust the depth settings while onboard might explain the reduced damage? I can't remember if the Japanese minisubs could access the torpedoes while submerged to adjust running depth. I know that in at least some WW2 subs of some nations the running depth couldn't be adjusted for a torpedo already in the tube and I doubt the Nork boats are that sophisticated. Note, not asking if you think that's it--just hoping you'll punch some holes in the speculation, or else not.

[Stuart]

Thought for you, Stuart--if it was one of those North Korean minisubs, do you think a torpedo that was running deep since they couldn't adjust the depth settings while onboard might explain the reduced damage? I can't remember if the Japanese minisubs could access the torpedoes while submerged to adjust running depth. I know that in at least some WW2 subs of some nations the running depth couldn't be adjusted for a torpedo already in the tube and I doubt the Nork boats are that sophisticated. Note, not asking if you think that's it--just hoping you'll punch some holes in the speculation, or else not.

She was sunk in very shallow water so if this report turns out to be correct (press reports so far have shown a distressing inability to differentiate between "we know" and "we think") my guess would be that the gas bubble was compressed between the hull and the sea bed. This would prevent the final upward water jet from forming. In this case, the ship would have been lifted by the explosion and then sucked down by the collapse of the bubble. This is actually compatible with the kind of damage we can see. I think you may be right about the inability of the Sango to reset its torpedo running depth.

The sonar on the Cheonan was a PHS-32 which is an old Dutch set marketed by Signaal back in the 1970s. It's a pretty yukky sonar even by the standards of its day and being almost half a century old doesn't help. They should have picked up an inbound torpedo though - although that might be why the Cheonan slowed down. The sonar operator heard something (the Sango) and the ship slowed to allow that crappy sonar to have better operating conditions. *****At a guess***** the torpedo (if it existed) exploded short and off to one side and that caused the twist-and-sink sequence I described earlier. I'll know quite a bit more tomorrow when I get back to my desk.

[Big Phil]

Seems like another possibility is a pressure or magnetic mine anchored to the seafloor.

[Stuart]

Seems like another possibility is a pressure or magnetic mine anchored to the seafloor.

Certainly; either would do the job. That's why we still have to be very careful. If it was a limpet, the blast wave would reflect off the seabed and give an upward push as well

[Dargos]

CNN says.

U.S.: N. Korean torpedo likely sunk warship

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- A North Korean torpedo attack was the most likely cause for the sinking of a South Korean warship last month, according to a US military official.

The US believes the ship was sunk by the blast of an underwater explosion, but that the explosive device itself did not come in contact with the hull of the South Korean ship, the official said.

This is the same conclusion expressed by South Korean military officials.

I take this report with a grain on salt. No names.

[Shroom Man 777]

I was going to ask about why it's so important to know which PARTICULAR weapons system destroyed that ship, and how knowing which particular weapons system caused it would affect the greater political situation in general, and how it was important and NOT just some useless trivia-whatever. Since I thought that all what we needed to know was that it was just a "weapon" in general, and not an accident, that downed the ship.

BUT THEN I realized that depending on the type of weapon, it might also influence perception on North Korea/the responsible party's complicity. A mine floating in those waters would be not quite as "direct" in terms of blatant aggression as an actual torpedo or limpet-planting, since planting a limpet mine on the ship or launching a torpedo requires a North Korean to receive commands to actually sink that particular vessel - hence making North Korea more complicit. At least, more complicit than just blindly throwing a mine into the water. Because of the conscious decision to initiate hostile and directly destructive action against a South Korean vessel.

Which is why "torpedo launched by North Korea" is far more damning than "sea mine blows ship up" and why the former is much more provocative. Like how a Sork soldier getting shot at by Norks would be more provocative than, say, a Sork who ended up blindly stepping on a Nork anti-personnel mine on accident.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, if it was a mine it might not even be a Nork mine. People have been fighting naval wars in that area for a hundred years, complete with minefields.

And that's on top of the fact that, as you say, a mine could nail a ship with no malice intended, especially if it had originally been planted somewhere else and drifted. Whereas if the ship was torpedoed, there's no way in hell that it was anything but a deliberate Nork act of aggression.

[Straha]

And this story just got even more interesting.

South Korea will formally blame North Korea on Thursday for launching a torpedo at one of its warships in March, causing an explosion that killed 46 sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world's most perilous regions, U.S. and East Asian officials said.

South Korea reached its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship at the port of Pyongtaek, 40 miles southwest of Seoul. The Cheonan sank on March 26, following an explosion that rocked the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because South Korea has yet to disclose the findings of the investigation, said that subsequent analysis determined that the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo that had previously been obtained by South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion underscores the continuing threat posed by North Korea and the intractable nature of the dispute between the two Koreas. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak must respond forcefully to the attack, analysts said, but not in a way that would risk further violence from North Korea, whose artillery could -- within minutes -- devastate greater Seoul, which has a population of 20.5 million.

South Korea's report will also present a challenge to China and other nations. China waited almost a month to express its condolences to South Korea for the loss of life, and, analysts and officials said, has seemed at pains to protect North Korea from criticism.

South Korea will request that the U.N. Security Council take up the issue and is looking to tighten sanctions on North Korea, the officials said. The United States has indicated it would support such an action, U.S. officials said. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told his South Korean counterpart on Monday that Japan would do the same, the Japanese news media reported Tuesday.

Another consequence of the report, experts predicted, is that Lee will request that the United States delay for several years a plan to pass operational control of all forces in South Korea from the United States to the South Korean military. Approximately 28,500 U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan also means it is unlikely that talks will resume anytime soon over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has twice tested what is believed to be a nuclear weapon. China has pushed for an early resumption of those talks, but South Korean officials said they will return to the table only after there is a full accounting for the attack against the Cheonan and a policy response.

The sinking -- and the reluctance of the South to respond with an in-kind attack -- is the latest example of the raw military intimidation that North Korea has practiced for decades. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, the Korean People's Army has positioned about 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower within 60 miles of the border with the

David Straub, a former director of the State Department's Korea desk who is now at Stanford University, said that while the Cheonan's sinking was horrendous, it marked more of a return to "normal" behavior for North Korea than a new direction.

"We tend to look at this as shocking because things have been relatively quiet for a decade or two," he said. But North Korea killed 30 sailors aboard a South Korean warship in the 1970s; in 1983, its agents are believed to have been behind a fatal bombing in Rangoon that narrowly missed then-South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan.

What has changed, Straub said, is the Western view of North Korea. In the past, North Korean misbehavior was often rewarded with Western attention and aid from Japan and South Korea. But after North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May 2009, "opinion changed in a fundamental way," he said.

"Before there was a tendency of government officials to say, 'Well, maybe if we try hard enough to persuade the North Koreans to give up the bomb, they will,' " he said. "Now the conclusion of most people, including in the Obama administration, is that they can't see the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons on terms that would be acceptable to anyone."

[Thanas]

So the North Koreans did torpedo the ship after all.

Of course, this allows them to continue their nuke program in secret instead of having to deal with the west.

[Kuroji]

Assuming they can get the material to build bombs and keep them operational for more than a decade or two, and the bombs are probably not remotely close to being small enough to deploy on missiles. But they rejected the carrot for a good long time, and unfortunately, they never realized that there was a stick.

[Edward Yee]

China's take on the whole affair according to WaPo is... interesting, simply because what else I've heard re: the PRC central government's take on North Korea.... not too flattering a view.

[CJvR]

Difficult spot to be in for all.
Once you start firing torpedos there really isn't any more slack in the system. Cannon fire by comparison is basicly naval harsh language. Sure the RoKs can change the rules of engagement to "shoot on sight" but that would effectively mean an end to the cease fire.
The Nork rat have marched itself into a corner, but what do one do about that, what can one do? Is anyone willing to dig the rabid beast out of it's entrenched corner?

[Starglider]

The Nork rat have marched itself into a corner, but what do one do about that, what can one do?

Discontinue all aid and starve them out?

[mr friendly guy]

CNN summarised the options

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- As South Korea awaits the results of a probe into the sinking of a warship, expected to be made public Thursday, debate is already underway over the policy options open to Seoul if the investigation holds North Korea responsible.

The Cheonan sank the evening of March 26 following a mysterious explosion that blew her in half. Forty-six sailors were lost as the 1,200-ton vessel went down near disputed waters in the Yellow Sea.

Seoul has convened a multinational team -- including American, Australian, British and Swedish as well as South Korean members -- to investigate the cause of the disaster. Their findings will be revealed to reporters Wednesday, and the committee will announce its findings Thursday.

In the weeks preceding the announcement of the results, however, speculation on the cause of the tragedy has been rampant. After both ends of the hull were raised from the seabed and the damage seen, an internal explosion was ruled out. South Korean defense officials, after stating that a mine might have been responsible, have named a non-contact torpedo as the most likely cause.

Press reports in South Korea, citing unidentified official sources, have stated that fragments of such a weapon and traces of explosive have been found, while some people with sources in North Korea claim Pyongyang's military carried out the attack with a midget submarine.

If Seoul does pin the blame on Pyongyang, its avenues of retaliation are restricted.

"We are in the realm of no good policy options," said Dan Pinkston, head of the International Crisis Group's Seoul office. "But we have to do something."

But what are the options?

(i) Counterstrike

Central Seoul's landmark Cheongyecheon plaza was a sea of camouflage last Friday, as several thousand retired veterans -- wearing the patches of South Korea's fiercest military units -- rallied to demand an unequivocal response to the Cheonan incident.

"We need a strong strike!" growled Han Chun-hee, 64, a Vietnam veteran of marine special forces. "We have to resist North Korea!"

Cooler heads, however, consider military retaliation -- such as naval or air strikes on North Korea's west coast naval bases or command installations -- unlikely and inadvisable.

"I think if there is clear evidence of North Korean involvement, (the) South Korean government has the right to a military response," said Baek Sung-joo, a senior analyst at the Korea Institute of Defense Analysis. "But that does not mean it will conduct retaliation."

A counterattack could spark a vortex of escalation with a state which has artillery targeting Seoul and which possesses an unknown number of nuclear devices. Regardless of the combined South Korean and U.S. superiority in conventional forces, the risk is widely believed to be too high.

"Military retaliation is off the table," said Kim Byung-ki, a security expert at Korea University. "We have the capability to wipe them out as a nation-state -- but the only certainty about war is uncertainty and uncontrollability, and with nuclear weapons, that makes it even worse."

The Cheonan incident, while shocking, is not the deadliest attack since the conclusion of the 1950-1953 Korean War -- which ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

A terrorist bombing of a South Korean airliner by North Korean agents killed 115 people in 1987. In 1968, 68 people were killed after a North Korean commando platoon attempted to storm the South Korean presidential mansion, sparking a firefight and manhunt.

No military retaliation was launched after those attacks.

However, there are other ways to pressure Pyongyang in the military sphere. An increase in defense spending to procure early warning and anti-submarine equipment looks likely, and conservatives have called for Seoul to indefinitely delay the transfer of operational control of forces on the peninsula from U.S. to South Korean command, scheduled for 2012.

South Korea could also take a full role in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, under which ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction are boarded on the high seas, Pinkston suggested.

(ii) Diplomatic maneuvering

On the diplomatic front, South Korea may refer its evidence to the United Nations Security Council. "It is a wise move to internationalize this because I think this incident is an act of war. It goes beyond the previous clashes on the maritime border that could be considered misunderstandings or provocations," said Mike Breen, Seoul-based author of "The Koreans." It is appropriate to go to the Security Council."

However, while this move might win South Korea international sympathy, experts expect little traction: North Korea is already heavily sanctioned following its second nuclear test, and close ally China holds a security council veto. "The South Korean government does not expect a lot to be accomplished through the U.N. Security Council," Pinkston said.

In what may be an early sign of Chinese reluctance to see steps taken against North Korea, which Beijing considers a buffer state on its northeastern border, Korean media reported Tuesday that Chinese ambassador to Seoul Zhang Zinshen had, as yet, seen "no solid evidence" proving North Korean involvement.

(iii) Cutting off the money

A more promising avenue could be economic retaliation.

Despite their prickly relations, there is considerable commerce between the two Koreas, says Choi Jin-wook of the Korea Institute of National Unification. This encompasses the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea -- where northern labor, under the management of South Korean firms, assembles low-tech products -- as well as "process on commission" assembly work in other parts of North Korea and trade.

Few experts expect the Kaesong complex to shut down. Not only is it the last remaining symbol of a decade of engagement with the north, it is the only significant South Korean commercial bridgehead in a country which many South Koreans fear is becoming an economic colony of China. "Once we close it, it is closed forever," said Choi. "That would be very difficult to decide."

There is another reason to keep Kaesong operating: its potential influence on North Korean workers. "My view is that the project should continue," said Pinkston. "I think it is subversive in North Korea and it will contribute to the undermining of their system."

Official moves to cut the monetary supply are already under way. On Monday, Seoul's Unification Ministry announced that it had told 10 government bodies that deal with North Korea to cease government-level payments.

On the private front, South Korea runs a trade deficit with North Korea -- largely thanks to imports of specialized seafood and rare mushrooms -- meaning a cutoff would hurt, Choi said.

"North-South commerce totals about $1.8 billion (U.S.) per year," he said. "Kaesong accounts for $800 million, but North Korea can only bank labor payments -- about $50 million. More important is commercial trade; it totals about $350 million, and North Korea banks about $200 million in surplus."

A further possibility is for Seoul to ask the European Union to freeze financial assets believed to be held by North Korea in European banks, Pinkston said.

(iv) Reopening the propaganda war?

Beyond the classic triad of military, diplomatic and economic retaliation, more creative possibilities exist.

"Our response should include measures North Korea most dislikes, such as providing outside information to North Korea on a systematic basis," said KIDA's Baek. "This could be a policy shift."

The two Koreas agreed to halt official cross-border propaganda in 2004, but private South Korean activists have infuriated Pyongyang by floating balloons, with anti-regime messages attached, northward over the border fences.

[Edward Yee]

The last one about propaganda ...after the Sunshine Policy and the shifts in culture before now, I'm not entirely sure that the net result would entirely result in one-way conversion! (From North to South, that is.)

[CJvR]

Discontinue all aid and starve them out?

It should be fairly obvious by now that the regime doesn't give a damn if a few million of it's prisoners starve to death. If they cared they would have disbanded their Gulag nation the last time famine struck.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Wouldn't South Korea win in a toe toe fight with North Korea? Not to mention the aid they would get from the international communities.

[Starglider]

Discontinue all aid and starve them out?

It should be fairly obvious by now that the regime doesn't give a damn if a few million of it's prisoners starve to death.

Calorie shortages materially weaken both their military and their industrial base. Furthermore starving people are desperate and more likely to risk an uprising. It's a horrible thing to do, but it should only have to be done once. Letting the communist regime endure for decades more will just result in an endless stream of deaths, poverty and despair.

Wouldn't South Korea win in a toe toe fight with North Korea?

Yes, but the total casualties would probably run into seven figures, so they aren't going to start one if they can avoid it.

[Isolder74]

I hope it doesn't come to that as there is no way that it can end well. I can imagine that the US Navy is calling all the carriers into duty just in case.

[Lonestar]

I hope it doesn't come to that as there is no way that it can end well. I can imagine that the US Navy is calling all the carriers into duty just in case.

You're imagining incorrectly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Does anyone seriously expect something major from this? I can't see anything more than another reminder to the DPRK that it's not nice to do illegal things, some more sanctions (whatever good that will do) and the case file firmly shut. What, is Seoul going to start a war? Don't be dense. Nor will they have any other real recourse to consider that will amount to anything like the retribution the families involved in this event will want. It won't be their Gulf of Tonkin.

[Thirdfain]

My girlfriend is teaching English in South Korea; up in the mountains in the northern province of Gangwon. She's in a very conservative and old-fashioned area with very few westerners. I've asked her for the general feelings of the locals, and how everyone's taking it. By and large, it seems that demonstrations like the one in Seoul are not indicative of general popular opinion. Her friends and co-workers are being pretty dismissive of the whole thing; it's par for the course for dealing with the North. The Sunshine Policy ended with the last elections- the Koreans already decided to stop playing so nicely with the communists. There's certainly not a lot of concern, even in the northern provinces, that war is going to break out. Moreover, they don't want it to. People still think that the North will integrate peacefully sooner or later. The attitude she described was a strange one- the North is seen like a destructive, impulsive teenage member of the family who sometimes comes in late at night bombed drunk and breaks some things. Embarrassing, unpleasant, and even dangerous- but at the end of the day, a problem to be dealt with through compassion and patience.

Obviously, this information may not be indicative of the country as a whole, I'm just trying to offer an alternate "ear to the ground" source of information.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's quite interesting if from a supposedly conservative area, no less.

[Thirdfain]

That's quite interesting if from a supposedly conservative area, no less.

I get the impression that conservative means something very different in Korea; perhaps a better word would be traditional? This is an area where it's common to see food dogs chained up outside houses. And a big part of traditional Korean thinking is an ethnocentric view which has the North and South Koreans both being more united by their common Korean-ness than they are divided by their separate governments.

[Master of Ossus]

Wouldn't South Korea win in a toe toe fight with North Korea? Not to mention the aid they would get from the international communities.

Nobody wins a toe-to-toe fight between North and South Korea. Eventually, the North's military would be wiped out, but the South would be badly, badly hurt in the exchange.