http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052402224.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01 (http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052402224.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01)

http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052401375.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01 (http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052401375.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01)

http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052401481.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01 (http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/24/2010052401481.html?Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_02_rel01)

As one of the measures taken after the attack on the RoKS Cheonan, the South Korean government has decided to re-start anti-North Korean broadcasts along the Military Demarcation Line (MDL).  These will be broadcasted over loudspeaker and over radio.  The west and east regions will broadcast at 103.1 MHz FM and the central region will broadcast at 107.3 MHz FM.  The broadcasts are scheduled to resume on May 24th, 2010 after 1800 Hrs local time.  The broadcasts were stopped previously when South Korea was adopting the Sunshine Policy to appease to the North.  Previously the broadcasts started in 1962 and was stopped on June 15th, 2004.
There will be 94 places where the messages will be sent via loudspeakers.  The estimate is that at night, the messages can be heard as far as 24 KM away and during the day 10KM.
They will also put up large LED screens to show images at 11 points along the MDL.  These will be fitted with extra large bulbs so that they can be seen from the North.

North Korea threatens to fire at the loudspeakers if they broadcast.

South Korea vows to return fire if fired upon again.

Isnt it time this nonsense stopped, just start shooting and get it over and done with.

well, the north will have a hard time...the south has 58 MLRS launchers..that is a huge number.
It will give them a very tough hit back capability ;)
The North has only 40 MIg 29s to counter the souths airforce.
180 F16s and 60 F15's backed up by F4 Phantoms are a hard nut to crack.
And once the north has no aircover anymore A10s, Apaches and F5s will have a field day to destroy all they want.

The South faces only 1 real big problem, 70.000 commando troops.
Check the OOBs at the 21 century section.

I do think that after the north has been defeated things can normalize there.
It will be a huge cultureshock for the Northern civilians......

I personally think that if push came to shove that it is a more likely scenario that China would invade the North to prevent having a US satellite on its borders.

But on the whole I don't think it is viable to have a rogue nation doing what it wants in the region, SK is far better off taking the hit and finishing the war once and for all.

On the other hand, China might be the one who is behind all thisd.
China and dont forget Iran and India will be very interested to see what  the worlds answer will be.
Any sign of weakness now may provoke very dangerous situations in the near future.
Just imagine for example an axis between these 3 countries like Tom Clancy once did.......

Regardless of the manner in which it re-ignites, there shall be many innocents slaughtered. Something that has never bothered world leaders before when they choose to start these fires of hatred. hammerattack

I have little doubt you are correct but once something reaches the point where it is inevitable isn't it better to get it over with now and get on with the rebuilding process than drag it out for another 50 years before having to suffer the consequences with an even greater population.



I do not think China will go to war with the US over North Korea, discounting the disparity in technology and quality I really do not think China will risk its economy for a third world s**thole, the only question in my mind is whether China wants a US satellite on its borders or whether it wants to pull a stunt similar to what the Russians did with Georgia to settle issues.

You may very well be correct in your assessment Monty, I just dread the thought of another generation of orphans. All because we haven't evolved far enough yet as a species, to figure out how to live on this marble together.

Peace please!

J

The problem is that I can not see anyway to maintain peace given the current position, you just can't turn a blind eye to a bunch of ideologically driven basket cases sinking your ships, threatening war with everyone and everything if they don't get what they want, shooting into your country and kidnapping people from the surrounding region.

I agree that war is something we should use as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted but in my opinion with North Korea all other options have been exhausted I can see no other realistic options.

I believe China fears the refugee problem that shall arise if that war reignites. If we want China to reign in that little fat f#^k, we should do as Monty says and call the North's bluff. That will get China on the correct heading post haste. I also believe the last thing China wants to see is an American satellite country right at their doorstep, which is what they'll have if we fight that war again. As in the first iteration of this conflict, the North Koreans can hardly be expected to win and the Chinese can not afford to intervene with their army again as it would wreck their position in the world for years to come. Maybe even send their economy in the tank and cause unrest within. The playbook that worked for the North in 1950's is outdated today and they will be hard pressed to maintain their existence in the current environment.   

If anything happens, the North Koreans must be the ones to show irrefutable proof of taking an offensive, that is having units and supplies move towards the DMZ in much greater numbers.
The sort of casualties that are expected on South Korea's end would not justify anything else.  We're talking about artillery with conventional and chemical weapons raining down on densely populated areas.  It's a bit like raiding an airplane full of hostages.  If raiding it means that for sure a great number of hostages will be killed, it's pretty much the end of whoever launches such an operation.
Except the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, possibly up to a million in the first twenty four hours alone.

13th,

In normal situations I'd agree you will notice an increase in unit activity to the front.
But the North already has 2 of its best army corps nar the DMZ......
They can move out in a couple of hours.

A far greater risk to the south, and I think thats the only major danger are the norths 70.000 commandoforces.
They can strike and cause havoc at major comms centres, airbases and military HQs as well as civilian sites and industrial complexes.
You need an incredible amount of troops to guard all those targets, which is practically impossible.

Is the original UN resolution that authorized UN sanctioned action against North Korea still in effect? If so, North Korea shall be engaging in a losing proposition. Much as it played out in 1950, the North shall take large swaths of territory to begin with, and the UN forces will slowly destroy the North Korean Army as it retakes lost ground. At some point China will intercede in such a way as to maintain the status quo, though you can bet they won't send their army this time, as that would just set the clock back 60 years.

I think that policy is a recipe for disaster, my personal belief is that if the South wants to prevent a disaster in terms of loss of civilian life it has to get over the border and about 50km north of the start line as soon as possible to take NK artillery out of the picture which basically means a first strike.

If is was me I make it very clear that the next "provocation" will bring a response and the next time a NK border guard so much as pokes a face at a SK one leap the border and get on with it before they have a chance to react, my belief is that it will be a Gulf War 1 with the bulk of the NK military simply giving up in return for a meal and the luxury of not being shot for having an opinion.

In the short term however I would also make it very clear to the Chinese that are expected to bring NK into line before they find a new flag going up at the border posts, again I think a strong stance will pay off.

Anyway back to the ship sinking incident:

Korea torpedo attack leaves no easy options
Page last updated at 13:09 GMT, Thursday, 20 May 2010 14:09 UK
By Paul Reynolds

An international inquiry concluded there was overwhelming evidence the ship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo
There are no easy options for South Korea - or the United States - after an international investigation group reported that a North Korean torpedo sunk the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan in March.

Military action is out - it carries with it the risk that the North would retaliate and might even launch action of its own.

North Korea has a million-strong army, 18,000 artillery pieces and possibly useable nuclear weapons.

Sanctions have limited impact on the North. It is already ignoring UN sanctions restricting trade in military equipment and luxury goods.

It manages to keep going with Chinese help and that is unlikely to be withdrawn.

It might be that the South is left to make a lot of diplomatic noise, with American echoes.

In the end it might have to accept that the lesser of two evils is to make its factual case, protest, gain international support, limit its own dealings with North Korea and then continue to build up its forces for the future.

The China dimension
The sinking of the Cheonan is not the first incident along the line of the disputed maritime boundary off the west coast.

NORTH KOREAN ATTACKS

Jan 1967 - attacks South Korean warship near border, killing 39 sailors
Jan 1968 - commandos storm presidential palace in Seoul in a failed attempt to kill President Park Chung-hee
Jan 1968 - captures USS Pueblo - one crew member dies and 82 held hostage for 11 months
Dec 1969 - hijacks South Korean airliner taking dozens of passengers hostage
Oct 1983 - bombs hotel in Rangoon, Burma in failed attempt to kill South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan - 21 people die
Nov 1987 - bombs South Korean airliner, killing 115
Sept 1996 - sub carrying 26 troops disabled off South - some land in South sparking deadly manhunt
Mar 2010 - torpedoes Cheonan warship, 46 sailors killed

How the ship was sunk
None has led to outright war and there is therefore reason to think that this time as well, the South will have to live with the loss, unless it wants to risk a major conflict.

The investigation's findings have thrown the issue into the lap of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who happens to be arriving in Beijing this weekend with a huge American delegation to discuss the wider relationship between the US and China.

It is possible that the US, pressed by South Korea, will favour a Security Council meeting and, if such a meeting is to have any traction, China's support will be needed.

And beyond that, if new sanctions are to be imposed, China will have to support them as well, being a veto-holding member of the Council.

Yet China usually prefers to deal with North Korea on a more discreet basis (it recently welcomed North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il to Beijing) and was slow even to express sympathy for the loss of South Korean sailors.

It only comes out against the North if Pyongyang does something with wide international ramifications, notably its nuclear testing.

Suspended talks
The US might, at this moment, be more concerned to keep Chinese support for sanctions against Iran - agreed by the major Security Council powers this week - than to use its diplomatic credit up in seeking further sanctions on North Korea.

Co-head of investigation team, Yoon Duk-yong: "Both sections at the failure point were bent upward"
The prospects for settling the disputed maritime border are about as distant as the prospects for getting North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons capability. Talks about the latter are currently in suspension.

North and South Korea did nearly come to a maritime modus vivendi in 2007 in talks involving the then South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

The idea was to concentrate on fishing - and fishing is a major North Korean concern in the disputed waters as its fishermen seek the south-migrating blue-crab from June to September.

But it came to nothing and the North clearly remains ready and willing to defend its interests there, with the South determined to uphold its position as well.

Some international experts think that what is known as the Northern Limit Line, drawn by the UN after the Korean war, should be moved in North Korea's favour, since the old international three-mile maritime limit has made way for 12.

But given the overall state of relations between North and South, there are no realistic hopes of an agreement.

There may well be further incidents ahead.

BBC News - Korea torpedo attack leaves no easy options (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10131918.stm#id8690000/8694000/8694045)

Here is a link to the report on the action from the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf)

I am wondering if the best course of action is not to respond in kind, sink a NK ship and pretend it wasn't you.

We used to conduct raids and other attacks inside North Korea in the past.  Not so much anymore.
Also, the wording of the incidents in that article make it sound like South Korea just got whipped and nothing else.
The truth is that with a few exceptions, South Korean troops pretty much destroyed the North Koreans.  The incident with the RoKS Cheonan is significant because the opposite was true this time around.  There have been numerous engagements in the Yellow Sea near the NLL.  One in 2002 and one in 1998 (I think).  This of course excludes the incidents I don't remember and the incidents that did not lead to any loss of life.  Journalists...

Yes, ideally a first strike would be the best option logically.
It's just not politically viable, either in South Korea or in the US for that matter.
The best option?  Nuclear strikes against North Korean troop concentrations.  This would free up South Korean assets to conduct counter battery operations against enemy artillery that would fire on Seoul.  But I just don't see that happening.  Anything less isn't going to cut it.

Judging from the terrain, blasting past the enemy positions is more or less a fantasy.  That place is mountains and rivers, mountains and rivers, mountains and rivers.  And that is after you get past the mine fields and other fortifications.  The roads are for the most part (when you cross to the North) narrow so an armored offensive is pretty much out of the question.  Almost every major stretch of rare open ground is wet rice paddies.

Also if a preemptive strike is to work, it has to be a secret.  That means a secret from the public as well.  Whatever civilian casualties are sustained as a result of the preemptive attack, it's on the South Korean government.  So again, politically it's not really a decision they can make.  It's about as viable as a preemptive nuclear strike.  Great idea, just not likely to happen.

If the North shows real signs of imminent attack, at least the government can call for an evacuation of Seoul.  Even that would be a disaster.

Yes, two can play that game. Though I would target a submarine to make this point.

Yep and before they can get down and recover it send divers down to paint a big middle finger salute on the bridge.

We've either sank or heavily damaged plenty of their stuff in the past as it is.
Right now four Shark (Sang-o) class midget subs are unaccounted for in North Korea.  They've been used to infiltrate Special Forces into South Korean territory in the past in addition to the sinking of the RoKS Cheonan.

Nukes are a bit out of proportion I guess, but 58 MLRS firing all together will have almost the same effect as a light nuclear device ;)

Yes, the South Korean military has a very large artillery force.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why.